Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree on both counts, not because of technique, but because of purpose. You are essentially "selling" the dogs with your photos, not composing a portrait of a beloved family member, therefore I wouldn't even consider achieving the types of shots provided in the links.
I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, it may not be a portrait of a beloved family member but it is an image that is trying to "sell" the dog TO a family, where it WILL become a beloved pet and a part of their family. What better way to attract adopters then to show them an image that will really speak to them and allow them to picture the dog in their hearts and lives already?
Secondly, although that might not be necessary to get the job done and the dog adopted, the OP obviously has an interest in photography as a hobby - so why shouldn't she explore other styles and techniques? Even if not for her volunteer job then at least for herself, for her own enjoyment and satisfaction. Why anyone would discourage a hobbyist from achieving a look they like is beyond me.
I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, it may not be a portrait of a beloved family member but it is an image that is trying to "sell" the dog TO a family, where it WILL become a beloved pet and a part of their family. What better way to attract adopters then to show them an image that will really speak to them and allow them to picture the dog in their hearts and lives already?
Secondly, although that might not be necessary to get the job done and the dog adopted, the OP obviously has an interest in photography as a hobby - so why shouldn't she explore other styles and techniques? Even if not for her volunteer job then at least for herself, for her own enjoyment and satisfaction. Why anyone would discourage a hobbyist from achieving a look they like is beyond me.
Did you view the photos in the links she provided? They are good photos but, from my perspective they don't offer much perspective. One wouldn't be able to get a sense of the size, proportion from those pics. You wouldn't buy a car, boat, cat, bird, or motorcycle with just a head/front shot so why would you do the dog an unjustice of not showing it all?
And for the record I was addressing the situation that was presented, not attempting to curtail her creativity.
The OP did not state a lens in the original post, in the 2nd post the OP verifies that it was a 70-200mm, if the OP cant obtain a good DOF with with a 200mm cannon kit lens then I stand by my first post. Learn to use the gear.
I cant see where anyone is trying to discourage a hobbyist from achieving a goal or learning anything, reality of photography is, buying expensive lenses will not teach you to use your camera or take better photos, youll just have a lens that was $1400 bucks and still wonder why you cant achieve a certain look. Im all for learning, growing and asking questions but why suggest sinking loads of money into lenses when she cant even use the camera? Makes no sense to me. But im no pro so what do I know.
In reality, most people who adopt dogs and other pets are most impressed by they way the animal reacts to their presence, specially when the animal makes eye contact in a non-threatening manner, such as when giving the impression that it's lonely or misses human contact.
Perhaps for selling very expensive or pure-breed dogs the buyer wants to see a whole body in focus, but even these people decide to buy or adopt a dog by meeting the dog and looking at it with their own eyes. A full body shot only shows you one-half of the dog.
-----
My recommendation to the OP is to use a 70-200mm f/2.8L, but the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS does an outstanding job during the day when there is enough light, and costs one-half of what the f/2.8L costs.
Set you camera as follows (Canon?):
-Av
-WB to match light conditions
-AI-Servo
-Burst mode
-Center focus point
-ISO as high as needed to keep a shutter speed from 400 to 800 fps (around 160-200 ISO during the day with the lens aperture around f/4)
That's the settings you want for a dog that's moving around. If the dog is standing still, take the camera off burst mode and use Single Shot (if you like). But always place the center focus point on the dog's eyes (focus on the eyes). Sometimes you may have to choose another focus point, too.
This is not a professional photo of our dog (I am not a professional photographer). You will notice that the background is crowded. If the background is crowded like in this photo, it's best to move the dog closer to the camera to blur the background some more, or to open the lens some more.
You will notice that the whole body is not in focus. However, I focused on the eyes and the lens aperture was set to maintain most of the body in focus, specially the from somewhere behind the front paws to half the body length. In short, go to a place where the background (trees and flowers) are as far back as possible from the dog, always have the light illuminating the dog from behind you. If using sunlight to illuminate the subject, try to take the photos under the golden light (early sunlight, or late sunlight before sundown).
A lot of people are taken by cuteness alone (used a Tokina 12-24mm lens at 12mm for this one):
Who could resist a pair of eyes like these?
Did you view the photos in the links she provided? They are good photos but, from my perspective they don't offer much perspective. One wouldn't be able to get a sense of the size, proportion from those pics. You wouldn't buy a car, boat, cat, bird, or motorcycle with just a head/front shot so why would you do the dog an unjustice of not showing it all?
And for the record I was addressing the situation that was presented, not attempting to curtail her creativity.
Of course I looked at them - I think you're way overthinking this. It's pretty easy to tell the relative size of a dog by looking at what kind of breed they are/look like (even if they're a mutt, they usually have features which identify what kind of mix they might be) and by the size of their head. In fact, vets often judge how much an animal should weigh by the size of their head. The dog in the first link is probably small to medium with a stocky build, like a pit bull. The second is obviously a small dog and the last is similar to the first. Some of the OP's photos are only head shots anyway, you can't see the whole body because it's cropped out, not because it's out of focus or the perspective doesn't show it well. That doesn't mean potential adopters will not be interested or not be able to tell what size the dog is.
Although, no, I wouldn't buy any of the things you listed from just a head/front shot, that's not because the photo didn't show enough of it, it's because I would GO SEE the product in question before buying it. The photo is just there to generate interest and I genuinely believe the examples the OP linked to would accomplish that with no problem.
And ultimately, I highly doubt that the adoption organization just puts up pictures without any information to go along with it. The info should supply the breed/mix of the dog and possibly even specify what size it is. So the whole point is moot because the photo doesn't necessarily need to show the size of the dog.
Of course I looked at them - I think you're way overthinking this. It's pretty easy to tell the relative size of a dog by looking at what kind of breed they are/look like (even if they're a mutt, they usually have features which identify what kind of mix they might be) and by the size of their head. In fact, vets often judge how much an animal should weigh by the size of their head. The dog in the first link is probably small to medium with a stocky build, like a pit bull. The second is obviously a small dog and the last is similar to the first. Some of the OP's photos are only head shots anyway, you can't see the whole body because it's cropped out, not because it's out of focus or the perspective doesn't show it well. That doesn't mean potential adopters will not be interested or not be able to tell what size the dog is.
Although, no, I wouldn't buy any of the things you listed from just a head/front shot, that's not because the photo didn't show enough of it, it's because I would GO SEE the product in question before buying it. The photo is just there to generate interest and I genuinely believe the examples the OP linked to would accomplish that with no problem.
And ultimately, I highly doubt that the adoption organization just puts up pictures without any information to go along with it. The info should supply the breed/mix of the dog and possibly even specify what size it is. So the whole point is moot because the photo doesn't necessarily need to show the size of the dog.
I agree 100% with this post. The photos are just there to give an idea of what the dog looks like. You should still visit the organization in order to find that perfect match. But having good photos also gives a good first-impression for the organization and the dog. The photos should be truthful, and having a variety of photos is essential. But I feel that it is also important to be creative and make the photos fun!
Here's a photo I took of a very active GSD puppy with a broken leg:
This photo was taken with a 50mm 1.8. I mostly use the 1Ds II for portraits because I like the backgrounds it gives being a full-frame, and I get slightly more megapixels than the original 5D for about the same affordable price (used). I also use the 40D usually when I'm photographing wildlife and want more reach. I admit it's not the world's best photo, but I wanted whoever was interested to be aware that she had a broken leg, but also see that her character was still intact.
If you're using the 70-200mm f/4, then I agree with the suggestion about using Av and setting the aperture to f/4. Get as close to the dog as possible while still being able to take advantage of the 200mm focal length. Using the portrait setting on your camera, not only is the camera programmed to pop up the flash to fill in for shadows, the aperture may have a tendency to shift around. So you may not be getting the narrow DoF that your lens is capable of on that camera.
Last edited by ilovehuskies; 08-13-2010 at 05:22 PM..
Guys, please, I don't want to cause any heated discussions, that's the last thing I want!!
PA2UK is completely correct in that I do have a very keen interest in photography myself, I just take photos for the rescue as a volunteer thing as well as helping out there. I am wanting to learn about these techniques though as I love the look of these photos. I also have my own rescue dog who I love to photograph and wold love love to get some shots of him like this as he has a very adorable face. Here are a few shot of him the other day:
The shot that ilovehuskies has posted of the GSD pup is stunning, I love it and would love to be able to eventually take great shots like that, I take a variety of shots of the rescue dogs & there is a very strict criteria for potential Adopters, not just based on the photos that I take.
You have all posted some really helpful advice for me which I will practice with and hopefully start getting some better shots.
Thank you all for your great advice and some of the lovely photos that you have posted
By the way, Marleys Mum, as you go at it taking beautiful photos like the last ones posted (I really like them), you can also remove a few things from the dog's face with PhotoShop. Nothing wrong with that
Those are some excellent photos, and thank you for sharing them with us.
The 50mm, 1.8 is my favorite portrait lens I own. I use it to take pictures of my dogs all the time. Here are a couple. I never shoot midday, always early morning or an hour or so before sunset. The bright daytime sun is too harsh! Another great lens that almost never leaves my camera is my Sigma, 18-50, 2.8. Mine are the Bulldogs...the boxer is my friend's. I notice someone mentioned you have to practically get in the dog's face with the 50mm...not true at all on a dx sensor. In fact, I wish I had gotten the 35mm, 1.8 or 1.4, since I do not have enough room in my place to take pictures using the backdrop. I have to be quite a way away from the dogs in order for them to be in the frame. The 35mm would have been a much better choice for me.
Last edited by MAK802; 08-16-2010 at 04:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
