Hello, everyone. One of your ranks (Mr. Poor) suggested I visit this forum as I'm considering getting into pet photography. I'm really in the embryonic stage so far, no backdrops, no lighting yet, etc., but I thought I'd start here with an image I took of my cat, Itchy to get some opinions. Am I on the right track with the pose and crop? And, as he's on a rather unfortunate "perch," what are the ethics in terms replacing the backdrop with something more aesthetically pleasing?

Thanks for the input. I look forward to the education!

Beth

Hiya Beth, and welcome aboard! You'll find that things move slower here than BPN, but the advice, learning and general atmosphere are wonderful.

Nice relaxed pose, especially for a cat named Itchy! I might be tempted to go vertical or square to bring the focus to the front feet and face.

Portraiture, unlike nature photography (IMO), is a lot more open to creative interpretation and manipulation. I don't have a problem replacing backgrounds, removing shadows, swapping ears, or even heads at all.

I do it quite often to improve composition when going from a mastiff to a chihuahua without changing all my props around between shoots. At every event, I take a few "blank" shots of my set from the angles I'm likely to be shooting just in case I need to do some pixel magic.

All that said, my life is a thousand times easier after a big event if I don't have to do all that.

As far as start-up equipment goes, for cats and other smallish critters, if you have some clean sheets, you have some backdrops.

Hi Beth,

Welcome to the forum.

You did a good job of getting most of the coat detail in this black and white cat. These 'tuxedo' cats are like shooting a wedding where you usually have to sacrifice detail in either the whites or the blacks.

I think a square crop to a head/front paws shot would work better here, as that is the key focus of the image. The body, when the back legs are cropped out does not add much interest to the photo.

The on camera flash that you used is fairly harsh and unnatural. If you can't get the flash off of the camera, then natural light would be the way to go. Just my opinion.

The shadow from the ear on camera right is distracting and could be fixed in Photoshop. I have no problem in changing background colors, I just find that it takes me forever to do it convincingly. Where I draw the line is that I never 'change the animal' or else no one would believe my photographs. Yes, I clean things up...eye boogers, ear wax...and I sometimes use parts of one shot in another shot to open the eyes or whatever...but I never change the eye color or the coat color or clone in parts from a different animal.

I would also try to work the angle or the crop so that the injury to the kitty's leg is not so noticeable.

I hope this isn't too critical on your first post...just trying to offer a serious critique.

Thanks, Jim and Psmith for the input. No worries about being too critical. I asked for it and constructive criticism is what I need!

I'm glad changing the background isn't the issue it is in nature photographs. I agree with the square crop and actually considered it but figured I'd see how the partial body would go over. I also agree about the flash. At the moment, all I've got is the on-camera flash and, believe it or not, Itchy was sitting just under the window in the best natural light I get in my apartment, which is obviously not much. I will invest in an umbrella/strobe combo once I learn more about this (and about the equipment itself). I'll continue with my cats to determine which poses, expressions, etc., work best. I'm sure you'll be seeing more of them. :-)

Thanks again for the input!

If you want to play around with off camera lighting on the cheap, you can buy a couple of these at your local hardware store:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stor...uctId=100354514

Put a 150w bulb in each, set your white balance to tungsten, clamp them on the back of a chair or on a hat rack. Tape a piece of diffusion paper over them and it gets even better.

Yep, they work great.

Another idea is to put CFL bulbs in them since they are cooler to the touch. You'll need a bigger bulb to get the same amount of light, but I've enjoyed mine.

There is an added benefit that the constant on light source won't spook some subjects like a flash will.

Sounds like a great idea, and pretty cost-effective. Psmith, the link to Home Depot didn't work but I'm assuming you're referring to those cheap-ish round metal work lamps that have clips on the end? I will definitely look into this. I also read about fixing waxed paper over an on-camera flash to soften the light. Does that make sense, too?

Yes, the link was to a clamp on worklight with a 10 reflector dish for about $11. The problem with the on camera flash is that it is just so small you can't get light to wrap around your subject. You almost always end up with 'deer in the headlights' lighting. It is useful to use as fill flash when you have a stronger key light source (like the sun).

Beth - do you have a problem if I play around with this image?

Great name!

Peggy Sue, feel free. I look forward to seeing the result.

Itchy's got a sister named Scratchy, naturally.