Matt Laur

This would be much more effective if the subject's head/face wasn't rendered with significantly higher contrast than the rest of the scene.

Carrying the bag would be snarky. Seeing it is not. I'd say that bit of cultural tension is central to the whole exercise.

I like the scene and timing a great deal. My eye is too drawn, though, by the pushed contrast on the subject, and the lack of it elsewhere in the image. The processing halo around her, and the resulting puddle of tone curve difference, distracts from an otherwise very enjoyable composition.

Like Robin, I'm itching for a little more sense of the real narrative here. Clearly that's not a happy coot. On the bright side, The Harrier and Coot would be a good name for a pub.

My eye is too distracted by the HDR halo-ing along the horizon, and the unfortunate placement of the watermark.

I think Fred's assessment of theatricality (in post, and in description) is correct. I've seen plenty of photos of myself that would, handled creatively, come across as truly sinister looking - and I'd think calling them such would be entertaining indeed, if they were a (theatrical) success in that context. Knowing nothing about the fellow in the photo means he's a blank canvas for theater, hand-wringing, gabbing about the light and the vignette as if he's not even there, or someone putting another notch in their "I capture homelessness" camera strap. Gotta take it as it's encountered, and I felt it as a bit of theater or poetry inspired by the scene and what it offered, visually. I like it, regardless of what it's called.

I agree that their faces, if shown engaging the camera or even each other, might actually take something away from this. At the very least, that self-awareness would completely alter the mood and demand a different treatment. As it is, the girls come across as something more elemental, which is in keeping with the well seen and carefully enhanced atmosphere.

I'm such a sentimental fool that it's hard to be objective about stuff like this. But maybe that's the point! 

I'm just a little bit distracted by the darkness at the margins. Because of the overall tones involved, that outer ring of vignetting is drawing my eye away from the handsome Darwin just a bit. But of course I really like the shot.

This is terrific, Gordon. Really appreciate the care you took.

Right place, right time. People who know Coopers Hawks and squirrels will

realize that this was very unlikely to end badly for the squirrel - the Coopers

don't usually go for anything that big. But if I were a tree rodent, I still

wouldn't want to take my chances with those talons.

I'm just starting some work with the NEX-7 as a gimbal-mounted aerial

camera. A very different beast than the Nikon gear I'm used to, especailly

when I have to operate it remotely, by radio. We happened to be having a

fairly interesting sunset the other day, so it was a good chance to test the

body and the 16/2.8 lens I'm using with it. This image is a lot more

interesting seen in its higher resolution form. Click the PN-generated

smaller version to see it a bit over 1000px wide. Many more experiments to

come along these lines.

Jim: I didn't say the finished work was a photograph, just that photography was part of the process.

OK, Jim. It was made in a process that included the use of a camera. That's more accurate.

Lanny: It could not have been created without photography. Much like a jillion other uses for photographs, once the dust settles.

Some very careful composite work, here. Perilously close to the sort of thing that might have once been air-brushed on the side of a conversion van, but it stays pleasantly within whatever bounds of fantasist illustration that I can find enjoyable in an escapist sort of way.

In the nit-picking department: the necklace feels as though it's not on the same plane as the surface on which it's supposed to be laying. My willing suspension of disbelief breaks down there, alas. And on the same note, the lens artifacts around the sun insert the camera-ness of the shot into something that can't have been shot by a camera as-is anyway, and so it jars a bit. But truly that's me just fussing.

A fun project to execute! A well-made example of the genre and some fun narrative space for the mind to occupy.

I know that the artifice of it is part of the style, but I'd enjoy it more if the color temp on the birds was warmed up a bit.

Such a subjective thing. As someone who has made lots of dog portraits and been able (later) to pick at myself about a number of things I swear I'll do better next time, I'll mention a couple of things that distract me from this portrait's ability to connect me to the dog.

First: The vignette. I like a vignette sometimes - they endure for a reason. But when the vignetting clips part of the dog's ear (as in this case), it makes itself too evident. Like catching an actor acting. The position (perk) of a dog's ear is central to their expression and presence, so for dog lovers, the eye spends time there.

Second: The collar. Just like taking a second to get a human subject's tie strait, I always try to remember to glance at the collar. Sometimes the hardware on the collar feels right in the image, and sometimes it doesn't. For me, the plastic quick-disconnect collar clasps (which I also sometimes use!) take a little romance out of the image. Think... clip-on tie that looks like a clip-on tie. So, I usually spin the clasp around the back of the head, making it less present. That's also a good time to make sure that you're not getting a roll of hide/chub spilling over the collar.

Third: Eyes. I like, when I can get it, a more distinct catch light, and enough light on the eyes to be able to distinguish between the pupil and the iris and the whites. Certainly not always possible, but so important in a portrait to make the structure and character of those eyes visible without having to grotesquely boost the contrast in post.

Fourth: Nose and eyes in focus! I struggle with this all the time. It's much hard than it might seem, while trying to control DoF, but it's a noble quest!

Fifth: Rule of thirds. I'm no slave to it, but in shots like this, I think it really does help. Give that dog a little breathing room, camera right. In a situation like this, where the dog is looking off-camera, you don't want to create that boxed-in feeling. Allow a little mental space in the same direction of that gaze, and get those eyes positioned off to the left (in this case) just a bit. For me, I "feel" the dog's confinement when I see this sort of crop. I've caught myself cutting it too close many times, and when I look later, I realize that I'm losing a lot of feeling of liberty and self that we often want to feel from (or project onto) a dog. Abby loses some of her Abby-ness, her companion-because-she-wants-to-be when she's boxed in like that.

Sixth: Tone. Here we have pitch black in the background, but the black lab's coat is pushed up into a mid-range tone, with the highlights pushed quite down to a mid-range tone. This robs from her sense of liveliness. Personally, I'd be looking for a little more range from highs to lows in her coat.

Seventh and last: Am I seeing some masking/healing/cloning artifacts round her, like at the top of her head? The urge to throw that background well and truly to black can mean fighting a difficult battle with the margins of a black dog's coat. This is made easier with hair/rim lighting (in this case, from behind, camera left).

And not a single BIT of that matters if the portrait says what it needs to to its audience (the people that know and love the dog). If the audience doesn't know the dog, then a little or some or all of the above can help, in my experience, with feeling some subject engagement - especially when there's no direct eye contact in the shot.

Shoot more! A compelling dog portrait is a joy to produce, and I suspect that Abby can be talked into even more opportunities to experiment (consider bribery with cheese!).

Fred, Michael: Hey, actual conversation about a puppy portrait! Hmmm. Have to put on my Somewhat Serious Photography Hat. In no particular order, from your comments above:

Nope! Not perfect. How boring would that be. But this somewhat hastily put together portrait was indeed meant to pay attention to what the breed's enthusiasts seem to focus on (the face and it's indicators of personality). Because this was also meant to capture his puppy-ness at 8 weeks, and much of that being evident in that immature mug, a shorter focal length and shallow DoF was indeed a deliberate choice. It was a challenge to work quickly while we had the pup's attention, so I really didn't have time to do the mental gymnastics or sufficient chimping to think about what getting the ears in focus (or not) would require, or do for the results. That would have been maybe a half a stop difference, and puppies are ... puppies. They live in a sort of time warp.

I'm aware that shallow DoF - employed for its own sake - is frequently over-used and can feel like a hipster affectation. My misgivings, I suppose, are about whether the shot will play as a bit of trendiness as opposed to what I was really trying to achieve. 

Thanks for noting the color palette, Fred - that and the lighting did lend themselves to some consideration before the pup was on stage, as it were.

Speaking of lighting: Michael's observation about the eye reflections are worth a quick word. Behind me, camera-right, was a monolight shooting through a 4-foot scrim. That produced a large and feathered (because of the hot spot on the scrim) catch light. The other eye was mostly catching the hard hairlight behind the pup, camera left.

The most important thing? My long-suffering assistant, who wrangles pups on seamless paper like nobody else. 

Thanks, all, for the comments. And thanks to the elves for this image wandering by the Photo Of The Day zone! How about that.

Nice! If this lasted for only 15 minutes, I'm glad you were there, Anders. 

In trying to make this shot all about the pup's face, I went with a shallow

DoF. Haven't decided yet if it was a bit TOO shallow. He was a great little 9-

week-old subject, though.

Debra certainly has a sense of theatricality, and there are some of hers here that I like better than this one - mostly because this particular recipe, while so carefully lit, is ringing a little oddly with me. The subject feels more contemporary than her dress (and the dress isn't quite as small as she is) - likewise the backdrop plays like it's from yet another era... so, a little bit of a stylistic hodge-podge, which distracts me from the careful goal. The looking-past-the-book part doesn't bother me, as she appears more to be thinking than reading.

Looking at the rest of her portfolio, I have to applaud her willingness to get out there and do this stuff - a lot of effort and passion there. Which is wonderful.

Just came across this, Simon. Really like it.

Richard: I believe the word you're looking for is "Rubenesque."

Duck focus issues aside, I do very much like the image.

Hoo boy, this is lovely. Can't imagine the fuss you went to and the patience, but it really worked. That little stand of trees in that splash of light is a complete imagination catalyst.