B&W Dog Photo

Would appreciate some feedback. Cheers!

Can't say I care for the halo round the dog.

He has a nice expression. It looks like one ear is folded over, & why did you include trees at the top at the cost of cutting off his feet?

Alveric wrote in post #18007091
Can't say I care for the halo round the dog.

Thanks guys. I shot this early in the morning so there was quite a bit of moisture/mist coming from the grass. There was also quite a bit of haze from the sun, that's why I ended up going with B&W.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18007115
He has a nice expression. It looks like one ear is folded over, & why did you include trees at the top at the cost of cutting off his feet?

His ear is folded over, it does it every time lol. This was the best shot I had out of the bunch. I shot this by myself and Ollie isn't the greatest listener so it was quite difficult get him to stay while composing the shot properly. I had to shoot it one handed (ball in my other hand) with my gripped 5D3 + 70-200. I couldn't really go wider because if I moved the ball hand to zoom out he would have instantly moved. I couldn't back up either. Basically any movement I would make, he would move

If the halo is natural backlighting, it's absolutely fine. If it is, however, an artifact caused by the manipulation of hue sliders during the conversion to monochrome, then it is indeed objectionable. Unfortunately, it's not easy for me to tell which one it is; the halo round the body, with its gradual tonal transition hints to the one, yet, the halo round the hear and ears is so sharp that it points to the other.

Would be interesting to see the original colour version, in order to really tell.

Here's the original. As you can see, the photo is heavily PS'd I recently started learning PS so I wanted to really push myself and see what I could do with it. Quick question, is it considered in bad taste to photoshop a picture so heavily?

CaPpedDoG wrote in post #18007201
Here's the original. As you can see, the photo is heavily PS'd I recently started learning PS so I wanted to really push myself and see what I could do with it. Quick question, is it considered in bad taste to photoshop a picture so heavily?

Hosted photo: posted by CaPpedDoG in
./showthread.php?p=180​07201&i=i58127447
forum: Critique Corner

If you get the image that you wanted, why not? If the painters can do it, why can't we?

It isn't considered bad taste to PS an image heavily, as long as it can stand alone or with a group photos with the same nature of post-processing. It depends on what you're trying to convey, usually however, an image can go from being okay to not looking okay based on the quality of post-processing. Overdoing it is usually bad.

As long as it isn't documentary and it doesn't look doctored, Photoshop away. The original image is alright too, the dog in the background, being out of focus and looking at the main subject makes it a more powerful image, IMHV. I can see that the backlighting was too strong, yes, and the sharp halos are not a post-processing artifact.

Thanks everyone. Good to hear it's not frowned upon I sort of felt like I was cheating when I was PS'ing it.

To ME, I only care about the end result. There's artistry in the editing process, the end justifies the means. That's just my opinion, but ok.

I dig this. Would do the same for my dog. If I need to edit out Angelina Jolie just so I can have a better photo of my dog, I would.