Agility Photographers

[k9kreationz]

I called my mother and told her Dad was fired from picture duty.

Hehehe. I have tried to fire my husband from video duty, but then I wouldn't have any videos. I guess crappy agility vids are better than nothing.

Yes, I am saying someone who shoots in rapid fire is not a good photographer as they are lucking into shots.

I'm like you...sort of. When I first learned, I learned on a manual film camera. I was told if you can't get what you want in one shot, then you're really not that great because most times you ONLY HAVE one shot. I was not a good photographer, LOL.

With the age of digital here, I'm better because I can make a guess at what I need (settings), shoot and see how off I am, and I learn from that. I still aim to get that one great shot, because it's been ingrained in me that that is what makes a photographer great. Not "auto".

BTW, when I shot my bad agility shots, I was in full manual and taking them one at a time. I'd adjust, zoom, shoot. Find my next obstacle, adjust, zoom, wait the dog out, and shoot. Sometimes I'd miss and sometimes I'd get it. It made me appreciate some of the pros. Until I realized they all use burst modes.

IMHO, as long as the shots are great, I'm willing to pay for them. I don't care if they took 1 shot or 100 shots of my dog. The link I posted, I prefer his to the local shooters around here, not sure why, but I like what he gets. There was one other woman, but I hardly see her. And I was lucky to get a shot from Tien Tran.

 

[Mally's Mom]

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? 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/

Yes, this is a wonderful capture of Toffee! I would consider making it into a poster. (We have a poster of Mally on our computer room wall) I love looking over at it periodically.

 

[helps]

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.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree w/ this. It's insulting and kind of silly to expect any sports photograph to not use this feature of camera. Also as it was nicely explained there's a difference between sports mode and using more FPS [frames per second]. That's what makes a good camera for fast sports. You still have to do manual setting of ISO, apertured, shutter speed, the camera won't do the job for you. You also need to be still kind of artistic and have a good sense for angels and whole scenery to make a photo look interesting. I'm pretty sure a lot of proffesionals would laugh at your comments towards "burst shooting". I'm not sayin' that photograph should use it all the time, sometimes it's great to just wait up for the right moment, choose right location and then click. But I would never say they're bad photographs because of using that mode. Wow. That's really..... wow. You should realize they still need to do all the setting and choose the right moment/obstacle/angle/ and all I've mentioned.

And btw, I'm not biased, because I don't have a camera w/ high FPS feature or anything like that. I'm just really interested in photography and shooting sports in particular.
I mean, obviously we can disagree on this one, but I don't know how using high rate FPS for sports make anyone bad photographer, really not acceptable statement in worlds of photography But I don't want to bring up any fights, just my thoughts....

 

[HopeShelties]

Any photographer who learned to shoot and time photos before the advent of digital would probably understand and not 'laugh at my comments'. The ones who simply pick out an expensive camera and automatically think they're a photographer because of taking a ton of pictures aren't great photographers.
Point: The photographers they got for the March Cluster to work for this one photographer HADNT EVER EVEN SHOT AGILITY! They had no CLUE what they should be shooting... but because of the wonders of digital photography and rapid shooting, they were able to get every stride and make that woman a lot of money out of pure luck! That is NOT skill. That is demeaning for photographers like me who KNOW how to shoot shoot the shots and not have to rely on getting ten shots for one decent one. These photographers weren't choosing the right obstacles... they weren't choosing for anything. I sat ringside watching the one man shoot EVERY obstacle, whether the dog was coming or going, just holding down the button constantly to catch everything possible. That annoys me. That involves no skill. I even know the woman set the cameras up for her 'photographers' before the show. They did nothing besides sit there and click away.
I would say they aren't good photographers because they are lazy and can't be bothered to take the time to learn to do it without shooting tons of shots to achieve results. If you must take tons of shots to catch one shot, you *aren't* all that good. I do believe there is a lot more *skill* involved in taking that great shot in one shot over the person who has to take ten shots to get that great shot. How can you honestly think someone who takes ten times the photos I take to get the shots I can get has the same level of skill as I have? They really don't. I think it says a lot about the quality of the photographer when they are able to get a good shot without all of the extras. Look at it from my point of view for a minute... See it how I see it. If you had the skill to get it in one shot, and were watching everyone around you take ten to get that same shot, would you think they were as good? They really aren't. I feel like here we're trying to claim everyone who sells a photograph should be defended as being a good photographer when they aren't. There are very different levels of skill, and I'm sorry, someone who can't be bothered to learn is at a different level of skill.
I watched as the world of horse show photography changed... As the digital rebels hit the market, almost overnight, tons of extra 'freelance horse show photographers' popped up and started selling photos. That didn't mean all of the sudden a lot of people got really really good at what they are doing... It meant that the cameras made it easy for them to suddenly take shots that they weren't capable of taking before. These people are not in the same class as photographers as the ones who learned to do it in one shot.
What I wouldn't give to go back to before digital... I'd bet most of these 'photographers' would find themselves having a lot of trouble.

 

[helps]

The ones who simply pick out an expensive camera and automatically think they're a photographer because of taking a ton of pictures aren't great photographers.

I see what you're saying..... I agree on this. I'm sure there's a lot of people who have expensive great camera and lenses and let the machine do their job for them. I don't approve the style of shooting as you describe it - taking pic of every obstacle and just shooting away as much pics as possible. From the other POV, technology evolves and it'd be silly for any sports photographer not to use that to their advantage. Obviously if dog isn't moving that fast, it doesn't make that much difference and you can get your shot with single click. If dog is running let's say 6-7 metres per second, though, you would have really hard time freezing that action. Especially if you don't have one of these most expensive monster cameras. Good photographer would still need to think that through, choose exposition and all the setting in the camera, but instead of one click chose more shooting with more FPS. It's not a problem for me as long as he can get a beautiful pic out of it. I don't think that "burst shooting" will help you that much in taking good picture. I've seen enough agility photographs and only few people are capable of taking good sharp pictures. I think no pro should completely rely on fast FPS shooting, but I think it's pretty much part of everyday life of sports photographers. I understand where you are coming from, though. It's obviously way harder to freeze one single moment instead of just clicking away, but I wouldn't say that anyone who use that feature is useless.... not at all. How I said it's common amongst professionals, too. I have to admit I'm rather young, so digital photography is part of my life and I never even thought about past.

 

[k9kreationz]

I have to admit I'm rather young, so digital photography is part of my life and I never even thought about past.

Oh gawd. Now I feel old.

 

[helps]

Oh gawd. Now I feel old.

Haha, no reason to feel old. It's just me being younger. You're only as old as you feel

 

[danisgoat]

I just want a nice picture!

However you get that picture, I could care less about. The end result is all I am after

 

[Sharon]

I just want a nice picture!

However you get that picture, I could care less about. The end result is all I am after

I want a nice picture also but when you get the sarcastic comment of wanting to buy a picture of "4x6's are not worth my time"then she can put the picture up where the sun doesn't shine.I really want this picture she took but 5x7's and charging $20.00 plus s&h you are looking at almost 25.00.Not worth my time or money.Her loss!!!