Photographing a black dog...i need help

[krandall]

Originally Posted by Suzi

What is RAW?
Mine are hard to photograph too! Gemma's markings are exactly the same as Maddies. I think the difference is her size. Maddie has smaller features like her face. Maddie is only 8 lbs how much does Gemma weigh?
This is a bad picture as far as showing the black and tan but look at how much they look alike. I know we have said it before.

Cameras that produce JPG files do some processing in-camera, then compress the files so they take up less space on the card. The problem is that they "trow away" a lot of useful image information that can't be retrieved later. RAW files are like a "digital negative". They contain every tiny bit of information the sensor captured. BUT they take up a lot more room on the card, AND they need to be processed in some sort of image editing software (typically Photoshop or Lightroom) before you can do anything else with them.

The advantage, in a situation like this, is that with good software, you can recover details in the highlight and shadow portions of the image that would be lost by in-camera JPG processing. Most, if not all, DSLR's can shoot in RAW (or Nikon uses another name for the same thing) there are only a very few, high end, P&S's that can capture RAW images.

That said, in this specific picture, Suzi, you've done a very good job capturing the tonal range from light to dark. Because you shot her in strong, filtered light, with no direct sun on here, you have almost complete tonality, in her dark and light areas. You can't see her eyes mostly because of her hair, not because the photo is too dark!

[krandall]

Originally Posted by HannahBearsMom

Karen's metering method might work fine, but I prefer to meter off something grey. If you cah't find something true grey to meter, try metering off grass. Green grass and grey should both work very well.

That does work best of all if you have the time, the equipment and the know-how. But I think most of the people asking these questions can't meter off something else, adjust exposure and then recompose/focus, especially with a moving subject. For that matter, you can't even do it at all with most P&S's!

I was trying to give hints that would work for the P&S or DSLR "program" shooter.

[Tuss]

Hi Suzi, Maddie and Gemma look so much alike. Gemma is about 12 lb though. Maddie is her "minime"

[HannahBearsMom]

Originally Posted by krandall

Yes, I'm sure your camera can shoot RAW... Even my 10D, the first "consumer" priced Canon DSLR, could shoot RAW. I'm sure that by the time the Rebels came out they would have had RAW capability as well. You'll be astounded how much more information is at your disposal, especially if you then work in 16 bit mode in PS (or LR... Not sure whether Elements offers 16 bit processing, it might).

The Rebel shoots RAW.

[krandall]

Originally Posted by HannahBearsMom

The Rebel shoots RAW.

Thanks, Laurie, I couldn't imagine that they didn't, but didn't know for sure!

[sandypaws]

Wow, this thread is way over my head, but I love the pictures, good or bad. Karen, that pic of Kodi in amongst the flowers is outstanding. The colors are gorgeous. I'll let all of you photographers hash this one out.

[krandall]

Originally Posted by sandypaws

Wow, this thread is way over my head, but I love the pictures, good or bad. Karen, that pic of Kodi in amongst the flowers is outstanding. The colors are gorgeous. I'll let all of you photographers hash this one out.

Mary, the flowers were just luck. That whole paddock (where Kodi's agility course is) was solid violets that spring. It hadn't happened for years. The last time I saw it like that was when my 20 year old was a baby. I have a photo of him lying in the violets. I hope I don't have to wait another 20 years!!!

[Suzi]

Originally Posted by Tuss

Hi Suzi, Maddie and Gemma look so much alike. Gemma is about 12 lb though. Maddie is her "minime"

cute yes she is her minime I'm going to practice better pictures if I could understand the technical stuff.

[Suzi]

Originally Posted by krandall

Cameras that produce JPG files do some processing in-camera, then compress the files so they take up less space on the card. The problem is that they "trow away" a lot of useful image information that can't be retrieved later. RAW files are like a "digital negative". They contain every tiny bit of information the sensor captured. BUT they take up a lot more room on the card, AND they need to be processed in some sort of image editing software (typically Photoshop or Lightroom) before you can do anything else with them.

The advantage, in a situation like this, is that with good software, you can recover details in the highlight and shadow portions of the image that would be lost by in-camera JPG processing. Most, if not all, DSLR's can shoot in RAW (or Nikon uses another name for the same thing) there are only a very few, high end, P&S's that can capture RAW images.

That said, in this specific picture, Suzi, you've done a very good job capturing the tonal range from light to dark. Because you shot her in strong, filtered light, with no direct sun on here, you have almost complete tonality, in her dark and light areas. You can't see her eyes mostly because of her hair, not because the photo is too dark!

I'm pretty sure my camera has another setting that my brother changed to the jag. I took that picture of maddie after you taught us about natural light . We always take better pictures on tables because they stay put. I have been trying to teach with treats posing where I want them.

[Diann]

Nikon's RAW files are NEFS.