WET Task #33: Headshots of Animals

[Jeff WX1USN]

1 - RDWP
2 - Jack Dawe
3 - EdC

 

[RDWP]

Thanks folks! Many lovely shots; many and fine responses to a good topic.
And congrats to Levina and pcs.

Back in a few with a new WET.

 

[RDWP]

And the next WET is https://focus-on-photography.net/threads/weekend-task-34-the-blues.798/

 

[greatgrandma]

OK, I promised critiques of the submitted photos. No-one contacted me to say "skip my photo please--not interested in comments about it" so I'm including everyone. Again, this is solely my perspective.

Before making individual comments let me say that I thought the quality of all submissions was excellent. While the votes congregated on 3 (maybe 4 depending upon where you put the break), I thought all 9 photos clearly fit the competition guidelines, were technically good, and were entertaining/amusing.

GreatGrandMa--I actually thought that was a terrific photo (contrary to your own comments about that post). Technically it's good (just a headshot, no distracting background, sharp focus, good decision on DoF). But I also thought the expression was great. I've shot monkeys before and this is one of the better expressive headshots I've seen (or shot myself).

Terry--Terrific shot of the Dachshund eyes (very plaintive eyes!) but I wish the DoF was bigger so the nose/snout wasn't out of focus.

RDWP--Lovely headshot from a great angle. Maybe soften the lines of the shadow from the beak (I find the hard line of the shadow distracting) and dodge the right eye of the Puffin so it's not quite as dark.

PCS--I nearly made this one of my three choices. Tack sharp. Loved the "expression" on the face of the squirrel. The front claws were a bit distracting to me, especially from such an expressive face.

Jan--Loved the detail and expression on the dog (a Lab?). The hand with ball (with less focus) competes with our focus on the dog.

EdC--First, I wondered with so much of the body showed if this was a "headshot" or not. Second, it's a remarkable photo. But the crop means that much of the body is cut off. So I evaluated it as not a pure headshot but also a crop that cut off part of the critter. So I'd have liked either a tighter crop (just the head) or all of the body.

Levina--Outstanding detail and great contrast. I loved that it looked like it was in a studio (ie: completely white background from the snow). The photo--as is--is great. But a tighter crop gives us more of a pure headshot and the eye is so distinct I bet you'd get a lovely reflection in it.

Jack--great angle, great color, the eyes are excellent. I just wish the end of the beak was in sharper focus.

Thank you for the kind words about my photo. I shoot on auto so the DoF was entirely due to the camera and not to a conscious decision on my part - I can't take credit. Just from a perspective of someone whose skin is no longer smooth and free of 'artifacts' I thought the skin of his face was ugly. Of course that was the way it was so the photo was accurate. I just didn't like it.

I agree with almost all of your other comments except that I did not notice some of the things that you did - like the shadow of the beak.

 

[Jan1977]

Nice to see the various submissions to this theme and to me there wasn't much between them. All are nice photos and fitting in with the theme.

For the monkey of Greatgrandma and the giraffe of Ed they did not get my vote simply because some of the other photos appealed a bit more to me. Probably just the subject, because the photos are sufficient quality photo technically. But for example in comparison with Patricks squirrel, it just appealed a bit more to me although technically for me the photos are at a same level.

Terry's dog is a nice photo although you see the entire dog, stretching the theme with is not being a true 'headshot'. It is something I struggled on a bit when selecting my own submission, since most of the photos I have of the dog show the whole body even if the depth of field accentuated the head (and 'shoulders'). The blue collar is quite present competing with the head of the dog for my attention, partially due to the unsharp areas on the head. So it did not made my top 3.

Ed's dragonfly due to the lighting and colors give a certain feel to the photo that does not make it feel 'headshot' (from a human point of view with headshots for example for corporate portraits), while it clearly is a headshot. So therefore my votes went to other submissions.

The birds from Rob, Levina and Jason were clean headshots (in analogy to the corporate headshots) and therewith fitted the theme to the max. The limited depth of field in Jason's photo, made me prefer the photos of Rob and Levina. And Rob's photo got the edge over Levina's due to it being a puffin which is 'more special' than the crow (since I never see puffins and do see crows a lot) and the colors of the puffin play nicer than the 'dull' black of the crow.

All nice photos and hard to pick the winner, so the votes were not objectively determined

 

[Jan1977]

OK, I promised critiques of the submitted photos. No-one contacted me to say "skip my photo please--not interested in comments about it" so I'm including everyone. Again, this is solely my perspective.

Before making individual comments let me say that I thought the quality of all submissions was excellent. While the votes congregated on 3 (maybe 4 depending upon where you put the break), I thought all 9 photos clearly fit the competition guidelines, were technically good, and were entertaining/amusing.

GreatGrandMa--I actually thought that was a terrific photo (contrary to your own comments about that post). Technically it's good (just a headshot, no distracting background, sharp focus, good decision on DoF). But I also thought the expression was great. I've shot monkeys before and this is one of the better expressive headshots I've seen (or shot myself).

Terry--Terrific shot of the Dachshund eyes (very plaintive eyes!) but I wish the DoF was bigger so the nose/snout wasn't out of focus.

RDWP--Lovely headshot from a great angle. Maybe soften the lines of the shadow from the beak (I find the hard line of the shadow distracting) and dodge the right eye of the Puffin so it's not quite as dark.

PCS--I nearly made this one of my three choices. Tack sharp. Loved the "expression" on the face of the squirrel. The front claws were a bit distracting to me, especially from such an expressive face.

Jan--Loved the detail and expression on the dog (a Lab?). The hand with ball (with less focus) competes with our focus on the dog.

EdC--First, I wondered with so much of the body showed if this was a "headshot" or not. Second, it's a remarkable photo. But the crop means that much of the body is cut off. So I evaluated it as not a pure headshot but also a crop that cut off part of the critter. So I'd have liked either a tighter crop (just the head) or all of the body.

Levina--Outstanding detail and great contrast. I loved that it looked like it was in a studio (ie: completely white background from the snow). The photo--as is--is great. But a tighter crop gives us more of a pure headshot and the eye is so distinct I bet you'd get a lovely reflection in it.

Jack--great angle, great color, the eyes are excellent. I just wish the end of the beak was in sharper focus.

She is a 'golden retriever' but that differs very little from a lab indeed (same size, same color, same obsessement with food ). I was in doubt which photo to submit and was not sure about the hand, for the reasons you point out. Some other photos I considered had more of the dog in the frame, so deviated a bit from being a headshot. So in the end I chose this one.

 

[Terry McDaniel]

If the topic had been tension, then Jan’s dog and ball would have been #1, but I understand now that it wasn’t really a “headshot”.
I don’t reckon I fully understood the topic of headshots, based on my entry. Should’ve gone with something else.
I did like everyone’s entry, for me it was hard to pick. I don’t pay much attention to the technical details of a photo, just whether or not it makes me feel good. Perfection doesn’t exist in nature, so why should it exist in photos.

 

[Jack Dawe]

Jack--great angle, great color, the eyes are excellent. I just wish the end of the beak was in sharper focus.

Yeah, got to agree. I know well enough that 100-400L requires a small aperture at close range, but I never remember when actually shooting. The fact that the head isn't dead straight to the camera bothers me more.

 

[Ed Will]

Folks, thanks for all the "feedback on the feedback." When people have comments or reactions to my critiques, that is useful. And I don't have a problem with someone saying "well, I disagree because....". And now it's on to "Blues"!

 

[greatgrandma]

Discussion tells a lot about my own pictures that I didn't consider. Sometimes photos that I don't think much of are ones that other people like and v.v. - some photos that I really like leave other people cold. I have a photo of the house we lived in soon after we were married and I did not think much of it (I was really taking a photo of a rainbow behind it)-- until someone compared it to some famous photographer whose name I no longer remember. And I did not notice that some of my shots weren't really in sharp focus until Levina mentioned it.

 

[Jan1977]

Discussion tells a lot about my own pictures that I didn't consider. Sometimes photos that I don't think much of are ones that other people like and v.v. - some photos that I really like leave other people cold. I have a photo of the house we lived in soon after we were married and I did not think much of it (I was really taking a photo of a rainbow behind it)-- until someone compared it to some famous photographer whose name I no longer remember. And I did not notice that some of my shots weren't really in sharp focus until Levina mentioned it.

Always good to have some additional insights or views on your photos. Challenges like these WET´s are simple and friendly ways to take some extra notice of what might come into play. Lot has to do with the creativity- artist part of photography which often is more important than the ´objective technical´ part on sharpness and similar aspects of a photo. Of course being aware of things does not mean we have to adapt to them or incorporate them, but the awareness never hurts.

Recently I spoke to another photographer when shooting rugby and he was very eager with respect to color tones in his photos. Within some photo group he was in, the color tone was often discussed and many in that group were keen on the ´correctness´ of the color of the photo. Color tones on green pitches reflecting sun, sometimes with partial shade or additional lights are challenging. My workflow is to make a general setting for a raw file, apply that to my set of photos and then tweak a bit in case a photo really looks ´off´. As a result most of my photos probably are not ´ideal´.

He goes through a lot of effort to get each of his photos ´perfect´ but that does take a lot of his time. I simply do not have the time to such a thing and more important, my audience views the photos online and isn´t even aware of something like ´color balance or temperature´. But is doesn´t hurt to discuss such a topic to be aware of it and how others than my typical audience would look at my photos. Let´s say for example if I was to submit a photo for a photo contest, I know checking and (re)tweaking color can improve on a photo, since a jury at a photo contest may be more aware and alert on color tones. But it won't change my current way of working, as I'm fine with the photos I get right now and it is a hobby for me, not a profession.

 

[greatgrandma]

Always good to have some additional insights or views on your photos. Challenges like these WET´s are simple and friendly ways to take some extra notice of what might come into play. Lot has to do with the creativity- artist part of photography which often is more important than the ´objective technical´ part on sharpness and similar aspects of a photo. Of course being aware of things does not mean we have to adapt to them or incorporate them, but the awareness never hurts.

Recently I spoke to another photographer when shooting rugby and he was very eager with respect to color tones in his photos. Within some photo group he was in, the color tone was often discussed and many in that group were keen on the ´correctness´ of the color of the photo. Color tones on green pitches reflecting sun, sometimes with partial shade or additional lights are challenging. My workflow is to make a general setting for a raw file, apply that to my set of photos and then tweak a bit in case a photo really looks ´off´. As a result most of my photos probably are not ´ideal´.

He goes through a lot of effort to get each of his photos ´perfect´ but that does take a lot of his time. I simply do not have the time to such a thing and more important, my audience views the photos online and isn´t even aware of something like ´color balance or temperature´. But is doesn´t hurt to discuss such a topic to be aware of it and how others than my typical audience would look at my photos. Let´s say for example if I was to submit a photo for a photo contest, I know checking and (re)tweaking color can improve on a photo, since a jury at a photo contest may be more aware and alert on color tones. But it won't change my current way of working, as I'm fine with the photos I get right now and it is a hobby for me, not a profession.

I agree- I tried shooting raw because someone told me that I had to do that to be a 'real' photographer. But I decided it took too much time and I really didn't care all that much about the benefits. If I am taking photos in a cemetery the goal is to take as many photos in as short a time as possible and have the photos in focus and readable. Bob and I can do about 350 photos in an hour walking up and down the rows. It's nice if they are also pretty and the color is accurate but the main goal is that people should be able to read the inscription and see what the grave looks like.

 

[Ed Will]

There are some things I will definitely shoot RAW. For instance, autumn foliage. Anything where I know there is the potential for "blinkies" (blown out highlights) and black holes in the same photo (like the entrance to a cave in the mid-day sun). But otherwise I just shoot Jpegs.

Also, my eyes aren't good enough anymore so I rely on autofocus 98% of the time.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Levina--Outstanding detail and great contrast. I loved that it looked like it was in a studio (ie: completely white background from the snow). The photo--as is--is great. But a tighter crop gives us more of a pure headshot and the eye is so distinct I bet you'd get a lovely reflection in it.

Thanks very much, Ed.

This was an image that I took fairly early into the hobby. My first year I think. We had a harsh winter and heavy snowfall and the world was white. And as such it functioned as a giant softener, making the light soft from all angles. The crows came close and I took some shots. Crows are often hard to exposure right because they're all black. It's easy to clip the blacks. But with the snow I had the light bird photographers look for: even, soft light from all sides, with low contrast and no harsh shadows. I'm never looking to have my birds "pop" as some would have preferred. I consider the image one of my best crow portraits ever, although I have more nice crow portraits and the blacks were never much of a problem for me as I shoot to the right as much as I can.

Anyway, I took your critique to heart and took the tif file that I still had to Photoshop and made a tighter crop. Was this what you had in mind? I like my birds to have some space within the frame, so I didn't take it further than this. What do you think?

 

[Ed Will]

Yes. And an interesting story about the photo.