Dog in the Park

funny_h0w

funny_h0w

Messages
137
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
leaves-dog-np.jpg


The other week I took my dogs for a walk with the family around some woodland areas. I took this photo in a rush as one of my dogs just happened to stand in a spotlit area, and that the colour of the leaves makes her blend in to the background but the spotlight brings her out. I would have liked to have got a lower perspective, but I would have missed the shot as she moved quickly out of the shot straight after it was taken.

What are your opinions on what I could have done to improve the image?

My blog by the way, where the photo is from: https://novicephotoshopper.wordpress.com
 
LD22 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

a pleasant concept
your eye moves around and sees a lot of information then assembles them to fit the idea you have what your shot should show....but not compositionally.
the camera invariably shows what you saw without bias or assembly into what you thought you saw...
one can 'cheat' and put the components together in a more photographic and appeal to other viewers
cheers
geof
 
Digitally altering a photo to make up for poor compositional technique is basically cheating in my opinion, and teaches you nothing. It's EASY to find fault with composition when sitting at a computer... not so easy to actually DO it when looking through a viewfinder. If you realise you shot something in a way that can be improved, then get out there and re-shoot it - don't fudge it on a computer. You a photographer, or a Mac Monkey?


It's not sharp is the first thing I notice.



IMO, instead of thinking conventionally, and cropping to nice thirds and all that crap - or worse still, digitally mashing it up in order to tick the rule of thirds boxes.... I think it's far more interesting to do this..

leaves-dog-np.jpg



For me the trees in the background are doing nothing whatsoever for this shot. What's interesting is the monochrome nature of the leaves/dog, and the almost camouflaged nature of it. Trying to reconcile the background and the thirds and all that nonsense, is just being a slave to convention for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Digitally altering a photo to make up for poor compositional technique is basically cheating in my opinion, and teaches you nothing. It's EASY to find fault with composition when sitting at a computer... not so easy to actually DO it when looking through a viewfinder. If you realise you shot something in a way that can be improved, then get out there and re-shoot it - don't fudge it on a computer. You a photographer, or a Mac Monkey?


It's not sharp is the first thing I notice.



IMO, instead of thinking conventionally, and cropping to nice thirds and all that crap - or worse still, digitally mashing it up in order to tick the rule of thirds boxes.... I think it's far more interesting to do this..

View attachment 50674



For me the trees in the background are doing nothing whatsoever for this shot. What's interesting is the monochrome nature of the leaves/dog, and the almost camouflaged nature of it. Trying to reconcile the background and the thirds and all that nonsense, is just being a slave to convention for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback. I would rather not post edit my photos and your example is a great one as to why. Again it was rushed and if I could get her to stay still again to shoot a better angle etc. I would. But I do like your example.

To answer your other question I want to be able to take photos without the need of post editing as that's what I think a lot of photography is about, what you do in the camera. Just wanted some advice on how the photo could have been improved. Cheers for the advice. Will try again and see if I can get some good one. :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top