Dogography

BradA1878BradA1878
edited December 2009 in General
Per Nico's (Reno&Rico) suggestion, this is a thread to share tips, tricks, and pics of dogs.

Share with all of us the shots you are really proud of, why you think they are great, and what you did to make them great.

I will start, here is a picture of Blue I took the other day. I took this on a very flat-light day, it was moderately bright out but still overcast enough to reduce the harsh shadows we tend to get here in New Mexico this time of year...

This was shot in ISO 400 f/5.0 at 165mm; Post-processing: Brightened a bit, and cloned-out some mud on his nose.
Blue: Cane Corso

I like the way the grayness of the day kinda blended with Blue's gray/blue color.

Here is a version with a bit more contrast and shot at 120mm:
IMG_1417

----
«13456

Comments

  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    great pic, I just got my dslr yesterday and this'll be nice to see all the settings everyone uses when they take their pup shots.
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited December 2009
    Hey Brad, thanks for starting the lead! And yes, great idea to add the details of the camera settings. I will add more in a little while. Lets make this lead open for questions and suggestions for better pictures. Those who want, feel free to ask technical questions too. A better technique will help many people, but keep in mind, it's always about the right moment too!
    This picture was taken last year with Canon 5D, 135mm F2.0L @ F3.5 / 1/800 sec. The maximum performance would be at F8,0 but would give a bit to much depth in field (in my opinion, and less bokeh). The focus was on Reno's face, to see the actual pixels I placed them next to the image, this way full sharpness is visable. Weak in the image is the little space in front of his eyes to the edge of the picture. But Rico in the back brings back the balance a bit, I guess.
  • jmrnavydocjmrnavydoc
    edited November -1
    R&R - I really like the contrast between zoomed out and zoomed in (cropped). I think i'm going to try this technique when we get our husky puppy in 2 weeks! (if she'll sit still). I see what you mean about the space between the eyes and the edge of the frame but i agree, the blurred Rico adds to the picture. I think your bokeh is very nice for the photo - it definitely draws attention to Reno (who is gorgeous). BTW, the 135mm f2.0L is an awesome lens, wish i had one... though i can complain with my 85mm f1.2L
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited December 2009
    It's the same picture, just a cut out done with Photoshop. So angle, and image compression remains the same, it was just to show the details. But depth in field is borderline, better would have been one stop higher, there was plenty of light available. I thought about the 85mm F1,2L as well. It's like almost twice the price as is this 135mm lens. But also shows different caracter. It shines full open in an area where other lensen cannot perform. However, the DiF is so shallow, any huskey or Shikoku will overrule it with the length of their nooses :-) I hope the 85mm is not too disturbing since you have to come pretty close. We choose the 85mm F1.8. It is not as fast, but just a fraction of the price. And since you will need F4 or F5.6 to shoot a portrait, the biggest benefit of the 85mm F1.2L is more or less gone. The 135mm F2.0L acts different in this matter. I'm considering to add the 100mm F2.0 Macro from Zeiss, but that's manual focus. Anyway, do you use FF (full frame)? Bring up some nice pics so we have good stuff to talk about. Here's one photo of a young shikoku, with the 85mm f1.8 @ F5.0 / 1/125 sec and 160 ISO. F5.0 is just good enough to have all in focus, the head is near perfect. Personally I prefer more background blur, but this can only be done with either longer lenses or with a larger opening. The question remains if the latter is possible without loss of sharpness.
  • SangmortSangmort
    edited November -1
    Ok, does everyone shoot in RAW or Jpeg or Both? :) ~
  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    just noticed the change in your signature Brad... Fetus lol!
  • *JackBurton**JackBurton*
    edited November -1
    Nice post idea - is there a way to show the EXIF for these photos?

    Sangmort - I shoot both, however my rule of thumb is NEF(Nikon Raw) for anything that may be printed or I want to do post production with. JPEG for anything else.


    P.S Congrats on getting one past the goalie Brad.
  • SangmortSangmort
    edited December 2009
    P.S Congrats on getting one past the goalie Brad.

    ROFLMFAO!!!! *died laughing*

    Bad goalie for letting one in! :p ~
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited December 2009
    I always take RAW and JPEG-files. My photo's, up here, where processed from RAW (CR2), but to post here converted to JPEG in sRGB color profile. So those who have no color profiles or non adjusted monitors might experience different colors. Most of my conversions I make in Photoshop, however, there are more and also better options. Capture One is such a program. But there is also Phase One, another good program. It depends a bit on the type of camera you use. NEF files, like Jack uses with Nikon, have more benefits from Phase One, as far as I know. Leica prefers Capture One. Canon has its own conversion program for its CR2-files, but it can also be done with the others. Shooting the picture is only half the job. The very expensive digital backs (those you attach on like a Hasselblad or Mamiya camera) are extremely good, and need less processing. However those cameras seem less useful for "Dogography" unless your doggie is not moving around.

    Jack, what do you mean with EXIF? (Is it exposure time, F-stop?) If you use Firefox you can add an extension to the browser, which allows you to read all data from the image.
  • jmrnavydocjmrnavydoc
    edited November -1
    After talking with some serious/pro photographers, i now always take RAW. Their feeling, and it makes sense, is that you can always convert RAW to JPEG if you want a smaller file for web, email, etc. but you can never regain the image data if you shoot in a JPEG format. Yes, it's a larger file but that's what portable external HDs are for. And even iPhoto will read RAW files and then let you export them as JPEGs. I mainly use lightroom and photoshop for organization and processing where you can do exposure adjustments after the fact as well as contrast, temperature, etc.
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited November -1
    RAW is the new standard. However, very important is that we always will convert into JPEG for showing on the forum. By doing so, remember to never save the same JPEG twice. Always start from the original and do what you want to do. Once saved as JPEG, any new changes and resavings will compromize the quality of the image. You will get compression over compression loosing lots of detail. So shoot in RAW, save that file untouched and start from there to whatever you want to do with it. Make sure you never overwrite the file. And convert to JPEG only in the last step. There is so much more information in a RAW-file. You can even make a HDR out of it from one single shot.
  • WrylyBrindleWrylyBrindle
    edited December 2009
    Sorry, I just keep thinking this thread should be called "Phodography" ... the "og" is already in place.

    I have no technical expertise to add. I took ONE photography class back in college, before digital cameras and it became very clear how much all the numbers and ratios pained me. Not my natural medium. I only sweat the small stuff of my choosing. Shoot in RAW, shoot big, take LOTS of pictures with whatever you have and some will come out interesting and/or nice! Remember that everybody pics and chooses, nobody* shoots MOSTLY good pictures with every roll. The best thing about digital cameras is that I no longer have to have all the garbage developed and printed just to SEE the 3 good shots I took anymore.

    *Except maybe Brandon! :)
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    Thanx for the congrats!

    In the past I have shot only in JPG because, honestly, I didn't really care that much about my pictures. I actually hated taking pictures, I only recently started to enjoy it - and so, recently I switched to RAW.

    As for how many "keepers" I get from a session, I would say 1 in 5 or so are "keepers"... Sometimes I do better, like 1 in 3, other times I shoot like 100 shots and get one good one (this happens a lot for me with action shots - I'm still learning).

    Right now I have out grown my setup, I really need to get a new body but I have been low on spending money. I would love to get a full-frame body, I need to have something that can preform better in lower light - I take a lot of low-light shots... Even the pic I posted above gets kinda grainy when you look at the pixels, at that was not that low of light. Here in NM we either have low light or freakishly bright direct light, so I need something that can preform in low light better.

    I'm thinking I will go with the Canon EOS 7D, I like that camera a lot, and I like that it can shoot high-def vid. I think I may splurge and get it with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens... and eventually I would like to get the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens (which cost more that the body).

    I think that would be a good low-light setup. I hope. I'm just sick of taking grainy pics.

    I could use an external flash too, I take enough pics of black shiny-coated dogs that I need something to help add some fill.

    ----
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited December 2009
    These are what I consider to be my top 5 (dog) photographs (in order)...

    Loa, Shikoku Ken

    Cane Corso - 4 months

    Luytiy: Caucasian Ovcharka

    Kona: Kai Ken

    Fuji & Lani: Akita Inu
    *Clarity is not perfect on this one, but the "moment" was great.

    ----
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited November -1
    What camera do you use right now, Brad? 7D is not full frame, but very good for fast stuff, shoots many frames per sec. Make sure you test the 25-105 1:4L. It's a great lens, but does need light and might not be fast enough for low light situations. Also keep in mind, for just about any lens to perform really good, you need to stop down one or two stops. That moves you up to 5.6 or even 8. The 100-400 is very nice too, but maybe the 70-200 2.8L with IS might be the better option for action photography, very fast and superb Image stabilizer. Then, when you need more focal length, add a 1.4x converter to it, to make 280mm, still @ F4.0.
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited December 2009
    No, the 7D is not full-frame - I was just thinking I may look at some full-frame bodies as well. Do you think a 5D would be better in low light? I was drawn to the 7D for speed.

    As for the 24-105, what alternative would you suggest for low-light? The 24-70?

    The 100-400 is an IS lens.

    I currently have an old Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi.

    ----
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    LOL... Check out the "Number of users" graph for my camera: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xti/
  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    This I think is one of my favorite pics I've taken so far. I don't remember any of the settings and this was just with our panasonic lumix fz28.
    I think that it was probably on the auto setting, lol.

    525
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited December 2009
    If you don't care too much about full frame (and limit a bit on wide angle) the 7D is really cool. Just keep in mind that this type of cameras only use the center of the lens. Benefit: you work within the sweet spot, have little or no light fall off. However, with high res cameras like the 7D is, you need really good optics. Optical glass has a limit in resolution per mm of glass. So if you have a high res cam such as 7D, you better choose optics with very high resolution to get what you paid for. On that behave I really would skip the 100-400. Although a very nice lens, it is just a bit outdated to modern cameras with this type of resolution. My guess would be it wouldn't support your 18 Mp. The closer the pixels are placed together, the better optics you need to produce enough information to transfer to the chip. So, the 7D is a bit more economic than the 5D Mark 2, use the saved money on a better lens, like the 70-200 2.8L IS. (It's on my wish list too :-) ) Same about the 24-105, the 24-70 is better with higher resolution. And even this lens is reaching end of life with this type of resolutions. 18Mp on a 7D requires better optics than 21.1Mp on a 5D MK2. However, if you have to carry around your optics, the 24-70 is a lot more weight to carry around, like 50% more. Both lenses also are so visible that you right away look like a professional. That's not always something you want! So weight benefit against quality. If you take many hikes in the mountains, it becomes difficult. Unless you have some of your big guys carry a backpack :-) . I read many good reviews about the 24-105 as well, it's just the 4.0 against the 2.8 and the weight difference.
    One option, rent both and see what you like most. Than decide!
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited November -1
    Joe, that's a really nice picture. Panasonic has great Leica optics as you may see with the nice saturated colors. The only tiny negative is the space missing behind Katsu. For the rest the composition is really nice! +++
    Maybe if you find back the original image you can check the info box to find back the data.
  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
    Aperture: f/3.7
    Focal Length: 29.7 mm
    ISO Speed: 400
    Exposure Bias: +0.66 EV
    Flash: Off
  • ShikokuSpiritShikokuSpirit
    edited November -1
    Hopefully some day...this will all make sense to me...


    I have much to learn in the photographical field.


    I do enjoy messing with the contrast/brightness of photos =]. Makes for "fun" pics!
  • Reno&RicoReno&Rico
    edited December 2009
    Hello Joe, good to know the info. Your camera has very low noise levels for the 400 ISO setting. In manual setting you could have put the F-stop a bit higher for more dept in field. There was plenty of light left to use a lower exposure time without the risk for camera shake. The rule of thumb: if the focal length is 30mm your speed setting should be at least 1/30 sec or faster. This in case the subject is not moving and you haven't been drinking to much coffee ;-) Otherwise, pick 1/60 or even faster.
    Corina, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. The purpose should be to learn some easy steps to make more pics the way you wanted them! This applies for any type of camera. Processing the image is important to get the best pictures.
    Picture: Reno shaking off water. To freeze the water droplets I used a high speed, 1/1600 sec with F4.0 on a 180mm f3.5 lens.

    Some post processing: the second picture is further enhanced in LAB-colors. The image is more bright without loosing the color. Some sharpness is added in the light channel.
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    Thanx for all the insight and tips, Nico, its really helpful!
  • BradA1878BradA1878
    edited November -1
    What do you guys think about the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM lens?

    I have been considering just getting a few fixed lenses (like a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm) instead of zoom lenses (obviously, this is an "over time" thought as these lenses are really expensive).

    Most of the shooting I do seems to be in the 35-85 and then the 135-200 range... Tho it is nice to have something closer to 300 or above when I want to shoot a critter running by the house or something.

    ----
  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    I had to read what you wrote a few times. When I shot that I was just starting to take the camera off the auto setting. Thanks for the tip, it's good to get stuff like that from people who have experience as opposed to reading it in a book. Getting the DSLR has really helped open up my eyes to what goes into trying to capture a good picture. I'm finally starting to get what works and what doesn't work.
  • SangmortSangmort
    edited November -1
    Brad - Not sure about the 35mm f/1.4, if you'd like a decent 50mm lens tho, I recommend the 50mm 1.4. LOVE this little lens, & it's moderately priced [ usually in the $350 range ] It's USM w/ full manual focus. Great Bokeh & fast. It DOES do a little AF "hunting" in extreme low light, but it's 100x faster than it's cheaper cousin. [ 50mm f/1.8, usually around $90 but it feels VERY plastic-y & focus is slow, I ordered both & decided to send back the 1.8 ] There's also the 50mm f/1.2 L lens, but I've heard from most photographers it's not worth the extra $1200 [ price is usually $1500 ].

    If I were you, I'd see which range you'd like most often, then get one prime in that range. Primes really open you up to a whole new learning experience, esp. with the nice aperture. So I'd pick one, really learn it, then go from there to order some more.

    Also, as a helpful hint from one photographer to another, I highly advise ordering from Amazon if you want to test out a new lens if you're not sure if you want to buy it or not. Order it, [ with the free shipping, no tax, & reduced price ] get it, & try it out. If you don't like it you have 30 days to send it back, & return shipping is like $10 maximum [ consider it a "renters fee" ] & there's no restocking fee like some brick & mortar stores have.

    Usually I order 2 lenses that I'm considering, test them both out, & send back the one I don't want.

    :) [ yes, I <3 amazon ] ~
  • SangmortSangmort
    edited December 2009
    Oh, another thought. If you just want a cheapy lens to practice on, the 50mm f/1.8 is perfect. It DOES take pretty amazing photos, it's just very low "build" quality. It's a good "starter" prime. I had the extra money laying around tho, so I decided to go with the f/1.4 But if you get the f/1.8 you won't be disappointed [ with photo quality at least ] & it'll last you a long while to learn on while you save for other more pricey primes.

    [ btw, I'm in the canon camp so these two posts references canon gear, sorry Nikor fans. Tho I'm sure nikon has a very good quivalent ]~
  • shimaurashibalover92shimaurashibalover92
    edited November -1
    Okay Reno and Rico or any of you more photo savy folks. Here are two pics I'm pretty happy with. This is about 500 or so shots into the camera and I'm using an sb400 flash, I'm pretty sure it was angled up at 90 degrees.

    324
    Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
    Aperture: f/5.0
    Focal Length: 135 mm
    Focal Length: 134.5 mm


    322

    Camera: Nikon D5000
    Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
    Aperture: f/4.2
    Focal Length: 75 mm
    Focal Length: 75.5 mm
    ISO Speed: 200
    Exposure Bias: 0 EV
    Flash: On, Return detected


    I took these last night so this was before I got your tip about focal length to shutter speed. But if I was retaking these would I have used a quicker shutter speed in both pics?
  • SangmortSangmort
    edited November -1
    Joe --- Are you doing any post-processing? IMHO [ & this is just me, not sure if anyone else feels the same ] only about 33% of quality comes from the camera / lens / equipment, 33% comes from the photographer skills, 33% comes from post-processing, & 1% is magic / luck ;)

    Remember, if you shoot in RAW your camera does not really pp your images, if you shoot in jpeg pp is being done "in-camera" so PP is an essential skill! Once you learn how to PP you can really make an image pop! [ & really learn how to "save" bad images ] ~
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024