Linda K

love the choccys

nice use of catchlights (which in animals is important, as there is nothing worse than a big dark hole - the catchlights help give that spark and draw us in to look at their face. The main thing I notice in no 1 that distracts is that chair in the background - the 2nd lab shot which is a tighter crop but does not have the same distractions looks much better as a result. I think the first one too might be a bit too colour staurated, (JMHO). Love the tiger, very nice use of the negative space there. You also have a great grasp on leaving that space where it needs to be (like the dog looking off to the side, with a great area for him to look into, and some great bokeh going on there. Not a lot to comment on, other than keep it up, try other angles, and don't be afraid to experiment, but these are a great bunch I think you could be very happy with

first thought was April Fools day thing - just like the doggy highchairs advertised in the paper today from IKEA - but I do wonder how many people went to IKEA today to buy 1?

my favourite 1 is no 2, I really like the relaxed feel of that. A lot of the others look a bit snap shotty, like you just happened to take the shot, without considering the light or the posing (I know it can be difficult where the model is not comfortable themselves with that, but that is part of our job from the other side of the camera to make them look good, so it can take a bit of work to be comfortable enough to order them around to achieve that but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes). The 24-70 is a great lens, so why not open it up and take advantage of that great minimum aperture that you can get with it - that is what seperates us from the cameras just set on auto, is that you can decide what you want to have as the subject of the shot, and what becomes the background, and how much of that is also in focus, whether it becomes bokeh, or whether it becomes part of the enviornment of the shot. A few of the conversions look a bit cool (ie the whites, esp the eyes), the white is not white, but instead is on the bluish side, but this can easily be fixed in photoshop by warming it up a bit more, and someone has already said about the last 2 - that happens from being a bit too close when shooting wide (guessing you had the lens on 24mm here). Some great stuff though to start with, but don't be scared to play a bit with angles, apertures etc - look at what moving around can do. If you are serious about the portrait stuff, another great site is ilovephotography.com, which has awesome tutorials, and some stuff on the free side that is just incredible

another who only looked at this topic because of the other post - would note that they said we are in the grip of a mouse plague at the moment, I know when I make up the horses feeds each night I will have mice either in the chaff bags or in the empty feed containers, but we also have a farm cat who is like the paws of lightning, who also despatches rabbits too, so they do not last long. If he is around when I find them, he will take care of them, otherwise I will despatch them quickly with a blow to the head against the wall. We do not bait, as it is not an effective way to get rid of them - too many and takes too long

what a great thing. Our school has a deaf facility,. and one of the teachers there was also looking after a guide dog puppy, so it would come to school to do the puppy training, and also got to go to the diferent classes, which gave the kids a chance to have the dog in the class, but also to learn to respect the dog when he was in his training harness, but also look after him with getting water etc - was very good for them, and the whole school was sad (but happy proud), when he went off to be a guide dog

so was this you doing the photos, or someone else?

yep, it is my destresser too (and also my job, so just as well doing it is my favourite thing)

saw a irish wolfhound x newfoundland the other day being walked on the esplanade at Altona - just looked wrong

main thing I use it for is to protect the front of the lens from scratches, dirt etc, having said that I only have a UV one on day to day, keep the polarising and neutral density one (which is an allover dark lens, used to bring the stops down for landscape stuff - the ND filter can help bring it down nicely to get that nice "cotton candy" effect with waterfalls etc, which I love)

not a pedigree, a crossbreed with a fancy name to make it more appealing (like a "liger"), having sat at Altona beach last week and watched the passing parade of crossbreed go past (including 3 completely different looking lab x poodles, plus one that looked like a irish wolfhound x newfoundland), and a very fat cocker x poodle, it never ceases to amze me what people will throw together, and what others will buy)

if it is a 70D, you could get away with using the 1.8, for anything better though (like a 5D or higher), then would not put a crap ens on it, no sense paying good money for a body, and then putting bad glass in front of it, and believe me, you can see a difference in the image quality (and have assessed both canon 1.8 & 1.4 on a 5D & 5DII, and on a Nikon D700), but then again, since I am charging people for what I produce, I pick my tools to suit the job I am doing, and I need to know that what I have chosen will look equally good in a 5"x7" as in a 40"x60", but if you are just using for your own personal use, then go the 1.8

1.8 - crap mount as it is plastic and not robust, and the companies have a lot higher degree of tolerance for soft galss (ie a bad lens can get through easier as it has a higher tolerance level for defects in the glass being allowed) 1.4 -0 metal mount, better glass (but with canon, not as good as the 1.2, but it is the one lens I would not go for the L over the 1,4), but having had the 1.8 & the 1.4, would go the 1.4 everytime)

I get my meat from MegaPets at Epping for my cats - no problems with it

with the free program, have you actually then ever printed up anything you have done the retouching with - as someone who works in the field, I have printed images up to 30" x 40" that I have used the clone tool on, and you cannot see where I have done it - I would never clone though wihout zooming in, you will do far too much pixel daage otherwise

when you are using it, how big is the area you are sampling from, are you doing it zoomed in on the photo - for any editing work like that, (I use full version, not elements, but assume that the process is the same), I am zoomed in to at least 200%, maybe more, depending on the area I am working on. I also use it at a low opacity first off, to work up the area, so I can see what I am doing and what I am changing. If you are going too over the top with the editing, yes it will look fake, that is why retouching should be done with a light hand (like most things in editing software - you want the person to see the photo afterall, not what a great cloning / saturation job you did)

Just like I always like supporting the grey horse in a horse race (as a kid I had 2 grey ponies, so have a soft spot for them) so always cheer them on, and my favourite race of the year is that one where it is all grey horses, so wholeheartedly agree with supporting this GO THE PINK DOG!!!!!!

to me waterscape would be only of water - could be a raindrop, ripples in a pond, the blur of a waterfall (water only), a landscape would be anything showing land (and whatever else make sup the scene - ie shot over a lake, a mountain, trees etc)

so sad to hear about your loss, but just love the shots, you have not only captured them well, but you have caught them in the most gorgeous light too -0 so many people do not realise just how much of a component the light is of the picture, but these are stunning

have had a couple of horses do this too - in fact one old girl we had also then used to get heatstroke - while all the others in the paddock would either be under the trees or in the shelters, she would be stretched out flat in the sun. Fun when you had to get her up and hose her down to try and cool her core temp back down again.

beats the old Spot, Fido, Rover, Blackie, Prince, Princess, Kitty, etc (and yes I was guilty of having had dogs and cats in the past with those names), but then graduated to human names of late (like Hamish, Sheldon, Leila, Linny)

would be getting anew card reader if it was me, I have had a dodgy card reader corrupt a card before, and got rid of it, not had an issue since - card reader was one of those cheapy 5 in 1 readers from Teds. I now use a Lexar professional card reader I bought from BH, which is a firewire downloader, so loads the images from my 5DII & Nikon ultra fast, and without any problems at all - IMO as my images are important, it does not pay to use good cameras, good lenses, good cards, and then skimp on the reader. I do not like to use direct camera transfer, as it is a lot slower, and also depends on having sufficient battery life remaining to complete the transfer

don't only look at the speed too, look at the ISO - when you are shooting with an ISO that is "manufactured" by the digital camera - ie the normal ones are 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 etc - anything in between these is the camera extrapolating the data to the created ISO (eg ISO 125, 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 1000, 1250 etc) and so the data will already be a little more compromised than if it was shot at the normal ISO levels. I have found a difference in clarity between using them. A lot of people are also not that steady with a lens, so keeping the shutter up to 1/125 is a good start. Not all lens are also good at their widest, each lens has its own sweet spot, so it is useful to learn with each lens you have where that is (you lens may for instance be best at 2.8, so in that case don't go wider) Also, each camera has difference focusing systems, and some focal points work better than others - canon for instance is notorious for being spot on with the centre focus point, less so for the extremity ones, so again, a matter of learning which works best for your camera and then work around that.

UPDATE FROM THE HUME LEADER update from our local paper (I am in the council area, so get the local paper) - the Malamutes will not be destroyed. They have however been declared dangerous dogs, and will now need to have the owners make the appropriate modifications to their property - such as the large marked cage in the backyard on concrete, before the dogs (which were seized by council), will be released back to their owners. Council have also advised that the dogs will be monitored, and must be desexed, muzzled and on a lead in public. Reasoning given for the decision was that it was complicated by the fact that the dogs escaped through a fence damaged by a council contractor, and that they took into account a range of factors, including the owners remorse, their responsible approach to the dogs (registered for 8 years with the council with no prior incidents)

depending on what you already have, the best allrounder here would be the 24-105, as it would give you both telephoto and wide angle availability, but for the wedding, are you going to be shooting it, or having a paid professional shoot it? IMO that is the one area of a wedding I would not skimp on - long after you have eaten the food, etc, you will be looking at the photos, and you do not want an awful home job or ones shot by the relo handy with a camera - you will not begrudge getting someone who does this for a living and knows what they are doing to shoot it.