too much "soft-focus," the "wedding" look for dogs is not my taste. In every photograph, there is a single plane of focus that is consistent across the the image - (photos are two dimensional). With these images i notice that while the subject is sharp, you likely, and unintentionally I'm sure, removed the plane of focus which catches my eye and makes me feel the images are over processed.

In addition the lack of contrast (because of the post processing) makes the shots look like you were shooting into the light or in other words the sun spilled into the lens, and not fancy photoshop work. Shallow depth of field and image isolation are important but not at the expense of contrast, focus plane and "pop." Another reason i think lens babies are a gimic. . . (i know you did not use one on these shots, i'm only giving you a reference).

The weimaraner shots look almost like you over did the "lighten shadows" which makes the images appear that there is a lack of contrast in the dog eyes, and a lack of contrast between the subject's coat and the background - again it's to "dreamy" for my taste.

The last two images are, in my, view better.

On the bright side, photography is art and you get to do whatever you want and assuming you have clients, whatever they pay you to do!

At the end of the day, you have everything you need to make a great image (in my view) in fact, even better, the images, with less PP, would, in my book, be more eye appealing and natural. The portrait look is okay for some dogs and for some shots, but the use of actions and programs and PS in some cases needs to be toned down.

I use a lot of interesting PP so i'm not saying it's not a good tool, i'm telling you what I see in your images.

Tony Bynum