New Lens- I think "we" did ok today!

[Saddlebreds4me]

Over here if i was to use a flash at a horse event i would loose my credentials

As a general rule in my horse world flashes are fine - particularly with seasoned show horses - they are used to them. However, that being said, horses are horses and what might be safe to them one trip around the ring, the very same thing the second time around, for all they know, it might eat them. In other words being fight or flight animals, they are unpredictable. With new riders just starting out, no way am I even going to take the chance. I agree with you that if you can control the lighting you can get a better shot, but I was not about to risk it.

I also disagree with the comment from In2daBlue regarding PP. The less I have to do the better - but that's me, I like my photos to be as natural as possible. JMO.

 

[In2daBlue]

What a load of rubbish, so if i had taken that shot of the dog (it was at iso3200 F2.8 1/320) and shot it at F5.6 to get better DOF you could have got rid of all the noise because it would have been 2 stops underexposed and it had been out of focus you could have made it sharp, taking shots in these conditions you have to get it as near spot on as possible or it will look crap no matter how good you are at PP, by the sound of it you have never shot at very high ISO's

OK. First of all, I am just saying that editing of images, including the ones you have posted and the ones posted at the beginning of this thread could be improved with some simple PP editing. Second, I'm not going to respond to your "you haven't shot high ISO" comment with anything other than to say that I'm a professional photographer who makes my living taking photos. Sometimes I shoot high ISO but most of the time I find a way around it. And finally, technically you could under-expose at a lower ISO and pull that exposure out after the fact in PP if you were shooting in RAW. So you're wrong.

All I was trying to say is that sometimes it's a combination of using the right camera settings and then good post editing after the fact... and sometimes, if you are in low light and you don't want to use high ISO, you can think about using PP and RAW and get away with under-exposed images in order to ensure best quality. But, something tells me you're the kind of person who doesn't take well to kind suggestions.

 

[gsgary]

OK. First of all, I am just saying that editing of images, including the ones you have posted and the ones posted at the beginning of this thread could be improved with some simple PP editing. Second, I'm not going to respond to your "you haven't shot high ISO" comment with anything other than to say that I'm a professional photographer who makes my living taking photos. Sometimes I shoot high ISO but most of the time I find a way around it. And finally, technically you could under-expose at a lower ISO and pull that exposure out after the fact in PP if you were shooting in RAW. So you're wrong.

All I was trying to say is that sometimes it's a combination of using the right camera settings and then good post editing after the fact... and sometimes, if you are in low light and you don't want to use high ISO, you can think about using PP and RAW and get away with under-exposed images in order to ensure best quality. But, something tells me you're the kind of person who doesn't take well to kind suggestions.

Underexposing in this level of light just produces more noise even shooting raw which i usually do, the shot of the dog was shot JPG no noise removal i had to shoot JPG because we were printing on site no time to shoot raw
why don't you post some ISO3200 that have been underexposed without noise removal so we can see how good they are

 

[blash]

Composition wise, get low and get close. The first one is alright, after that though a) the horses have nowhere to move (in the frame) and b) I can barely see who's riding the horse. Are the subsequent photos supposed to be about the horses or about the riders? Get close to whatever it is that you are trying to capture, and let that fill the frame.

 

[In2daBlue]

Underexposing in this level of light just produces more noise even shooting raw which i usually do, the shot of the dog was shot JPG no noise removal i had to shoot JPG because we were printing on site no time to shoot raw
why don't you post some ISO3200 that have been underexposed without noise removal so we can see how good they are

I shoot with a D3 and D700, so my 3200 ISO shots have no noise anyway. Not trying to start a fight here. Just thought I would throw my two cents in. I certainly have nothing to prove.

 

[Saddlebreds4me]

Thank you everyone - I really appreciate all of the advice. I'm now nervous shooting at a higher ISO because I was getting a ton of noise at 6400 - so I dropped it quite a bit which really helped getting rid of it.

And I apologize too - trying to explain what it's like shooting in an indoor arena for those who haven't experienced it, I probably haven't done a very good job. I find it challenging when your only natural light source are from windows so high up in the wall they almost meet the ceiling of the indoor (totally normal for most indoor arenas) and two "people doors" which I tried desperately to stay away from so that the photos would not get blown out. There is NOTHING consistent about the lighting in there during the day - and again, my preference is not to use my speedlights mostly because I like the natural light much more than flash photography. I'm going to try both Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority and see what happens - I think it's one of the best ways to learn (for me it is anyway). But again, many thanks to ALL of you who took the time to reply - it helps so much!

FWIW - when I am practicing I am usually shooting in RAW - but for the show (because of card/memory space) I chose to shoot jpeg - which I think it's just fine.

I'm going back this weekend to the barn for more practice - if everyone is not sick of my horse photos, I'd love to post some more for C & C.