kyla,
Thanks, the way the clouds frame the dog's head is a lucky accident--not retouched.

This is Maya, a 6-year old Great Dane, who weighs in at 140 pounds.

jfka...thank you! I took this just last night at a local dog park where I knew that great danes were common.

As I was lying on the ground, many other dogs mobbed me, licking my face and ears...and the camera! I was laughing so hard it was difficult to hold the camera steady.

@kadenajack,
Thumbnails are so important, so I'm glad you got the desired effect at thumbnail size.

You have a good eye. While I was being mobbed by the dogs, I accidentally changed the setting on my wife's litle point-n-shoot to the macro (flower) setting, and the pooch's head was a bit out of range, I think.

"As I was lying on the ground, many other dogs mobbed me, licking my face and ears...and the camera! I was laughing so hard it was difficult to hold the camera steady"

j'aurai adoré assister à cette scène ! :-))

King, great story behind the shot.

GREAT DANE
powered by slobber

jfka, moi aussi!

jfka...Merci. J'imagine qu'il a semblé joli drôle.

George...thanks! Will we hear from you a bit this week? and see some work? Hope so!

Ou so they make people laugh! Good thing then!
I like the colors about it!
When I saw the thumbnail I thought somebody did really bad on cutting out the dog infront of the blue screen!
Well guess that wasn't the fact ;)

Congrats on another feature!

Folks,

Thanks for the feature!

I really didn't even notice that the shape of the sky followed the shape of the dog's head until after posted the image and saw the thumbnail. Then I said to myself, "Rats...they'll think that's fake!"

Um, for my sins, twas I that got it featured. Not what I would consider your usual submission. Perhaps I should not try to pigeonhole. Well done!

mooch...Thanks very much. I have more-or-less pigeonholed myself and am trying to get out. I find that when I create a new image for the theme, my experiences with W.S. and the images and comments of other participants (including you!) have a distinct influence on my photography, while the style evident in my archives is quite different.

I must admit, the thumbnail really does make it look contrived, but after you open it up, it seems it can't be. Crazy!

Congrats King! It's quite remarkable that the outline of the clouds so magically follows the Dane's head. C'mon now - you're not pulling one over on us are ya?!? Huh??? Eh??? Hmmm?!?!??!?? A well deserved feature nonetheless. BTW, that's two firsts in a row. Woohoo.

@George...The outline of the clouds is a complete fluke.

I keep no secrets about my work and never have--I believe in sharing. If you are well-versed in photographic techniques, then my witholding information won't keep you from outdoing me, so I might as well reveal all and share in the glory.

...and I may want you to help me in the future. :>)

Wow, I've just learned that the clouds are not retouched... then it's a fantastic catch, and not a great postprocessing, as I thought.
Congrats, King!

awesome

@king : I just want to know the Background object (cluds) is it real ?? cause it looks unreal, the clouds look arounding the dog face.

Ok, King, you can tell the truth now: this is a fake, isn't it?

The more I'm watching it the harder it is to belive it's real...
Still, as long as you say it's real I belive you.

Folks,
I don't deny that the image is a composite...dog with cloud background--many of you have already noticed that. All I'm saying is that I didn't notice the "dog's head" shape of the sky area around the dog's head until after I posted the image--I already had enough details to keep me occupied.

Here are the two images, dog and clouds, full frame, side by side.

http://www.kingdouglas.com/weeklyshot/MayaClouds.jpg

Other than the normal curves, levels, etc., neither of the images was retouched (i.e., cloned, stamped, duplicated, erased, etc.). Obviously, the dog's leash disappeared when I created the "dog" layer. I put the vertical dog image approximately in the center of the horizontal cloud image. I moved it around a bit until I was happy with the positioning but, old and dense as my brain cells are, the fact that the sky was such a good fit for the dog's head totally eluded me. Like I said, I wouldn't have done that on purpose because it looks so fake. Even I can see that. :>)

Ach and so the smoke and the mirrors have been removed. I am glad that I pointed out the post-processing becuase the light didn't look right and now I know why. I thought that this was a good shot becuase of the way you had shot it. In such a manner as to make the dog look big. Now it turns out you took a snapshot of a dog and stuck it over a cloud. I feel somewhat duped.

I am not averse to photoshop manipulation, two of my recent images were manaipulated but, I think what I did differently was by the very nature of said images, inform the viewer of this trick and allow them to draw their own conclusion. Same with the apple on this theme, we know it is made up and can thus judge the image in an informed manner.

In summary, two mediocre shots, badly put together conveying something that you didn't really take all that much time to achieve. I feel aggrieved, mainly that I judged it on merits that weren't there, but mainly for my own stupidity giving the post-processing the benefit of the doubt because I like the perspective.

Well done, on all counts.

I can never write photogpraher correctly using a keyboard and neither can I seemingly write because correctly either.

photogrpaher photogrpaher, see, sub-conscious...

@mooch...let's argue!...unless you are simply inserting the knife and twisting it for the sheer joy of doing so. :>)

Neither the cloud image nor the dog image were snapshots. No smoke and mirrors, either. I was simply waiting for someone, anyone, to state unambiguously that the clouds in this image could not possibly have existed behind that particular dog at that particular time. What no one so far has mentioned is that the clouds are more in focus than the tip of the dog's nose.

The cloud image was not a shapshot. I deliberately shot a series of cloud photos in order to use them when needed. I still do that from time to time, when the clouds are especially photogenic. Photographers in the nineteenth century did the same thing. I can point out (in books from my library) such composite photos made over 100 years ago. It is a long-established and respected technique in b/w printmaking.

The dog image was not a snapshot. I did my very best on the dog photo, lying on the ground, holding the camera as still as possible, given that I was being pestered by other dogs, working to get the right angle, the right look on the dog.

I knew I was going to make a composite image using a dog image and a cloud imge before I left for the dog park. I knew there would be a Great Dane at the park. I knew I would be lying on the ground. I knew pretty much how this photo was going to turn out before I opened Photoshop. I did a good job of compositing the image...do you see any clumsiness or flaws in my dog selection (made with my Wacom tablet and pen)...do you see the fine tufts of hair nicely separated from the sky? I'm working hard in Photoshop on creating layers from selections. I hope you think I did a good job.

I didn't lie or mislead in my few statements above. The sky shape around the dog's head was simply a coincidence.

Oh, yes, one more thing. Would Picasso have been a better artist if he didn't work so damned fast? I took the amount of time necessary to create the image I wanted to post on W.S. Its just a photo, for crying out loud.

King, you amaze me. It seems that no matter what you submit, it is capable of provoking a controversy.

I left a question for you back in the bridges theme, long after the fact, and gather you never saw it. If you have a moment, I am still keen to hear your views...
http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/bridges/response/23/

Inserting knives and twisitng are not my style, were this my style I would out and out say that the image is crap and not justify my comment. I think you'll agree that I did put forth an argument, rather than merely a statement. I like debate, even if I can be interpreted as heated in my engagement. I prefer the term, passion.

Well, you see, although it was a 'white' description on my part and your argument was the 'black' aspect of the argument (black and white) I suppose I am wrestling (as I so often do) with the use of photoshop.

I did not look at the clouds as being contrived in the same sense as many others, as I didn't notice. What I found most disconcerting (and alluded to) was the light, it seems/ed, off. This, it transpires would be due to the cloud and dog exposure, differing, naturally. I couldn't put my finger on it and as I said, I now know why. In fact, last night I was on my laptop and only made my original, tentative, comment because I couldn't tell whether it was the screen/angle of the screen or truly your shot. I am at a desktop in work; it's the shot.

Now, the nub of the question for me lies in, well, you shot the dog at the right angle. Correct? Why paste in the clouds? Now I have a feeling that it is due to the backdrop. I don't know, as a photographer, unless I am out and out obviously manipulating an image, I like to reflect what I see. I don't like gimmicks.

Also, you mentioned composite images being produced over 100 years ago, I think were this black and white that it would suit the image somewhat more, eliminating as it would the contrasting exposures.

It is not a fight for a fights sake, more a debate.

Inserting knives and twisitng are not my style, were this my style I would out and out say that the image is crap and not justify my comment. I think you'll agree that I did put forth an argument, rather than merely a statement. I like debate, even if I can be interpreted as heated in my engagement. I prefer the term, passion.

Well, you see, although it was a 'white' description on my part and your argument was the 'black' aspect of the argument (black and white) I suppose I am wrestling (as I so often do) with the use of photoshop.

I did not look at the clouds as being contrived in the same sense as many others, as I didn't notice. What I found most disconcerting (and alluded to) was the light, it seems/ed, off. This, it transpires would be due to the cloud and dog exposure, differing, naturally. I couldn't put my finger on it and as I said, I now know why. In fact, last night I was on my laptop and only made my original, tentative, comment because I couldn't tell whether it was the screen/angle of the screen or truly your shot. I am at a desktop in work; it's the shot.

Now, the nub of the question for me lies in, well, you shot the dog at the right angle. Correct? Why paste in the clouds? Now I have a feeling that it is due to the backdrop. I don't know, as a photographer, unless I am out and out obviously manipulating an image, I like to reflect what I see. I don't like gimmicks.

Also, you mentioned composite images being produced over 100 years ago, I think were this black and white that it would suit the image somewhat more, eliminating as it would the contrasting exposures.

It is not a fight for a fights sake, more a debate.

mooch...right, mate.

What I was going for was effect--to make the dog look as tall (big) as possible, so eliminating the stuff in the background helped, in my opinion. You haven't pointed out yet that the dog's head in my posted image is relatively smaller than the one I posted to my website. I used Photoshop Distort>Lens Correction to emphasize the angle of view.

I'm just having fun with photogaphy here. Often the images I put on film as an advertising photographer were so tedious and dull and time-consuming and meaningless (except for the money) that just shooting for fun as an amateur is a delight by contrast.

I have forty years of experience in creating complex images without the use of Photoshop. For instance, the following three images, all on the theme of magic and following the same compositional shape, were shot in-camera on a single piece of 4x5 transparency film with no retouching, before Photoshop was invented:

http://www.kingdouglas.com/Journal/Images/Page07/Butterflies.jpg

http://www.kingdouglas.com/Journal/Images/Page07/MagicWand.jpg

http://www.kingdouglas.com/Journal/Images/Page07/DoveCards.jpg

The poor scans, small size and poor reproduction do not do justice to the three images.

Putting a dog in front of some clouds using Photoshop doesn't even reach the level of triviality. (boy, does *that* sound stuffy--what a PITA)

@Craig...you'll see that I answered your question...adequately I hope. If not, you can write me at king at kingdouglas.com

No, I agree, doing stuff for money can be a little spirit crushing.

I didn't check out the links but will once I get back from my evenings events and perhaps this will further enlighten me.

Cheers.

Craig said, "It seems that no matter what you submit, it is capable of provoking a controversy."

It does seem that I set off sparks, even when I don't intend to. But I like dialog and getting folks to talk about photography, whatever their opinions. Some folks get no comments on their fine photographs and that seems to upset some of them.

On the other hand, I and others have spent considerable time and effort commenting on a particular photograph, only to get no response whatsoever from the person who submitted the photograph. That's a downer to.

Dialog is good. Sharing thoughts about photography is good. Learning from one another is good.

Thanks, then, for your comments!

King - thanks for the answer to my question back in "Bridges". I had never even heard of converting to sRGB, so that is very interesting. i will try it out.

King,

congratulations - I don't care it's a composite, because even then it's a huge find.

King, I am just checking out WS for the first time in days and am very jealous. This morning a friend brought over his 1.5 yr. old black and tan brindle Great Dane, that he just got yesterday, so it could meet my Australian Cattle Dog of the same age. The light bulb went on when I saw it, what a great subject for BIG -- you stole my idea, so now what am I going to do. :) boo hoo.

Great shot! Just to add a little something to the whole composite discussion - I have scores of cloud images for just those moments and regularly swap out a nice fluffy cloud sky for a crappy grey one.

Tracy...sorry to rain on your parade! :>)

Thanks for your comment regrding having a library of cloud images handy.

Does anyone know if you can automate resizing of images? I have tried recording what I do and then trying to use the automation but it doesn't work.

Ideally I'd like to pick a folder (of say 200; 3 -7mg jpegs) and then automate them to 700 in size (for web use) as I have a conflict of sizes for my two different sites (only recently have I caved and decided to go for 700 on both).

I knwo this isn't the right place to ask but I know King will have an idea but all feedback would be appreciated, either here or at: tobiasreynolds(at)yahoo.com

@mooch
http://www.faststone.org/FSResizerDetail.htm

the best I'vee seen. for FREE. :-)

@mooch...sure, it's easy in Photoshop. The only complication is that you have to decide in advance whether you want to adjust the width or height. There may be a way to tell Photoshop to look for the longest side, but I don't know how to do that.

Briefly, you create a standard Photoshop "action," which will be any combination of things you want to do to all the images in a directory. Next, you create what is called a "droplet," which is only a small executable file that contains the action you created earlier.

You save the droplet in the directory where you want all the action to take place, so to speak, the drag and drop the images onto the droplet (that's why it's called a droplet).

You can save a copy of the original images in a different directory, so you don't overwrite the originals...that's part of the original action.

Saving is probably the trickiest part of the action, because you don't want to have to click "Yes" for every file. You can set it up either way.

Good luck!

@mooch, go get adobe photoshop lightroom!!! Once you got it you can never let go of it!
Cheap and powerfull, and it totally integrates/extagrates photoshop!
Since the final release it's a lot faster too!
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

btw, I like (ab)using Kings picture-comments as chat rooms =)

... nice collar

I mean, neckless,... or both...

ChriZ...it's any open door. Everyone is welcome, the more the merrier.

So Lightroom helps to automate Photoshop tasks such as the one Mooch describes? I didn't know that. I haven't found much appeal in Lighroom so far. I'll take another look.

P.S. ...it's spelled "necklace." "Neckless" means "having no neck." :>)

Gee... oh well this dog has a neck I guess...!

erm, file -> export -> check "constrain maximum size" -> specify range

@ChriZ...file -> export -> check "constrain maximum size" -> specify range"

I don't have this specific option in Photoshop CS2. If you are referring to mooch's task and the fact that I don't know how to "contrain maximum size," could you explain a bit more? We need something that can be included in a P.S. Action.

That's in lightroom!
I was never really talking about a P.S. action...
Since it's so easy in LR

As for the action i'd just do two droplets, vertical and horizontal... and then automate save for web.

But I guess you're trying to have just one droplet hmm...

In photoshop you can use File -> Automate -> Fit Image to resize quickly. You don't need to make an action for that part. It looks at the image and makes the longest side the value you specify. So, for instance if you want 750 for WS you enter 750 in both height and width and it will adjust the shorter side accordingly.

ChriZ...I don't have any problem with two droplets, but you have to first separate the landscape format images from the portrait format images. A minor irritant.

I'm still not sold on Lightroom, even at the $199 price. I can't see that if offers me much that I might want to do that I can't do in Photoshop CS2. Also, my photography budget is tightly constrained these days...pity me.

@kadenajack...that's it, then! I didn't know that it would select the longest side, and couldn't find any information to that effect in the Help files.

Great--thanks! Who needs Lightroom?

mooch...did you read this?

@ChrisZ...sorry about my "Who needs Lightroom?" remark. I made it in context of the fact that I can't afford Lightroom if I wanted it.

:>)

One of my coworkers showed me that trick a few months back and I've been using it every since. I used to have two actions to do the same thing.

Ah kewl, found that in the production set just now too!
Now you just gotta batch it!
file -> automate -> batch -> select action -> select source -> specify output!

The whole thing is a lot more elegant in lightroom...
@King, have you downloaded the new trial at all?
give it a chance!!!

ChriZ...will you lend me $199?

well, the trial is free! but won't really last forever...

Ok, ok. Sorry for not acknowledging the input hereI have had a few issues these last couple of days. I will look into this further when I get the chance and crown either King (well, he has a crown!) or ChriZ the champion of automation.

I know you would both love to be considered "automatons" let alone king of them.

We continue...