Maga Dog

[FGH]

Maga Dog

[rick_reno]

damn, give that thing some food.

[Cixelsyd]

Sad. Grossly underfed.

[tewlman]

very sad

[Clean Gene]

Interesting shot, but notice what's going on here. The dog is in a threatening stance and looks like it's mean as hell. Yet, all people seem to be talking about is how pathetic it looks.

So while it is a cool shot (I think it could stand to use some more dramatic lighting), I don't think it's quite working. I think that the dog is just causing people to feel pity, despite the fact that it's mean and vicious-looking. The whole threatening posture and attack pose are a nice touch, but people just seem to be overlooking it. That aspect of the photograph is just completely overshadowed by the dog's poor physical condition.

So, just a suggestion. I'm not sure if it will work or if you already tried it. But I'd like to see this dog shot again, in an attempt to really play up the sympathy aspect. Rather than the dog looking angry and mean, perhaps to shoot it while it's looking sad lonely. That might support the pity angle, rather than work at odds against it.

Also, people seem to be finding the most interest in the dog's physical state. I think that some different lighting could help with that. Hard light might really deepen the shadows here. That'd emphasize the dog's skeletal structure a lot more, and make it all the more clear just how skinny the dog is.

[FGH]

Thanks for the comments folks.

As to your points Clean Gene the threatening aspect was what made me go for this image as I have never had just a few of these dogs threaten me. When they do it is in a large pack usually at night. At that point I have always been interested in getting to a safe place as 30 or so wild dogs in attack mode make me less interested in photography. A few will act rather submissive unless you try to touch them and so it makes getting a threatening look a bit more difficult. The image may be useful for a project I am considering but I may have to get something stronger than this one to work with.


Here is another shot of the same dog that would possibly work more from a sympathy view as it shows she is a nursing mother. I am not so sure about it though but would rather not say exactly why so as not to influence others opinions. Any feed back on it?

[Clean Gene]

I certainly think it's a lot more sad than the first picture.

Again, I actually think that the first picture is pretty cool. I love the aggressive in-your-face stance of the dog, and I love the little tilted perspective. I just think that adds a bit more drama to what already seems to be a pretty intense image. I just don't quite know if that picture quite fits the subject.

Second picture seems to be much more unified, in that everything seems to be supporting everything else, rather than competing with everything else. Like...the dog is also obviously malnourished, and clearly a nurturing mother, which draws sympathy. The head is down, which makes the dog look sad. It's skinny as hell, and the bars also sort of mirror the dog's ribcage. And while normally I'd think it really bad to have the dog's entire face cut off by one of the bars, I think it works in this case. Not sure if it would work better otherwise, that's just hypothesizing. But as it stands now, I think the picture works. The image has impact.

From a technical standpoint, I do think it's a bit lacking. As far as lighting and exposure go, the image just seems a little flat to me.

Having said that, I'm a big fan of contrast, whether it be in the form of lighting or subject matter or whatever. Going back to the first picture, I was absolutely aware of the contrast between "badass rip-your-balls-off dog" and "poor sad malnourished dog." And yes, there's absolutely something interesting about that, in the same way that a mean-ass toy poodle with a bad attitude is just plain funny. The contrasting extremes provide interest, most definitely. Maybe not in a good way, but it's certainly interesting. And I'm really surprised that I'm the only one who commented on that yet, because it's fairly obvious. It just looks wrong. But, in a way, doesn't THAT fit the subject?

On that note, let me just say also that context matters. You mentioning that this is a roaming pack of feral dogs sort of changes that context. If I just look at either of these pictures in isolation, that context is lost. I just assume that someone's malnourishing his pet dog, and then that makes me think of comments like the ones that several people already said. Taken in the context of documentation of reality, my feelings change. Another possible option might be to not present these as individual images, but to present them as a series of images about this pack of dogs. To just go out and take lots MORE pictures of these dogs in order to broaden the context. And then, when PRESENTED as a unified whole, that very well may change the success of these images.

But on the other hand, don't get yourself killed. These dogs sound scary as hell, the way that you describe them. You make it sound like there's a bigger story here, and these pictures seem like they are important pieces of the story. I'd like to see the whole story. But it's not worth getting eaten by starving dogs. Any chance that you could take some more pictures, while remaining safe by shooting from your car?