# I like to get my pets to pose for me.



## dtornabene1 (Jan 7, 2009)

Well, not my own pets, but other people's pets.  So some say I have a way with animals. I am going to post some of those photographs for those to see. Here are two of a fun natured dog, Cassy. It takes a lot of time, but in the end, the shots are priceless.

Canon 30D, 1/250th, f/1.8, 50mm, ISO 100. No retouch.







Canon 30D, 1/250th, f/1.8, 50mm, ISO 100. No retouch. 






Thanks,

-Nick


----------



## sarallyn (Jan 8, 2009)

they both seem a bit soft to me.


----------



## basic jammer (Jan 8, 2009)

priceless. pity i cant get them to stay that still like with the 1st pic. 
some would've focused on the eyes,. like the way the ears are starting to blur up with the rest of the background. NICE


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 8, 2009)

IMO, shallow DOF portraits work best when the eyes are in focus.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 8, 2009)

sarallyn said:


> they both seem a bit soft to





sarallyn said:


> me.




This was taken with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM.  Besides the 85mm. this is one of the finest portrait lenses made (not getting into other manufacturers lenses purposely to avoid arguments).  At f/1.8 only the very slim line of focus will seem sharp while producing a softer look.  

Believe me, these are not shot soft, as in a soft focus lens.  I hate, no, despise soft focus pictures.  Only about 2 inches of focal plane is in focus, purposely blurring the background.

With that said, I like your criticism.  Doing this over, I would have shot this at f/2.2 or f/2.5.  This would have allowed for more focus and would have removed any potential soft feeling.  

Thank you.  Sometimes it is just hard to get it right without reviewing, shoot, review, shoot, etc.  By review I mean by other people such as yourself.  So sincerely, thank you.




basic jammer said:


> priceless. pity i cant get them to stay that still like with the 1st pic.





basic jammer said:


> some would've focused on the eyes,. like the way the ears are starting to blur up with the rest of the background. NICE




Thank you so much.  It may seem as though the pet is just sitting without a care in the world, but she's not.  It is hard to get the perfect focal point (read my response above to sarallyn).  Just a bit tighter on the aperture and I would have nailed it.  Thanks for the comment basic jammer!



Big Mike said:


> IMO, shallow DOF portraits work best when the eyes are in focus.




Big Mike, I couldn't agree with you more.  The problem is the nose.  At this aperture, f/1.8, focusing on the eyes would have thrown the nose so out of focus it just wouldn't have worked.  That the one thing I have learned most from dogs (at least ones with longer noses of course).

As I mention above, I should have gone with f/2.2 or f/2.5.  Still focusing on the center of the snout, I would have brought more focus into the eyes.  A lesson well learned.

Thank you for taking the time to view and comment.  I really appreciate it!

-Nick


----------



## Craddie (Jan 8, 2009)

"Believe me, these are not shot soft, as in a soft focus lens.  I hate, no, despise soft focus pictures.  Only about 2 inches of focal plane is in focus, purposely blurring the background."

Ummmm....why did you choose the 2 inches that halfway between the nose and the eyes?  You shot a portrait with a VERY shallow DOF and the result is a subject that is 95% soft.  

Nobody is saying you don't have a sharp lens on your camera, you just used an aperture that rendered your subject out of focus.

Great pose from the K9 though....


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 9, 2009)

Craddie said:


> "Believe me, these are not shot soft, as in a soft focus lens. I hate, no, despise soft focus pictures. Only about 2 inches of focal plane is in focus, purposely blurring the background."
> 
> Ummmm....why did you choose the 2 inches that halfway between the nose and the eyes? You shot a portrait with a VERY shallow DOF and the result is a subject that is 95% soft.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the compliment on the pose.

However, I answered this already.  Dogs with longer noses can not be focused on their eyes like humans.  I did make a mistake though in using f/1.8.  I should have used f/2.2 or f/2.5.

Thanks for the reply.

-Nick


----------



## Fraggo (Jan 9, 2009)

love the poses, i just wish i could get my dog to stay still long enough


----------



## uplander (Jan 9, 2009)

Just because the lens has a fast aperture does not mean that all pics at max ap. should work. You need more DOF to make these shots work.

They come off as soft and poorly down. Stop it done a bit and do over .


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 9, 2009)

Fraggo said:


> love the poses, i just wish i could get my dog to stay still long enough


 
Thanks!  It was not a 10 minute sesion with the client, I assure you.



steez said:


> great snapshots


 
Thanks steez!



uplander said:


> Just because the lens has a fast aperture does not mean that all pics at max ap. should work. You need more DOF to make these shots work.
> 
> They come off as soft and poorly down. Stop it done a bit and do over .


 
Thank you for taking the time to respond, however this has already been discussed above.

By the way folks, there is a big difference between soft and large aperture.  None of the photographs here are soft.  They have a shallow DOF (depth of field), but are not soft.  There is a difference and we need to do our homework before we use the wrong terminology.

-Nick

-Nick


----------



## uplander (Jan 9, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Thanks! It was not a 10 minute sesion with the client, I assure you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes but the shallow DOF sinks the shots!! This is the pro gallery and the pics don't cut it! 

No atta boys here!!!


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 9, 2009)

Beautiful smile on #1, LOL.

My 6 month old yellow Lab has a smile also.  If only I could get her to stop long enough to get a good shot of her smiling for me


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 9, 2009)

uplander said:


> Yes but the shallow DOF sinks the shots!! This is the pro gallery and the pics don't cut it!
> 
> No atta boys here!!!


 

That's your opinion and I thank you for taking the time, but it doesn't help.  I can tell from photographs posted you are not a fan of shooting wide open.  It takes a lot of bravery to shoot wider than f/4.  It is just not as forgiving, hence the comments above.

Also, what is an atta boy?  By that do you mean non-professional?  If so, read your earlier post about soft focus.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Im looking for constructive criticism.  Not meaningless comments.

-Nick


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 10, 2009)

mrodgers said:


> Beautiful smile on #1, LOL.
> 
> My 6 month old yellow Lab has a smile also. If only I could get her to stop long enough to get a good shot of her smiling for me


 

Thanks mrodgers!  Not my dog, but took a lot of shots to get this one.  I have another where DOF is not an issue, but the teeth are not showing.  That just doesn't seem as cute.

Good luck and here are some tips to get dogs to smile.  Best if it is warm, they'll pant.  Have them sit and stay.  Have the owner (if that's you, someone else) hold a treat over the photographer's head.  The dog must stay sitting or standing looking up.  No jumping!  Once the head looks up, the dog smiles.  Keep your camera clicking and see what happens.

Hope this helps with your Lab!

-Nick


----------



## ATXshots (Jan 10, 2009)

Cute poses, but I agree they would be way better if the dog was sharper.


----------



## Laika (Jan 10, 2009)

I can't say that I was a fan of the first shot the first time I opened the thread, but the more I looked at it the more I liked it - as this picture seems to grow on you. 

My first reaction was to wish that the depth of field allowed for the eyes to be sharper, but I think it makes for a much more interesting shot that the teeth are in focus which makes you concentrate on the smile. Pictures of dogs often lack originality, this picture is a truly unique shot.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 10, 2009)

ATXshots said:


> Cute poses, but I agree they would be way better if the dog was sharper.


 
Thanks ATXshots.  It's hard to see on a little LCD screen at the time and working with WiFi and my laptop while shooting a dog, just a bad idea.  So I shot and the client loves them (there a quite a bit more than these two) so in the end I'm happy and learned how to do it better.



Laika said:


> I can't say that I was a fan of the first shot the first time I opened the thread, but the more I looked at it the more I liked it - as this picture seems to grow on you.
> 
> My first reaction was to wish that the depth of field allowed for the eyes to be sharper, but I think it makes for a much more interesting shot that the teeth are in focus which makes you concentrate on the smile. Pictures of dogs often lack originality, this picture is a truly unique shot.


 
Thanks for taking the time Laika.  I am gald you like them.  I try to be as unique with pet portraits as possible.  I just love it when they smile.

-Nick


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 10, 2009)

OOH You have the MarkII I am officially jealous!  I can't wait one day!

I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos.  Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print.  In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt!  I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog.  I know dogs are TOUGH!


----------



## mat wildlife (Jan 11, 2009)

Agree that #1 is technically not that great, but it really cracks me up - a priceless image with that smile.


----------



## Craddie (Jan 11, 2009)

"That's your opinion and I thank you for taking the time, but it doesn't help.  I can tell from photographs posted you are not a fan of shooting wide open.  It takes a lot of bravery to shoot wider than f/4.  It is just not as forgiving, hence the comments above."

I don't think shooting wide open takes bravery, just judgment.  Any moron can buy expensive gear and take poor pictures with it because they lack the skill or knowledge to use it properly.  

What requires bravery is asking a client to pay for pictures that are out of focus.....or posting shots like these and offering your services to Mentor other photographers.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 11, 2009)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> OOH You have the MarkII I am officially jealous! I can't wait one day!
> 
> I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos. Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print. In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt! I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog. I know dogs are TOUGH!


 
Thank you, very nice cc and understanding of pet photograhy.



mat wildlife said:


> Agree that #1 is technically not that great, but it really cracks me up - a priceless image with that smile.


 
Thanks!



Craddie said:


> "That's your opinion and I thank you for taking the time, but it doesn't help. I can tell from photographs posted you are not a fan of shooting wide open. It takes a lot of bravery to shoot wider than f/4. It is just not as forgiving, hence the comments above."
> 
> I don't think shooting wide open takes bravery, just judgment. Any moron can buy expensive gear and take poor pictures with it because they lack the skill or knowledge to use it properly.
> 
> What requires bravery is asking a client to pay for pictures that are out of focus.....or posting shots like these and offering your services to Mentor other photographers.


 
This is the dumbest response I have read to date. If you believe the images are that bad, so bad in fact I should put my camera down and never call myself a professional, you're an idiot.

Do you know how many shots are taken for each page of _Sports Illustrated_? Of course you don't.

These photographs were posted for the sole reason of cc. Name one photographer, you can't and don't bother, that has never asked for cc on a photograph.

And yes, it does take guts to shoot with this lens. I'll do the math for you because you obviously have never shot with these apertures. At f/1.8 2.5 meters (thats about 7-8 feet) you have a DOF of 3.5 to 5 cm (1.5 to 2 inches).

There is an old saying, "f/8 and don't be late". I can tell from looking at your images in this forum you fall in this catagory.

Sorry, but you have no idea what it is like to shoot with this lens or at this DOF. As stated by JimmyJaceyMom, sharpening in pp would do it. However, I am a professional and I am will to post unedited photographs on this forum.

Get the equipment and shoot at these apertures and show your results. Until then, you have no idea what you are talking about.

-Nick


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 11, 2009)

*Let's get the big picture here*

Man, some of you guys are getting hung up on the wrong things. Step back and look what Nick's got here. #1 is great. And both pics are successful for the pet owner. 

I think changing the DOF or focus on #1 would only have made the picture something less. Something more conventional. So what if you can get everything in focus if you use this or that f-stop. So what if the DOF stretches from the nose to the ears? What are shooting, a breeder's guidebook? 

One of Diane Arbus's most famous portraits was of a woman whose lips are in focus but whose eyes are not. And yet the photo has tremendous impact. You wanna tell Arbus to use f5.6 instead of f2.8? (oh, sorry, you can't...she's long gone). 

Nick, you really captured life here. A dog's life. What personality comes through in this portrait!


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 11, 2009)

Dick Sanders said:


> Man, some of you guys are getting hung up on the wrong things. Step back and look what Nick's got here. #1 is great. And both pics are successful for the pet owner.
> 
> I think changing the DOF or focus on #1 would only have made the picture something less. Something more conventional. So what if you can get everything in focus if you use this or that f-stop. So what if the DOF stretches from the nose to the ears? What are shooting, a breeder's guidebook?
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Dick.  Its always nice when the true professionals realize the art of a photograph and can leave the science alone.

The owner now has a 30 x 40 masonite.  So, I guess it's not so bad of a photograph after all?  She paid $350 for it and thought it was under priced.

-Nick


----------



## uplander (Jan 11, 2009)

You ask for c&c, okay, you got c&c but anything negative you take great offense at while anything positive you take lavish bows( thank you, thank you). I don't think you really wanted any critique and comment you just wanted kudos for your work. Any time you got a negative comment you went on the offensive to tell the commenter on how wrong he/she was. I have no time for posters of this mind!
Good day thank you


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 11, 2009)

uplander said:


> You ask for c&c, okay, you got c&c but anything negative you take great offense at while anything positive you take lavish bows( thank you, thank you). I don't think you really wanted any critique and comment you just wanted kudos for your work. Any time you got a negative comment you went on the offensive to tell the commenter on how wrong he/she was. I have no time for posters of this mind!
> Good day thank you


 
I take what I said earlier back, this is the dumbest post yet.  

I do not take offense at cc to my work, read above posts.  I do take offense when individuals question my abilities as a photographer.   Critique the photograph and provide constructive criticism.  All for it.

I acknowledge everyone in this thread who had a suggestion other than praise.  I do not except mindless bs about my ability.  More importantly, this is the professional gallery.  I do not expect cc from non-professionals as it is so clearly identifiable here.

I should have put the disclaimer, only professionals need respond.

Notice, my comments to those who are established professionals.  Obviously you have not bothered to even read the thread.  This is unfortunate but common.  If you would have read the thread, you would see I am receptive to constructive criticism.

-Nick

P.S.  Only professionals need post.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 11, 2009)

Good Lord people, now I remember why I was gome from tpf so long, always 'issues' why is everyone around here so cranky?  

Dick Sanders:
The whole point is this, if you post a picture for cc on a photography site you will get all sorts of opinions. Some you will like, some you won't but the whole idea of it is to hear from those people so you can get a different perspective on your photo that may stick with you and help you grow as an artist.  
When I talk about getting the eyes in focus too it's because that's the way I would prefer it, doesnt mean that the poster should have done it but in some people's opinion it would be less distracting to veiwers, thereby drawing more attention to that awesome expression if the eyes weren't blurry.  That's all.  I wouldn't tell Diane Arbus or anyone else that they were 'wrong' when they created their art - but if they ASKED for opinions on the matter, wether is was Diane Arbus or my 5 year old I might give my own idea about what could be done to improve possibly along with what's right about it in my opinion.

This photography forum could be so great if everyone would stop worrying about what everyone else is saying to everyone else, give their own opinion on the photo(s) being asked for and move on to the next.  Sheesh.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 11, 2009)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> Good Lord people, now I remember...to the next. Sheesh.


 
Fair enough Kathi.  This is one of my chief complaints.  I don't mind you cc, appreciate it.  What I personally don't like is the comments on my professional ability.

Don't take this out on Dick.  He is just trying to make a point, and a good one.  There is a lot of cc on focus, color balance, noise, etc., however there is little on the _feeling_ of a photograph.

This is the professional gallery.  Therefore, I (and I'm sure Dick) don't mind cc on these topics, but it does get a little old to keep repeating the same things over and over.  Look and the first three or four post in this thread.  I had to keep telling people those subjects had been covered.  As to say, move on and give me something other than DOF.

I do sincerely appreciate your time and effort to write.  It is your honest sincerity that gets lost amongst others' ignorance.

Thanks,

Nick


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 12, 2009)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> I think round these parts soft focus is known more as slightly OOF and I see they aren't retouched as you have written above the photos. Sharpening for web could be the reason number two seems not as sharp as you may see in print. In number one it's obvious that the teeth and nose are sharp as you have previously posted but the eyes aren't which for some people in a portrait can be a turnoff, it's all in whatever you were going for and it's a hilarious picture so the owner of the anilmal will love it no doubt! I think you already agreed that a 3.5 or so would have been awesome seeing as with ISO 100 you were getting a 1/250 you would have had enough light to get up to 3.5 with fast enough SS to catch the dog. I know dogs are TOUGH!


 
*Kathi:* I think what we all want here are thoughtful, courteous opinions and critiques. You've certainly done that. And your post is valued. But a few of the responses were shallow and rude. I think we can all benefit from spending a little more time with the "Preview" post before we submit. 

By the way, in my own portrait work, I always try to get the eyes sharply in focus. That's my preference, as well. Still, Nick's dog portrait works as is. 

Finally, I twice saw a big retrospective show on Diane Arbus at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. And it was, indeed, a revelation to see that a portrait could be highly successful with the eyes out of focus. But more important... they showed her cameras, her darkroom equipment, her proof sheets, etc. She had a lot of bad pictures on those proof sheets. That was encouraging. She also wasn't a very good printer. The prints of her photos made by others in the show were much better than hers. So, you are right -- had she posted a pic here and asked for opinions, we could have offered our opinions on how to improve it (at least in the printing of it). 

*Advice for Nick:*  Resist responding to the rude ones.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 12, 2009)

Dick Sanders said:


> *Advice for Nick:* Resist responding to the rude ones.


 

:salute:

I try, but I'm just not as strong. 

Thanks Dick!

-Nick


----------



## uplander (Jan 12, 2009)

PT Barnum said it best!!!!


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 12, 2009)

Biting my own tongue:


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 13, 2009)

yeah, with many dog shots it's pretty much that you are danged if you do and danged if you don't (at least as far as eyes in focus).

I have seen many photos similar to the ones that Ls3D just posted in which the most common response was, this would have worked better if the nose was in focus as well. And then if both the nose and the eyes are in focus people will say, the background is too distracting, maybe you should use a shallower depth of field.


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 13, 2009)

Ya know, I just wanna pet -- and maybe even kiss -- these dogs. 

This advertising photography is really getting to me!


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 13, 2009)

Ls3D said:


> Biting my own tongue:


 

I love it! This is fun photography. Any no, I have no comments about DOF, WB, or compostion. It's just plain fun.

Let's get more of these in hear. Let's put our money were our mouth is and show some of these types of shots. 

Great Job!

-Nick


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 14, 2009)

It is a just a 1st test snapshot, and that test revealed I was still in tungsten from the night before!

He is a dream to shoot, well after he calms down a bit..  just sits there huffing dog breath like he knows I'm taking a picture :thumbup:

Here is Riley (the poser) and Marley (his sister) in another snapshot while I choose an aperture and exposure compensation for the harsh light.







I don't shoot people much and was warming up to take these for my mother's xmas party.  I was also able to video document the 'puppies' when she brought them home.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

So here is another pet photograph.  Yes I do keep eyes in focus, just depends on the subject.






This is a very old dog named Amber.  The point was to try and capture the look of activity in a rather sedentary dog.

Ls3D,

Those are two beautiful dogs!

-Nick


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 14, 2009)

Okay I'll join in the fun. Mine are just boring studio shots this is the only session I ever had that was just for a dog and no kids involves and it was ROUGH!












HAHA Technically I should have had a reflector on his right side here but I thought it was funny enough to include in the final images.  I have no idea what he is thinking but he looks guilty.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

Kathi,

These are great!  Also, these are technically difficult.  Black dog on a white back groud plays hell with your camera's metering.  I think you did a great job!  

Personally, the last one just kills me, I love it.

Thanks,

Nick


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 14, 2009)

That's the nice thing about studio lighting.  Before placing the dog in the frame I tested several setting with the balck blanket then I didn't have to worry about anything but getting the dog to sit and look.  That was a challenge all in it's own!


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 14, 2009)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> Okay I'll join in the fun. Mine are just boring studio shots. This is the only session I ever had that was just for a dog and no kids involved and it was ROUGH!


 
There's gotta be big money in 2-year olds and dogs, if it doesn't drive you nuts first! These are a lot of fun, Kathi. Just curious, did your pics go dark because of Photobucket? I find I have to lighten everything for Photobucket. Here's a lighter one. Do you like it, or does it change the personality of the shot too much?


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 14, 2009)

I actually didnt use photobucket but these are dark.  The dog is very black, when he goes in his cage with that blanket you cant see him haha! But the lightening looks good too. I like it.


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 14, 2009)

Here's a snap of my Teddy at 11 weeks. He's playing on a chair (the one he's allowed to destroy) and the black plastic tip is the opposite end of a cat feather toy. Cats actually prefer the black tip to the feather. That's right, try to figure the cat brain. (Kathi: You can edit this if you want).


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 14, 2009)

Awe what a cute kitty!  Adorable.  I needed a couple minutes break from my editing anyhow so I took out the slight magenta cast I was seeing on little Teddy and brightened it a tad.  I'm a sucker for overexposed look though so it might not reflect him in real life.  lol.

original:






edit:


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 14, 2009)

Yep, better. Thanks. And in real life Teddy is as pure as the driven snow. Well... there is that black spot on his head, which signifies the occasional bad behavior. Oh, and sorry to have posted a snapshot in the pro category (oops!). But it was nice to see this thread go from semi-hostile to nice!


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

O.K., I do cat portraits too.  Dick, yes there is a lot of money in pet portraits.  Why?  Because good pet portraits are hard to do.  And stop using Photobucket.  Use flickr, the image quality is well retained.

This is Duffy, the best cat that ever walked this world.  He will be missed.  This is him "giving me" dignified.






-Nick


----------



## ATXshots (Jan 14, 2009)

Awww....Duffy was so handsome! Love that photo


----------



## Dick Sanders (Jan 14, 2009)

What would we do without our furry friends? We remember fondly all of our past best buddies. They will indeed be missed. 

Okay, I've signed up at Flickr. That Photobucket quality change was annoying. Thanks!


----------



## uplander (Jan 14, 2009)

For myself I do wildlife photography but that doesn't pay the bills, for income I specialize in animal portraits of all kinds and more specifically sporting dog work. I'm currently in the field in southern AZ. working with bird dogs in the rare world of Mearn's Quail country doing a photo essay on the subject. I do no studio work and only work in a natural invirement. I was labelled earlier as a non pro by the OP. I just thought I would post some examples of work I have done for paying customers. 

English Setter on point







A German Wirehair caught having fun on an exercise run which hangs in the clients den.






Intensity






Another Happy Client





Ditto





and on and on












All of these were printed 13x19 or larger


----------



## kundalini (Jan 14, 2009)

I volunteer at my local shelter and put the animals photos on the website for adoption. Photos should be consider accordingly.  The space for each animal is rather small.

Jada


 

Lennox


 
Casey


 
Scooby


 
Lady


 
Krypto


 
Diesel


 
Bear


 
Boo Boo


 
Popcorn


 

To the best of my knowledge, they all have found a home.​


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jan 14, 2009)

kundalini - I just want to give booboo a big hug! OMG too cute.  And I have never seen a dog that looked like 'popcorn' before.  That's a very nice thing for you to do for your shelter.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 15, 2009)

ATXshots said:


> Awww....Duffy was so handsome! Love that photo


 
Thank you ATX!  I usually do not post photographs of a personal nature, but this is an easy exception to make.  I miss him with all my heart.  I am about six feet tall, and the cat would stand on his hind legs and stretch up to me reaching mid-chest.

He was huge!  Not fat, but still well over 30 lbs.  He was called a ca-dog.  This is because of his dog-like nature.  He would come when called.  Play fetch.  And so, so very much more.  

He was a handsome cat, and he is the reason I can never get another cat again.  There will never be another Duffy.



Dick Sanders said:


> What would we do without our furry friends? We remember fondly all of our past best buddies. They will indeed be missed.
> 
> Okay, I've signed up at Flickr. That Photobucket quality change was annoying. Thanks!


 
Thank you Dick.  They are always there for us.

Glad to see you at flickr.  Much better choice my friend.



uplander said:


> A German Wirehair caught having fun on an exercise run which hangs in the clients den.


 
This is a great photograph!  I actually laughed out loud!  Not that the others are bad, this one is just so good.



kundalini said:


> I volunteer at my local shelter and put the animals photos on the website for adoption. Photos should be consider accordingly. The space for each animal is rather small.
> 
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, they all have found a home.​


 
I love your effort and applaud your volunteer time.  Its just that looking at these makes me want to cry.  Animals are tough for me.  I hold an EMT license.  I have worked in Level 1 trauma centers in the heart of Chicago.  I have seen some of the worst injuries and trauma the human body can suffer.

Show me a dog without a home, a dog with a broken leg, kittens hungry in the cold, I shut down.  This is why I can be a doctor, not a veterinarian.  This last line is a long story, but we will just leave it as is.

Thank you all for making this such a positive thread.  It was rocky at first, but in the end, animals prevail!

Sincerely,

Nick


----------

