My Corgi

[cranraspberry]

Hi everyone!

I was hoping for some critique on this picture.
From what I can see - the red thing in the distance is a bit distracting (I'd photoshop it out, but so far my PP skills are at a very beginner level to say the least), and the toy could have been less ratty. In any case, all feedback is welcome!


The Corgi by cranraspberry, on Flickr

Camera Nikon D90
Exposure 1/400
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 85 mm
Focal Length 84.8 mm
ISO Speed 640
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

(Reasoning behind the high ISO - I was initially throwing his toy and wanted to get some motion pictures)

[karen_s]

Awe, he (she?) looks very sweet. He's also quite a good dog to sit so still for you.

Overall, I think it a very nice shot. The red thing in the background doesn't bother me at all. (If you don't like it, you could probably just desaturate it a smidge in PP.) The big white post to the left of it is a bit more distracting to me, I think because it is rather bright. It only bothers me a teeny bit though. I think If I were to shoot this shot, I might try to move my point of view just enough to not include it. But in the end, it really is not a killer for the photo. The dogs face and eyes are strong enough to bring the viewer back to the subject.

I really like that you got down to eye level and the catchlights in the eyes are very nice. The whole image looks a bit underexposed, mainly in the darks of his hair, but that could just be my monitor. It's also very easy to fix in PP. Your settings look pretty good too. Lower ISO is generally preferred but cameras these days perform pretty well at the higher. I wouldn't sweat the 640 setting at all. (My camera performs pretty well up to 800 if I nail exposure.)

And just a note, all my dogs toys are ratty. I think it's a good sign.

[cranraspberry]

Karen, wow! Thank you so much - that is exactly the kind of critique I came here for: detailed, professional and yet friendly! I can't begin to tell you how helpful that is.

It's also interesting the way human eyes work - I was so focused on the red thing that I didn't notice the brighter thing to the left (it's actually a stainless steel fridge that's reflecting light - that's why it turned out so bright and reflects in the floor). But now that you've mentioned it, it's the only thing I see, haha. I guess it's time to really start learning all the ins and outs of PP.

As for the exposure, I can see what you mean, especially on the front paw and the scruff of his neck, right? Hmm, here's my histogram, it looks fairly decent to me. What do you think is causing the blacks to do that?


Screen Shot 2011-09-02 at 9.42.46 AM by cranraspberry, on Flickr

And once again, thanks for your reply! All that input really opens your eyes to things you would not have noticed otherwise.

[karen_s]

Glad you got something out of my thoughts.

First, I'm not really an expert in this so if I am amiss, I hope I will be politely corrected ...

So, I'd say that histogram is saying the whites aren't pure (notice the empty space between the right arrow and the start of the curve to the left) and the blacks are heavy (indicated by the high mass of curve up to the left). Are you using Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? They use different terms and have some different features. I use Photoshop so this is what I would do ... go to Image/Adjustments/Levels and you will get a pop up window with the histogram. Move the right (white) slider in to the left up to the start of the curve. The whites should brighten a bit. Then take the middle slider and move it to the left a bit and see if the blacks lighten a bit. (The black slider on the left can probably stay where it is since you have plenty of black.) Just play with the sliders and watch what happens (make sure the "preview" box in the pop up is checked to see the changes occur.) There are other ways to do this, but this has worked well for me when I don't use Lightroom.

And if you Google "Histograms" you can find a lot of great information on how you can use them to tweak exposure when needed.