Agility Photographers

I agree with the general consensus here. I am rarely impressed by the photos I see posted for sale by the "pros". Photography should be an art-form of expression, but instead it seems too often the same shots over and over without regard of capturing a memorable image. And the prices just seem to get higher.

I think anyone taking photos in "sports" mode by definition don't know how to use their camera to the best of their own ability. Pro-cameras do not have a "sports" mode - they expect the photographer to have skills, so if you can tell that's what they are using you might want to avoid feeding their delusion.
I wonder if any of them have actually ran an agility course themselves -- having a photographers card pushed in you face on leaving the ring with your dog is just the worst experience that says it all.

Then we have the video people who sell substandard video as "HD". Almost anyone with a steady hand could do just as well with their iphone!

Would be nice to see some quality for our $'s, but their service has to be profitable for them to come back every weekend.
 
How lucky am I that this great person takes photos at pretty much every trial around here of pretty much every dog, and just uploads it to flickr?
I stumbled across this and was like omg how do I pay her... and my friends said huh?:confused2: You just download it... Her name is Lynn and she does this for free... just for the fun of it.
I told you guys before how grateful I am in another thread... three great pics from Mr Toffee's first trial! amazing! I also thought seeing some other professional pics I am thinking these are actually great quality I thought when you browse through them?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnsphotos/7009533941/
 
I can't say for Nikon, as I don't use them, but the Canon 5D and 7Ds can be set to take rapid fire shots, so yes, the high end cameras do take sports mode shots... it's just not specifically called sports mode like it is on the digital rebels.
The Canon 5D Mark II was what they handed all of the people off the street the photography booth at the cluster hired to take pictures. You could tell they had no clue. I stood ringside watching one one morning... While he had a great angle to shoot them, he wouldn't take pictures of the weave poles, and took pictures of EVERY jump, regardless of if he was taking pictures of the dogs butt. Every obstacle you could hear the 'click click click click' going. It made me twitch... I can't stand to sit there and listen to them doing that.
 
HopeShelties said:
I can't say for Nikon, as I don't use them, but the Canon 5D and 7Ds can be set to take rapid fire shots, so yes, the high end cameras do take sports mode shots... it's just not specifically called sports mode like it is on the digital rebels.
Click to expand...

OK, wait a minute here.

I think two things are being confused.

"Sports" mode, changes ALL the settings to what the camera thinks is appropriate for the light conditions, changes the focus type, and self adjusts as light changes. I have used it, and find it's generally not fast enough to really capture still photos of fast dogs.

All cameras, as far as I know will fire in "bursts". Meaning X number of frames per second. This setting is independent from "sports" mode or any other settings. If you guys are implying that "real" photographers don't shoot fast moving things in bursts, because they should have magical timing to nail every picture... I think you are way off, and it's actually pretty insulting.

Not every photographer has magical timing. Yes, it can be learned, but quite honestly, why is it a necessity? and why does it define a good photographer? And does that mean that people who are handed a camera, with the settings already set, who have better timing and a better "eye", even though they don't know how to turn the camera on and off, are somehow "better"?

I quite honestly don't care how a picture is taken. As long as the end result is good, then why are we so picky about the method?
 
Yes, I am saying someone who shoots in rapid fire is not a good photographer as they are lucking into shots. There is not the same skill involved in taking ten shots and getting one good one from the bunch as someone who has taken the time to learn to shoot and time things properly and get a brilliant shot in one shot. I wouldn't say someone who doesn't know how to use their cameras settings is any better though. I think to label yourself a professional photographer you should be able to do both.
I can hand my fiancé my camera and have him just hold the shutter at each obstacle and even he, who knows nothing can get good shots... Simply because he is catching every stride over every obstacle. That is what annoys me... I won't pay someone with no real skill to speak of for pictures.
Before digital, real photographers did not shoot in rapid fire. They had to learn to compose the shot. The picture you were purchasing was a product of years of work learning to do what they do. It was always neat to see one of the best saddlebred photographers photos back at their booths. The amount of photos timed perfectly was amazing. It was a true testament to their skill, being able to time those photos like they did.
I have a problem with paying someone for a photo that was shot without skill. I can put my photos taken by Tien and put them next to a photo taken by the one Ashley mentioned and can see the difference in quality. It really does make a difference when someone has put time and effort into getting the perfect shot.
Being able to operate the camera and understand it, and understand composition, lighting, and timing is part of what separates the professional photographer from the amateur... Though that line has been blurred considerably. It's like horse trainers... There are those great trainers who are truly worth the money they charge and get fantastic results from the horses they train.. And then there are those who hang their shingle out, call themselves trainers, charge the same money, and really have no business training. Anybody can call themselves a trainer, but not all of them are worth sending a horse to.
I am picky because I learned to do it all. I am a professional freelance horse show photographer. I did have to learn skill... Not just have some money and luck into good photos. The good photos I take are a result of many horse shows sitting railside, and going to barns and shooting while trainers worked, or lessons were going on, learning to time my photos right. I didn't one day pick up a camera, old down a button and suddenly have great pictures appear because I could just follow the subject and continue shooting frame after frame taking ten shots and getting one good one. I do not respect someone being paid to take photos like that.
I wonder how many of them, if you took away rapid fire, could catch the same money worthy shot.
 
Last edited:
HopeShelties said:
I can put my photos taken by Tien and put them next to a photo taken by the one Ashley mentioned and can see the difference in quality. It really does make a difference when someone has put time and effort into getting the perfect shot.
Click to expand...

So then why not let the quality of the shot be the measure, regardless of the methods? One would think that photographers who have learned the art, and who have the great results would rise to the top and be in demand.

Another thing to think about with burst mode is that it tells a story. Having seven sequential pictures of a dog taking off, then crashing a jump can be very informative, where one picture would not. Same with herding or any other "sport." I would think this is a bonus of digital photography.
 
The thing is, there aren't that many great ones out there. Tien isn't from this area. She would come down only for the cluster. Every other photographer in this area is a hold the shutter photographer. There *isnt* a quality option. There also isn't more than one photographer at a trial, except at the cluster. So, someone producing lower quality photos has a monopoly on the market. It has become different at the Saddlebred shows. Anything of a decent size usually has a pro in ring, and 2 freelancers outside the ring. There are options.
And, I still will not stoop to buying a photo from someone using rapid fire. I will not waste my money on methods I think are, to be honest, a cheap way around learning to shoot a photo. I am not going to help support these people when I don't believe in the way they take photos. The best I can do is let my money do the talking, and not pay them for their photos.
 
ClantyreSheltie said:
OK, wait a minute here.

I think two things are being confused.

"Sports" mode, changes ALL the settings to what the camera thinks is appropriate for the light conditions, changes the focus type, and self adjusts as light changes. I have used it, and find it's generally not fast enough to really capture still photos of fast dogs.

All cameras, as far as I know will fire in "bursts". Meaning X number of frames per second. This setting is independent from "sports" mode or any other settings. If you guys are implying that "real" photographers don't shoot fast moving things in bursts, because they should have magical timing to nail every picture... I think you are way off, and it's actually pretty insulting.
Click to expand...

Not speaking for others, but I agree with you.
There is "sports" mode as you describe and then there is bursts in various numbers of fps. I was not referring to the fps nor intending to insult anyone.
The professional level Nikon's do not have a sports mode but of course they allow for burst mode and if that's what is needed then a pro will use it - that's why companies like Nikon market high end cameras for pros that use them for sports action and different high end cameras for studio work - neither have a sports mode but they have different fps ratings.

Go to the link k9creationz posted ... if you inspect his photo's metadata you see that he is not using sports mode, but has put his camera into Aperture priority.
 
Toffee's Mom said:
How lucky am I that this great person takes photos at pretty much every trial around here of pretty much every dog, and just uploads it to flickr?
I stumbled across this and was like omg how do I pay her... and my friends said huh?:confused2: You just download it... Her name is Lynn and she does this for free... just for the fun of it.
I told you guys before how grateful I am in another thread... three great pics from Mr Toffee's first trial! amazing! I also thought seeing some other professional pics I am thinking these are actually great quality I thought when you browse through them?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnsphotos/7009533941/
Click to expand...
that is a great pic of Toffee! And nice jumping too!
 
Sealtainn said:
but has put his camera into Aperture priority.
Click to expand...

Yech. I rarely use aperture priority for action shots. I use shutter priority, and pray to the camera gods that I can get it without the f2.8L I want. : ) Manual is even better, then I control EVERYTHING (muahahahaha)

A few weeks ago, I was shooting my mothers Border Collie out in a field, because we needed "big girl" photos. I set the camera, and handed it to my dad. I find that once the camera is set, usually anyone can click the button. I just tell them where to sit, then I can get the dog doing what I want it to do.

OK, this theory works really well with people who don't know anything. They just click away. It does not work so well with someone who refuses to zoom in, and who thinks the settings need "tweaked". I ended up with a whole bunch of overdone, blown out, and fuzzy pictures and was freaking out. I finally figured out that he was "fixing" my settings as he went. Grr. Delete. Delete. Delete. I called my mother and told her Dad was fired from picture duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top