New pup

[Lang]

Problem I find is that you have to just shoot when trying this sort of shot, no time for anything fancy, anyway, let me know what you think . Cheers Lang

[AgingEyes]

Problem I find is that you have to just shoot when trying this sort of shot, no time for anything fancy,

Hmmm...still don't know what you mean :confused5:

I think you should consider shooting it from a lower perspective and take a closer shot. The background is not really that attractive to me. Especially that...thing on the right...is that the handle of a shovel, axe or something?

[tayl0124]

Lighting didn't seem to help you here, is that what you are talking about?? My gut reaction is that the wood is a little over exposed and the puppy a little underexposed. I suppose next time you could attempt to correctly expose the puppy to your liking and try not to move the camera(assuming the use of a tripod I guess)and take a picture of the wood at desired exposure. Or wait...my brain is just starting to move. Try bracketing next time.

[GB1]

Nice puppy. I totally agree with you on the time for composition or anything else but fire issue. It happens to me on occasion and I feel grateful that I was even able to snap anything before i missed it (and I still do miss half the time).

G

[Lang]

Thanks GBI, I keep the old OlyE300 handy so if I see something I grab it and take a shot. This little pup was everywhere and next thing under my feet (still is, typical Kelpie ) I don't own a tripod, don't have Photo Shop, I put them out of the camera on to Pisca ?, then put them up here. Any thing I put up here has not been fiddled with, apart from Jpeg limits.(that I found out ,recently)
I know it's great to see how manipulation can improve,and make cosmetic an image , and I feel left behind in regards to you blokes, what I like to do is take the images and see just what I took, and then put some on here and then I can learn what to achieve from the 'hitting the button' rather than 'I'll fix that later'. I'm trying to get an 'eye' not a stage production. As an old OM owner, you had to just trust in 'Olly and be stoic. I took an image on my way home yesterday I'll put up, there's shadows. Thanks all, your comments gives me incentive. Lang

[AgingEyes]

I know it's great to see how manipulation

You should re-think.

What you are thinking is you can just press the button and you will get what you see. Wrong ! You will get what the camera see, and let the camera do the "manipulation" for you, decides how the final results look. Remember the settings and you likely have entered before you first use your camera? That's the manipulation instructions given by you to the camera.What you see is the manipulation done by your camera. And if it does not looks better than other photos, given the same composition, it likely has something to do with the "manipulation" of your camera. And if you think you can just press the button and fix it later and everything will be right all the time every time. Wrong again ! There's only so much you can do in the "fixing" process before it can hurt your photos. You know Ansel Adams? Even with his Zone system, he still spent hours in the darkroom. Why?

I'd say you should re-think the whole process of photography, watch the BBC documentary "The Genius of Photography" if you have a chance. That could help you IMO.

[GB1]

.. still AE, there's a completely legitimate camp out there (small as it may be) that does not believe in manipulation of the image, in the darkroom or on the computer.

Is manipulation right or wrong? Neither: it's a philosophical argument. And I've seen good and bad unmanipulated and manipulated work at great art and photography shows here in S. Cali.

Regardless, getting a good original shot is really key to having a good final product. With luck and a lot of skill (and a LOT of time), a flawed image can be saved in post processing. But it's always better to start with a good original image.

[OldClicker]

In digital it will look something like this (with differing intensities) without post processing somewhere - the camera's computer or the desk top computer. – TF

[AgingEyes]

.. still AE, there's a completely legitimate camp out there (small as it may be) that does not believe in manipulation of the image,

The issue is the word "manipulation". And some of them just paint everything under the "manipulation" brush without trying to understand the process itself.

[AgingEyes]

In digital it will look something like this (with differing intensities) without post processing somewhere - the camera's computer or the desk top computer. – TF

Exactly ! !

[Loupey]

Cute pup! The shot is too loose, too wide.

Do you have a telephoto which will allow you to stand back 3~5 meters and still allow a fairly tight shot without cropping? Any closer and puppies like to charge the camera when you get low to the ground.

You need a lot a patience to wait for a shot to unfold sometimes. Can't force a puppy to pose for you so it is a matter of just following it around.

[GB1]

The issue is the word "manipulation". And some of them just paint everything under the "manipulation" brush without trying to understand the process itself.

Yes -- seems like there's many different ideas of what manipulation is. Sharpening is actually required of digital images, either in camera or via PP, so a purest may even consider a digital shot that has been sharpened "manipulated."

[GB1]

In digital it will look something like this (with differing intensities) without post processing somewhere - the camera's computer or the desk top computer. – TF

I don't get it. The intensities / tonalities are captured at the time of the exposure. It doesn't take PPing to convert away from the posted graphic (or does it?).

Maybe the heat has wilted my brain?

[Lang]

Oh dear, what have I done!. As I said before, at this time all I'm trying to do is get used to the DSLR world and use the camera first as a method of learning, try to get things right from there, all the PP I'll deal with later when I'm happy with how I'm going with the camera. I'm a farmer and carry around the gear and don't have time to think about the tech side of an image, always busy watching stock,dogs and etc.
I certainly didn't mean to start a debate (although this is very interesting), again, I'm trying to get things sort of' right' out of the camera, then all the other can follow, that is why I appreciate the comments. We all have had to start somewhere, what I'm doing. Cheers Lang

[OldClicker]

I don't get it. The intensities / tonalities are captured at the time of the exposure. It doesn't take PPing to convert away from the posted graphic (or does it?).

Maybe the heat has wilted my brain?

True that you have to capture what you want within the limits of the sensor, but those red, green and blue (or similar) dots at differing intensities are all the sensor records. The rest is computer interpretation. Some (not necessarily you) seem to imply that the computer in the camera is, somehow, more 'pure photography' than the computer on the desk top. Just doesn't make sense to me. - TF

[OldClicker]

Oh dear, what have I done!. As I said before, at this time all I'm trying to do is get used to the DSLR world and use the camera first as a method of learning, try to get things right from there, all the PP I'll deal with later when I'm happy with how I'm going with the camera. I'm a farmer and carry around the gear and don't have time to think about the tech side of an image, always busy watching stock,dogs and etc.
I certainly didn't mean to start a debate (although this is very interesting), again, I'm trying to get things sort of' right' out of the camera, then all the other can follow, that is why I appreciate the comments. We all have had to start somewhere, what I'm doing. Cheers Lang

Don't worry, you didn't start something. Discussing is how we come to understand (though not necessarily agree). - TF

[readingr]

Lang,

For about 5 minutes of PP'ing this can be made so much better. Permission to edit the photo to show what I'm thinking of.

Roger R.

[icicle]

Cute puppy.

Oh how I don't miss splitting wood, used to put in 14 cords a year.

now for the tech. talk
Puppy looks slightly out of focus(soft) to me, the wood pile does have a little blown out highlights going on. maybe if you are able to re-shoot it some day try to move out the splitting maul handle to the other side.
Since you are using Pisca you can edit photo to some degree, adding fill light and correcting balance, and a few other things including cropping.

[Lang]

Roger,

For about 5 minutes of PP'ing this can be made so much better. Permission to edit the photo to show what I'm thinking of.

Roger R.
Please do, I would appreciate it, may give me some incentive to find some time,work,( work and more,were shearing now), to learn..
Iicicle, how I wish I didn't have to (split wood ).

[readingr]

Roger,

For about 5 minutes of PP'ing this can be made so much better. Permission to edit the photo to show what I'm thinking of.

Roger R.
Please do, I would appreciate it, may give me some incentive to find some time,work,( work and more,were shearing now), to learn..
Iicicle, how I wish I didn't have to (split wood ).

Well, here it is - if you want the Photoshop file with all the adjustments then I can send it to you - just send me an e-mail with your address. This would be better done in the original file which you have.

The pic is a little soft - next check your speed is high enough to capture the movement.

Roger R.

[icicle]

This is not perfect, had a hard time keeping my eyes open, will fine tune it later.

[Lang]

icicle and Roger, good grief!I'm at a loss, thank you both, as soon as shearing is over I'll try and see what you both have done. (icicle ,that bit of wood you pinched is White Box, burns for about twenty hours in the right heater )
Thank you both, I was getting a bit wondering if I should carry on and put up images,or fade away, felt a bit lost , as if I had to be 'in a club of excellence' , you have both shown me without words the direction to take. Thank you both.

[readingr]

icicle and Roger, good grief!I'm at a loss, thank you both, as soon as shearing is over I'll try and see what you both have done. (icicle ,that bit of wood you pinched is White Box, burns for about twenty hours in the right heater )
Thank you both, I was getting a bit wondering if I should carry on and put up images,or fade away, felt a bit lost , as if I had to be 'in a club of excellence' , you have both shown me without words the direction to take. Thank you both.

Glad to help. I still have the PSD file if you want it. I will delete it next week if I don't hear from you.

Roger R.

[icicle]

icicle and Roger, good grief!I'm at a loss, thank you both, as soon as shearing is over I'll try and see what you both have done. (icicle ,that bit of wood you pinched is White Box, burns for about twenty hours in the right heater )
Thank you both, I was getting a bit wondering if I should carry on and put up images,or fade away, felt a bit lost , as if I had to be 'in a club of excellence' , you have both shown me without words the direction to take. Thank you both.

Not a problem, only about 45 minutes of cloning, as you can see I took out the big piece of wood that was under your maul handle and replaced it with the smaller one that used to be on the left side of the puppy, them cloned that one out using the grass and leaves from the lower left corner, then I did a color cast removal, adjusted the sharpness a little.
Like I said It's not 100% perfect. might have another go next week on this one.