Into The Eyes of God

[Peach]

One of the most beautiful things I can think of is my dog's eyes. She has beautiful brown eyes that just sparkle with mischief, intelligence, playfulness, and love. I wanted to capture that today so I took her outside (because it was nice and bright out) to get a few pictures. Being that the ground was wet, I couldn't lay down like I would have wanted to therefore I had to do the next best thing (although my back surely is not thinking so!); that being leaning over a bit and lowering the camera and "shooting blind", so to speak.

This shot was obtained by doing just that. I had my dog sit and I lowered the camera to slightly above eye level. I had set the aperture and shutter speed earlier (as well as ISO) because this wasn't the first picture I took today. I then pointed to my camera with my free hand to get her attention (for a split second) wherein I snapped the photo.

I am indecisive, however, on her eyes. They do have a large reflection in them (and in the large version you can see part of my outline which is rather interesting) but being that we were obviously outside I am unsure as to how I could avoid such a large reflection in the future. I like the angle at which the picture is taken and I am not sure whether having her look down towards the camera would be better although I would imagine it would help reduce the massive reflection.

Therefore, I am submitting this for critique on how I could better this kind of shot later, if I were to try and reproduce my (current) favorite close up of my little Zoe.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justpeachee/2295049138/" title="eyes of god: wallpaper by JustPeachee, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2295049138_6fa231a4e2.jpg" width="500" height="335" alt="eyes of god: wallpaper" /></a>

On a side note, I do know that her nose is out of focus and that was my intended point since I wanted to accentuate her eyes. Does the out of focus nose distract the view too much or is it just OOF enough without being bothersome?

Exif data is:
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 55 mm
ISO Speed: 400

More information:
I was using my 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 lens. It was about 1:30 in the afternoon and the sun was behind me and towards my left more (I think). Would trying at an earlier time of day have helped with the reflections or would a later time of day help?

And, sorry for such a long post! Any critique is welcome though I specifically would like information regarding the reflections. However, technique critique is welcome as well :)

Cheers,
Peach

[peeperita]

i'm not one to mind a long winded presentation for critique......lord knows, i've been guilty of it enough myself.....besides.....my chief complaint with critique offerings is not enough information......you, my friend, erred on the right side......

she's a beauty, zoe.......a papillion?.....she's a stunner.....and i can see, the apple of momma's eye.....

great image for a blind shoot.....

i can understand why the bright reflections in those sweet eyes would trouble you....the bright blue obscures her eye color.....maybe in the future, you could avoid them by ensuring what's reflected is dark.....had you been with a dark area behind you and your lens, more of those delicious browns would have been there for you in the image.....


i like the angle too.....it has that "huh, momma" cock to her head.....

the nose being out of focus is a worry......open up more the next time.....get all of that lovely little face in focus if you can......

it's still a wonderful image and i thank you for sharing her with us....

peeper

[Peach]

peeperita, thanks so much! I know I went a littttle overboard on the explanation, so I apologize :) I haven't posted a critique since before the revamping of the forums took place so I wanted to try and follow the rules closely :)

I really must be dumb because I never thought of the possibility of having something behind me (like the house) which is darker than the sky. That makes a lot of sense. It would probably bring out more of her eyes and not the sky.

In regards to her nose, I am still kind of struggling with this f/number business. The shot was taken at f/5.6; should I have to a bigger number or a smaller number? Which direction gives you more of the picture in focus? I know that inside, I have to use the onboard flash, and I find that it doesn't matter if it's at the widest aperture (3.5 for this lense) or right down to 22, everything in the image is in focus. But outside, where there's a ton of light, I haven't quite been able to figure it out yet.

So, if the picture is at f/5.6 now, should I go towards say f/7 or should I move back to f/3?

Thanks!

[wulf]

You want a bigger number which signifies a smaller hole. That will create a greater depth of field.

However, that is not without its challenges. Firstly, a smaller hole means that less light is getting through so you have to compensate with a slower shutter speed or higher ISO setting. I think you have some leeway with your current settings but not much to get a similarly good overall exposure.

Secondly, I think that it works well for this photo having the ears softer than the eyes. I agree that it would be good to have the nose sharper but you don't want to stop down too far otherwise the ears might get sharper (you could even end up with sharp ears, sharp eyes and a blurry nose!).

Take lots of shots (bearing in mind the advice about a darker background) and don't feel bad if you need lots of pictures to get one result you want to keep.

Wulf

[Peach]

Ok Wulf - when you say "greater depth of field" that equates to more things being in focus yes? And a smaller depth of field (such as a smaller number, right?) would mean that less things are in focus? I was so sure I had this part figured out. I know big number = small hole. Small number = big hole. But I guess I forgot to add on to those little reminders lol!

[wulf]

Yep - that's it.

Wulf

[geotography]

Peach,

You have a lovely pet. Also, try f/8 - f/11 on a cloudy day. Use a bean bag or a low tripod to stabelize.

This sort of looks like a glamour shot.

[peeperita]

you are not dumb.....momma always said that dumb folks never ask a question.....

i struggle too with what makes for a wide depth of field....and in my little pea brain i don't consider what makes a wide ap and a small depth of field.....but, more, that the larger the number, the larger the depth of field........ie......f 20 is a larger, wider view than f 5.6........

which in the bright light of an outdoorsy situation such as this image was shot in......you have all the light in the world to work with.....so, go for the larger number on your aperture.....the less light, the less you have to work with on them f stop numbers.......and the less wiggle room of depth of field....

so, you didn't tell me....she's a papillion, right?

peeper

[Farkled]

In addition to the other comments, I'd suggest raising a sheet or cheescloth or something to act as a diffuser. Diffusion will cut down the reflection in the eyes and get closer to what your mind sees.

[Peach]

Peeperita: Yes, she is a straight bred (meaning pure bred but with no papers) papillon. :) She's 5 years old and weighs a whopping 10 pounds (overweight because of the phenobarbital she's on because of the epilepsy). She's definitely the apple of my eye :D

For some reason I always thought that the smaller the hole, the less the camera can focus on something. But I guess it's backwards. I figured that a wide hole so more light gets through means more things in focus. D'oh!

Farkled: I never thought about the cheese cloth - that's such a great idea! Thank you! I will have to try that sometime.

[wulf]

If you want some reading, check out A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop (http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm) which is more interesting than the title suggests!

Wulf