The Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum - Fine Art Landscape Photography

Salvage - what is acceptable?

Posted By: Skeeter

Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/28/08 02:00 PM

When photographing dogs in motion and attempting to fill as much of the frame with the subject as possible it seems to be inevitable that at least some of these images will have "missing" body parts...eg back feet, tail, etc outside of the frame.

In an image that is otherwise "good" what is an acceptable salvage in terms of cropping? For example, if the dog is in fully extended, running stride but the back feet are not in the frame can a good crop save the image? If so, where would the ideal placement of the crop be?

Thanks in advance for your comments
Posted By: Visceral Image

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/28/08 02:58 PM

Kim;

In my opinion, there is no set rules, it is judged photo by photo.
Posted By: Julie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/28/08 08:03 PM

It just depends. You have to either do it like you want it or like your clients like. I do a mix of both. What I like is not always what the client likes.

It depends on what is cut off on how tight I will go. Some parts you just can't live without
Posted By: Tony Bynum

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/28/08 08:08 PM

post the shot. . . .
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/28/08 09:15 PM

Kim,
without seeing the shot, it's a bit hard to say whether or not it can be salvaged. If it's a moving shot of a dog either in Conformation or Agility, then you really need to have all of the dog. That's one of those things where you err on the side of too much air around the dog and do your cropping in post-processing.

A lesson painfully learned is never crop too tightly in the camera. You can always crop later but you can't add stuff in later.

Good luck,

Jim
Posted By: Skeeter

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/30/08 01:51 PM

Quote:

post the shot. . . .



Ok, here's an example...feet cut off (as well as a tilted horizon line, the dog being rather low in the frame, a bit overexposed, etc). Rather difficult to compose shots like these when the dogs are moving at this kind of speed.

Obviously, this is not a "shining" lure coursing example by any means but may have potential for a salvage???

Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/30/08 03:07 PM

Kim,
leveling the image is easy in Photoshop so that's no problem. If you shot jpeg, simply use the ruler tool to trace the horizon line and then go to Image/Rotate/Arbitrary and it will be automatically set to give you a level horizon.

Also, if you shot RAW, you can level it in ACR.

And, if you shot RAW, you can recover the edges by saving it as a DNG and dropping it into the DNG Recover Edges application. That will give you at least the right rear foot. The rest is a matter of cropping. Whether it's a good coursing image, I can't say. Not my game. But in the Agility Trials I've shot, folks expect the entire dog.

Jim
Posted By: Julie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/30/08 05:10 PM

If the dog was stretched out in front, I would say crop it closer and emphasize the front. With it sorta being at a blah point in stride, I would just straighten it and leave it as is.
Posted By: Skeeter

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 04/30/08 09:39 PM

Thanks for the replies! It was more of a hypothetical question about salvage in general...this individual image (which I've trashed) was just used as an example.
Posted By: Julie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/01/08 12:04 AM

The image wasn't bad and if I were shooting an event I wouldn't have trashed it. It just wasn't ideal

I have one that I cut the back foot off on, so, I cropped it closer to make it look I meant to do it. It was at an ok point in stride and I liked the intensity in her eyes.

Posted By: Visceral Image

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/02/08 09:12 PM

Sometimes the image is strong enough without the missing piece. This is a full-frame image of a gull fishing that has sold many times, never had an editor complain about the missing wing part

[image]http://visceralimage.com/cpg/displayimage.php?album=topn&cat=0&pos=0[/image]

Attached picture 14963-gull.jpg
Posted By: Peggy Sue

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/02/08 09:55 PM

My continued reaction to this image is WOW!
Love It.
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/03/08 02:15 AM

John,
great image but that's different than what we're talking about. Nobody owns that gull and nobody cares that you cut off the wing. In dogs, the owners care. They are the ones that buy the image.

Jim
Posted By: Visceral Image

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/03/08 09:23 AM

Quote:

John,
great image but that's different than what we're talking about. Nobody owns that gull and nobody cares that you cut off the wing. In dogs, the owners care. They are the ones that buy the image.

Jim



My apologies
Posted By: Skeeter

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 02:24 AM

Quote:

Quote:

John,
great image but that's different than what we're talking about. Nobody owns that gull and nobody cares that you cut off the wing. In dogs, the owners care. They are the ones that buy the image.

Jim



My apologies



No need to apologize! Dog sport people typically do not care about perfect pictures, particularly the ones that don't show or breed dogs (which is definitely the majority of us). I've had people get all googly-eyed over crappy action shots from a point&shoot camera lol!

I asked the question because "I" care, and because I'm interested in what others do in similar situations. And as I'm fiddling with these cast-off images I've discovered that some of them can be used creatively in other ways, such as collages and montages.

I just wanted to comment as well...not everybody who visits this site, or posts to it from time to time, endeavours to pursue photography as a business venture. For me personally, this is a hobby. I do aspire to be "good" one day but that has nothing to do with making money...

Oh, btw...the gull shot is absolutely FANTASTIC!!!!
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 12:22 PM

Kim,
it's all about the word "salvage" which to me almost always means how can I make it sale-able. If you mean what can I do with these images to use them artistically, that's a whole 'nuther matter and what John has done with the gull is a perfect example of creative cropping.

However, a note about salvage: when we shot our first dog show over 5 years ago, the former photographer and the show's superintendent conspired to make sure that we would end up shooting the Best In Show shot after dark, outside. As you can imagine, this isn't the easiest thing to do with on-camera flash and the state-of-the-art at that time. The image was less than wonderful. Acceptable, but definitely not something you'd use in an ad.

However, we had been shooting the dogs in Group so we'd have candids as well as formals of all the top dogs and we managed to get a bunch of great action and interaction shots of the BIS dog -- a Corgi. Linda took those shots and created a collage along with the BIS formal and we sent that to the owner at no charge. He liked it so much, he used it for a Dog News cover a few months later.

That was "salvage" in the extreme: we saved the shot and ourselves in terms of our reputation as show photographers. And turned a potentially disastrous situation into a win/win for everyone concerned.

Jim
Posted By: Julie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 12:36 PM

Quote:


No need to apologize! Dog sport people typically do not care about perfect pictures, particularly the ones that don't show or breed dogs (which is definitely the majority of us).



Kim, I gotta disagree with this. Dog sport people DO care about the photos, just as much as breeders. If you are charging very little, they will buy more. If you are charging what a professional will, they will expect professional photos.

It is easy to get googly eyed over "good enough" photos if they are free, or very cheap. When you start asking real money for them, people will only buy if they are excellent

A missing body part isn't that big of a deal if there is some other factor in the photo that wows you. The one I posed of Dot is coming into the frame and you have eye contact. You see a dog that is intense on the lure. The missing foot wouldn't be a deal breaker.

So, don't sell people short by saying "dog sport people don't care". They do. Even if they don't breed or advertise
Posted By: Skeeter

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 01:31 PM

Quote:

Kim,
it's all about the word "salvage" which to me almost always means how can I make it sale-able. Jim



I meant salvage in terms of "usable" rather than sale-able. To date, I've never charged anyone for an image...something about it just doesn't seem right to me. That said, I really only share with friends, and people who I know will really appreciate the gesture.

My intentions are to charge a small fee this year but whether or not that will happen is another story...
Posted By: Skeeter

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 02:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:


No need to apologize! Dog sport people typically do not care about perfect pictures, particularly the ones that don't show or breed dogs (which is definitely the majority of us).



Kim, I gotta disagree with this. Dog sport people DO care about the photos, just as much as breeders. If you are charging very little, they will buy more. If you are charging what a professional will, they will expect professional photos.

It is easy to get googly eyed over "good enough" photos if they are free, or very cheap. When you start asking real money for them, people will only buy if they are excellent

A missing body part isn't that big of a deal if there is some other factor in the photo that wows you. The one I posed of Dot is coming into the frame and you have eye contact. You see a dog that is intense on the lure. The missing foot wouldn't be a deal breaker.

So, don't sell people short by saying "dog sport people don't care". They do. Even if they don't breed or advertise



Well, you've twisted my words, Julie I said they don't care about "perfect" pictures (perfect meaning from a photographers/artists perspective), not that they don't care.

After 10 years of competition in a variety of dog sports...agility, flyball, disc dog, lure coursing, formal obedience, rally obedience, dock dogs, etc, I have noticed that dog sport people in my country and region are not as nit picky about photos...sometimes I am shocked at what people will buy from the "pro's".

Regarding "wow" factor...that can be quite subjective, and also a bit biased when evaluating a photo of your own dog (human emotion tends to override everything else). For example, I have an agility photo of my stafford, Gus, that I absolutely love...his body is contorted in a very odd and humourous position coming off the teeter, but it is really not a great photo from a photographic perspective. It's underexposed, poorly composed, and the focal length of the lens was not long enough to do the subject any real justice.

To the photographers credit, he was shooting film with a manual focus lens in less than ideal shooting conditions. Regardless, he captured a moment for me, his money was well earned, and I will always treasure this less-than-perfect photo. Imagine what I would have missed if he had "culled" it.

Generally, dog sport people will pay for these special "moments" even when there are photographic flaws in the presentation. What is "special" to them is personal, subjective, and emotionally charged...
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 03:09 PM

Kim,
you originally posted the question so if you think the image is "salvagable" based on whatever criteria you use for the term, then why ask?

Nobody's questioning your experience with dogs. You seemed to be questioning whether or not the rest of us would do something with the image you posted and my response was based on whether or not I felt I could sell it. When I shoot events, that's the only criteria I can use. It ain't about art in those cases; it's about negotiable American currency.

When I'm shooting for me -- for fun -- my criteria may be different. But even then, my best images aren't usually "accidents" that managed to have something special in them. Of course, every time I get the image I imagined, it's pure luck. And the harder I work, the luckier I get .

Again, if you think that original image meets your criteria for "salvage" then that's all that matters. The rest of us represent a different perspective and different opinions. But that's all they are -- opinions.

Cheers,

Jim
Posted By: PossumCorner

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 03:25 PM

Quote:

... My intentions are to charge a small fee this year but whether or not that will happen is another story...


Kim I wrote a long reply taking the points that you and Jim and Julie have made and giving my spin on them. Deleted it all. Just do it, make it happen, some of the shots on your website are quite stunning, both the portraits and action shots. People are always delighted to get something for nothing, but the longer you give good work away, the more difficult it becomes to ask the same people to start paying for the shots. Put a fair price on your work and people will value it more.

I won't go into the salvaging area. Like others I took salvage to mean somehow rescuing a rubbish shot to make it acceptable. Realise this is not at all what you meant.
Posted By: Julie

Re: Salvage - what is acceptable? - 05/05/08 04:11 PM

I wrote a response and like PC, I deleted it. I am not sure how to word things to not offend you. Your photography is very good. Good enough that I would think you would want to hear real opinions and not just fluff you tell people that are just starting out.

Maybe if you will give a hint of what kind of response you would like, I am sure people will be happy to help. We all have different experiences and I can only speak from mine.
© 2024 The Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum