Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter
95% great, but with one small flaw that (sorry) ruins the composition: The highlight on whatever the object is in the foreground.
It’s far brighter than anything else, so it immediately draws our attention. And, going back to the “center, top-to-bottom, left-to-right” pull… it starts at the center and instantly pulls attention off the image to the right.
This photo is not about a dog. It’s about a highlight on an unidentified object.
And the solution is simple: Dodge. Reduce the brightness of whatever that highlight is.
I highly recommend getting a copy of LightZone. It’s FOSS, and it’s based on the “zone theory” developed by Ansel Adams. It is NOT Photoshop. It’s a “digital darkroom”. In about 15 seconds, you could pull down that bright highlight–without affecting anything else in the photo–so the dog’s face becomes the focus.
Quick fix (1 minute to fix the highlight, 10 minutes to figure out how to let Google share the damn thing.)
This photo is not about a dog. It’s about a highlight on an unidentified object.
To me, the photo is about the dog (natch). But the photographer may have a different idea….of what the photo is about and/or what he wants the viewer to think the photo is about. So perhaps you are being a bit presumptuous.
[Note: Just so we’re clear, my comment here and on last week’s photo are very much in good humor. It’s only photography.]
@Mu Yixiao: I take the point you are making (moreso, to a degree, than your previous critique). (And I am familiar with digital darkroom programs–I use one to process all my photos).
I don’t want to sound overly defensive, but I am not sure I understand the point of your critiques (or why you have decided to start making them). Not only is the way you are doing it a bit off-putting, but it had the feel of being overly technical gotchas.
I like contrasts, so don’t find the reflection as distracting as you do (but I certainly cannot stop you from seeing it and reacting as you do).
BTW, to me, it is not merely a picture of a dog. It is a picture of light and contrasts that happens to include a dog. It may be that one is drawn to the bright reflection and is then surprised to find the dog.
I like the framing, I doubt I would have done that.
Love it. Kama muta inducing! More dog pics please. Balances out the topic/person of endless discussion elsewhere around here.
Delightful! I agree – more dog pics please!
95% great, but with one small flaw that (sorry) ruins the composition: The highlight on whatever the object is in the foreground.
It’s far brighter than anything else, so it immediately draws our attention. And, going back to the “center, top-to-bottom, left-to-right” pull… it starts at the center and instantly pulls attention off the image to the right.
This photo is not about a dog. It’s about a highlight on an unidentified object.
And the solution is simple: Dodge. Reduce the brightness of whatever that highlight is.
I highly recommend getting a copy of LightZone. It’s FOSS, and it’s based on the “zone theory” developed by Ansel Adams. It is NOT Photoshop. It’s a “digital darkroom”. In about 15 seconds, you could pull down that bright highlight–without affecting anything else in the photo–so the dog’s face becomes the focus.
Quick fix (1 minute to fix the highlight, 10 minutes to figure out how to let Google share the damn thing.)
@Mu Yixiao:
To me, the photo is about the dog (natch). But the photographer may have a different idea….of what the photo is about and/or what he wants the viewer to think the photo is about. So perhaps you are being a bit presumptuous.
[Note: Just so we’re clear, my comment here and on last week’s photo are very much in good humor. It’s only photography.]
Funny, I hadn’t even noticed that. Now that you’ve mentioned it, I still don’t.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Hahah! Well played, very well played.
@Mu Yixiao: I take the point you are making (moreso, to a degree, than your previous critique). (And I am familiar with digital darkroom programs–I use one to process all my photos).
I don’t want to sound overly defensive, but I am not sure I understand the point of your critiques (or why you have decided to start making them). Not only is the way you are doing it a bit off-putting, but it had the feel of being overly technical gotchas.
I like contrasts, so don’t find the reflection as distracting as you do (but I certainly cannot stop you from seeing it and reacting as you do).
BTW, to me, it is not merely a picture of a dog. It is a picture of light and contrasts that happens to include a dog. It may be that one is drawn to the bright reflection and is then surprised to find the dog.