Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-21-2012, 04:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
tweet25's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northen BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 236
Duke the Dog
Lens: 18-55 (Kit) Camera: K-r Photo Location: Northern BC ISO: 200 Shutter Speed: 1/250s Aperture: F6.7 

Decent dog shot? or Not? Please and Thank you

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-r  Photo 
01-21-2012, 07:27 PM   #2
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by tweet25 Quote
Decent dog shot?
Well sorry to say I don't think this is a decent dogs shot!

It's not decent it's fabulous, stupendous and wonderful!
01-21-2012, 10:15 PM   #3
Senior Member
xecutech's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 223
Love the color and the softness. He looks like he's enjoying himself.
01-21-2012, 11:42 PM   #4
Brooke Meyer
Guest




Good photgraph

Good exposure, good composition, nice photograph. I though it could use a little tuning, I wanted to think I could brush the snow off his nose. Shooting dogs in snow is tough, I only ever managed one or two of our Labs. He looks like a wonderful companion.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-r  Photo 
01-22-2012, 04:43 AM   #5
smf
Pentaxian
smf's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midland, MI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,083
The original photo is quite nice, and I like the tuned up version even more. Processing details would be welcome.
Thanks.
01-22-2012, 10:20 AM   #6
Senior Member
tweet25's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northen BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 236
Original Poster
Thank you very much - he is a wonderful rescue dog. (we rescued him) I love the sharpness in the 'tuned up' version. details would be wonderful. (I use Gimp) but i didn't do anything to the original besides make it smaller to post.

Last edited by tweet25; 01-23-2012 at 07:06 AM.
01-22-2012, 10:26 PM - 1 Like   #7
Brooke Meyer
Guest




Rescuing a Rescue

QuoteOriginally posted by tweet25 Quote
Thank you very much - he is a wonderful rescue dog. I love the sharpness in the 'tuned up' version. details would be wonderful. (I use Gimp) but i didn't do anything to the original besides make it smaller to post.
I photographed a number of rescue events, gave web sized JPEGs to the org's. The dogs in the Golden Retriever Rescue program were typically adopted quickly. Sweet dogs.

I did my normal sort of editing (except I shoot DNGs) instead of JPEGS. I opened the JPEG in Adobe Camera Raw where I spend most of my time and used my default values: Clarity of 25, Lightness of 30 in Parametric Curves, Sharpening to 80. Then opened in Photoshop. Lowered the Red Saturation to eye, Curves to Auto and then backed Red, Green and Blue each to half the Auto Value. Did an adjust Shadow/ Highlights to my default value of 6. Finally, did an output sharpen for Web using my Pixel Genius Plug-In.

I know its sounds complicated but after 4 years of exploring, its just what works for me. My original copy of Photoshop CS3 was a 1/2 price upgrade from an obsolete copy of Elements that was in box with a refurbished Wacom Digitizer. Upgraded to CS5 last summer for the 64 BIT O/S support, event photos were overwhelming the old version.

The Noiseware Plug-In was the best $62 I ever spent on editing software spent, saved me on a portrait shoot with a K10 at ISO 1600, still use on everything The Pixel Genius stuff is partly built-in to Photoshop but I use the plug-in on everything, web or print. It makes a huge difference on presentation. The other one I have to have is Perfect Resize (nee Genuine Fractals) for printing 16x20 and larger.


Last edited by Brooke Meyer; 01-22-2012 at 10:55 PM.
01-22-2012, 11:28 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 293
Very nice shot. My only criticism is that the focus is more on the nose than on the eyes but I imagine it is not easy to do otherwise.
01-23-2012, 04:26 AM   #9
smf
Pentaxian
smf's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midland, MI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,083
Thanks very much for the details on processing.
01-23-2012, 10:26 AM   #10
Brooke Meyer
Guest




You'd have to use a single center point for focus and then re-compose. From the EXIF data, there was about 3 1/2 inches Depth of Field. Stopping down more would help, say f11.
01-24-2012, 04:47 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Brooke Meyer Quote
I photographed a number of rescue events, gave web sized JPEGs to the org's. The dogs in the Golden Retriever Rescue program were typically adopted quickly. Sweet dogs.

I did my normal sort of editing (except I shoot DNGs) instead of JPEGS. I opened the JPEG in Adobe Camera Raw where I spend most of my time and used my default values: Clarity of 25, Lightness of 30 in Parametric Curves, Sharpening to 80. Then opened in Photoshop. Lowered the Red Saturation to eye, Curves to Auto and then backed Red, Green and Blue each to half the Auto Value. Did an adjust Shadow/ Highlights to my default value of 6. Finally, did an output sharpen for Web using my Pixel Genius Plug-In.

I know its sounds complicated but after 4 years of exploring, its just what works for me. My original copy of Photoshop CS3 was a 1/2 price upgrade from an obsolete copy of Elements that was in box with a refurbished Wacom Digitizer. Upgraded to CS5 last summer for the 64 BIT O/S support, event photos were overwhelming the old version.

The Noiseware Plug-In was the best $62 I ever spent on editing software spent, saved me on a portrait shoot with a K10 at ISO 1600, still use on everything The Pixel Genius stuff is partly built-in to Photoshop but I use the plug-in on everything, web or print. It makes a huge difference on presentation. The other one I have to have is Perfect Resize (nee Genuine Fractals) for printing 16x20 and larger.
Hi Brooke

My word, you certainly put a lot of effort into this tweak. I am a bit like you, I have a whole raft of editing software on my computer and I use them all. I find, when I do fine art prints for photographer friends of mine, that for some reason or other certain images respond better to some programs than others. Don't know why but I am certain I am not imagining this.

Now that you got the ball rolling on this pooches portrait I don't feel so bad chucking in my two cents worth. I loaded the OP's original image into OLONEO, a French creation of recent years and I find I am using it more and more. It lets you do corrections in individual colour channels on the fly without creating layers.

I won't go into minute details as to what I did to achieve the attached result, mainly the program is so simple that there is not much to write about.

Forgive me but I find your version just a smidgen too contrasty and the pooch is a bit too red (strong) to my eyes. This should not be seen as a criticism and may merely reflect the difference in your and my monitor setup. I have a lot of money invested in a professional monitor and calibration software and this may explain why.

So taking your image as a cue I adjusted in OLONEO the OP's image by tweaking the red channel's Hue/Saturation ever so little as well as the yellow channel but here a bit more both into positive territory which is done with a slider. Next I increased the Tone Mapping and Detail strength by a few points only. I also increased the blue channel just a bit to change the (I assume) snowy background a bit as it often reflects the blue sky. (I may have overdone this a little) Then I imported the image into PS (CS3) where I sharpened it with the FocalBlade plugin. I consider FocalBlade to be the best sharpening program around. It lets you do lots of adjustments (for example to get rid of black/white sharpening halos and much more). Finally I put the image through another plugin by the name of "PerfectlyClear". (Do download a trial version and put some images through it, you will be blown away.)

Here is my tweak, please tell me what you think. (Good or bad I don't mind).

Greetings

Last edited by Schraubstock; 09-16-2012 at 05:28 PM.
01-24-2012, 01:32 PM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by Schraubstock Quote
I have a lot of money invested in a professional monitor and calibration software and this may explain why.

Here is my tweak, please tell me what you think. (Good or bad I don't mind).
Well, on my probably not so professional but nevertheless calibrated monitor, I see blue and greenish posterized snow. I don't find Brooke Meyer's version too contrasty but rather oversharpened, which unfortunately stresses the point that the focus is not exactly where it should be. As for the fur colour in the different versions, I cannot comment on it without having seen the dog. Altogether, a slight contrast boost in tweet25's version would make it for me.
01-24-2012, 04:55 PM   #13
Senior Member
ekim89's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 239
QuoteOriginally posted by fg-one Quote
As for the fur colour in the different versions, I cannot comment on it without having seen the dog.
That is a very good point...Plus, each image is going to look very different depending on color management/calibration from monitor to monitor.

QuoteOriginally posted by fg-one Quote
oversharpened, which unfortunately stresses the point that the focus is not exactly where it should be
Another good point, but it is amazing how sharpening software can somewhat recover the focal point.

Maybe I am going against the grain, but the softness in the original photo gives the dog a nice, soft furry feeling But yes, the eyes would've been the money-ball focus point, but a very cute shot nonetheless.

I hope you don't mind, but I tried to just sharpen the eyes more than the rest of the photo to make them "pop". I hope it shows up to you like it did on my monitor.

Please tell me what you think (good or bad, I don't mind)

Last edited by ekim89; 05-07-2014 at 08:49 AM.
01-24-2012, 05:02 PM   #14
Senior Member
ekim89's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 239
Comparison

I know these are smaller images, but it's a quick comparison regarding the changes I made (Original on the left)
Attached Images
 
01-24-2012, 05:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
tweet25's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Northen BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 236
Original Poster
WOW great job ekim89, it looks wonderful. is there a way I could have set the camera to get what you did? or is it all in post production? I used to have a point and shoot, and then edit edit edit. (not as good as you or Brooke mind you, but I tried) now that i have a better camera I thought i could get away from it a bit.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
critique, dog, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a dog? Pål Jensen General Talk 3 10-03-2010 07:08 PM
Nature Dog mattyd4 Post Your Photos! 3 07-02-2010 12:50 AM
Nature Duke Gardens with Macro Takumar trd300gt Post Your Photos! 2 05-02-2010 12:06 PM
Nature old dog milesy Post Your Photos! 3 02-06-2010 03:11 PM
Duke (Blue) Devil Ducks trd300gt Post Your Photos! 0 01-09-2009 01:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top