Horseback Riding - Women contest C&C

[KreGg]

Hey guys, back with another event. Last time I had a baseball championship and I got some pics. I'm still super new to DSLR world, but I think I am getting the feel for it
Some pics from today:

PS: Equipment = Nikon D3100 + Tamron 28-75 2.8, handheld.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

I put on a little watermark with my name, just for putting it.
Anyway, what you guys think of this set?
Thanks.

 

[gsgary]

Dof is not enough, when i'm shooting horse events i never shoot an aperture larger than F4, shot 1 is good but there is not enough DOF
Shot 4 is nice but it is too tight, there is no room for the horse to jump into

 

[KreGg]

Dof is not enough, when i'm shooting horse events i never shoot an aperture larger than F4

Yeah, I kept my aperture at 2.8 at most shots. But I think my longest focal length at 75mm does not help me much on getting the blurred background as I had couldn't be so close to the field.
I wished I had the money already to buy the 70-300 I am looking into... oh well

 

[thereyougo!]

Dof is not enough, when i'm shooting horse events i never shoot an aperture larger than F4

Yeah, I kept my aperture at 2.8 at most shots. But I think my longest focal length at 75mm does not help me much on getting the blurred background as I had couldn't be so close to the field.
I wished I had the money already to buy the 70-300 I am looking into... oh well

You have to work with what you have which will help you use better lenses in the future. At least you have a constant large aperture, Gsgary is right though, you should stop down two stops, you'll get more DOF and the lens always behaves better when not at it's extremes either of focal length or aperture.

Sorry to say I don't think much of the watermark - for one thing I don't get why so many non professionals use them, and it's too in your face. In 6 it looks like the horse is jumping over it and not the jump.

 

[gsgary]

I use a 300mmF2.8L, this is F4.5 Andrew Nickolson one of the top equestrians

 

[WesternGuy]

Nice images, I like #5 and #6 best, but that watermark is just too intrusive. Either get rid of it altogether, or make it smaller and put it in an out of the way corner of the picture. As you have it, it doesn't really serve any useful purpose that I can see - if you wish to copyright an image, then you need to at least have the copyright symbol in the image.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[KreGg]

Thanks for the input.I put on the watermarks mainly to get my name associated with photography, and maybe get a little work here or there wih some friends of mine and make a little extra. Not that I'm turning pro whatsoever, but if I can do small works, like covering an event or party for friends or whatever, thats money to be put on my new lens

 

[thereyougo!]

Thanks for the input.I put on the watermarks mainly to get my name associated with photography, and maybe get a little work here or there wih some friends of mine and make a little extra. Not that I'm turning pro whatsoever, but if I can do small works, like covering an event or party for friends or whatever, thats money to be put on my new lens

Unfortunately, watermarks don't make the image professional. Great composition can, and these definitely need work compositionally. If you want people to pay for a photo then they will have to be far better than these. they'll have to not be composed so tight and they will need to be better exposed and well processed. What ever happened to progression?As in, I'm going to learn my craft and then when I'm good enough, I'll sell them. Instead what happens is that people buy a DSLR, take a phtoto put a watermark on it, sell it for pennies, because people think that it's good 'enough'. Then buyers learn to make do. Then those photographers who do it for a living find that their market has gone. (Not me, I'm not a pro even if I do shoot with a pro camera, I know the difference).


No 3 is the exception here. You could have shot portrait here, or cropped it to portrait in PP: here's an example. I've also adjusted contrast in curves. If you had zoomed closer you might have got the guy in the background more out of focus.

Oh and the watermark can be dealt with fairly easy by others - I'm not very skilled with the clone and heal brush, but I managed to get rid of it


Horse shot C&C 4 forum by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[Starskream666]

Oh and the watermark can be dealt with fairly easy by others - I'm not very skilled with the clone and heal brush, but I managed to get rid of it

Well you sure did get rid of it lol, I don't know about the square pieces of ground that are sticking out of the soil.

 

[thereyougo!]

Oh and the watermark can be dealt with fairly easy by others - I'm not very skilled with the clone and heal brush, but I managed to get rid of it

Well you sure did get rid of it lol, I don't know about the square pieces of ground that are sticking out of the soil.

Well at least I added something to the discussion rather than take the pi$$. PLus I said I was not skilled at it, it's the weakest part of my PP. I'm sure there are others here that could do it better, my main point in the reply was to suggest a tighter shot. I just used a large brush for speed. My point was that it could be done.

 

[Starskream666]

Alright my man, was not trying to have 'a go' try using a softer brush, like 30 or something, it makes it alot neater and you don't get jagged edges

DSC_2834 by Skateboard C 91, on Flickr

 

[KreGg]

Unfortunately, watermarks don't make the image professional. Great composition can, and these definitely need work compositionally. If you want people to pay for a photo then they will have to be far better than these. they'll have to not be composed so tight and they will need to be better exposed and well processed. What ever happened to progression?As in, I'm going to learn my craft and then when I'm good enough, I'll sell them. Instead what happens is that people buy a DSLR, take a phtoto put a watermark on it, sell it for pennies, because people think that it's good 'enough'. Then buyers learn to make do. Then those photographers who do it for a living find that their market has gone. (Not me, I'm not a pro even if I do shoot with a pro camera, I know the difference).

Agree to disagree here.
I don't find anything wrong in selling your pics or service from the start. If the people around you think they are good enough, then they are good enough. I'm trying to get more money to buy myself better equipment. So why not do it, if they think its good? I do it and if my people feel happy about their pictures I produce, great.
And this theory of pro photographers losing their job... I don't buy this. In the end, if they are great and a step above, there will always be perfectionist clients seeking perfect pictures (and paying what it should be paid for those).
It's the same thing as the fear that digital photography would kill real photographers. As time has shown, it has not.

No 3 is the exception here. You could have shot portrait here, or cropped it to portrait in PP: here's an example. I've also adjusted contrast in curves. If you had zoomed closer you might have got the guy in the background more out of focus.

Oh and the watermark can be dealt with fairly easy by others - I'm not very skilled with the clone and heal brush, but I managed to get rid of it


Horse shot C&C 4 forum by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Yeah, as stated above, I wished I could have zoomed more. Unfortunately I have just 2 weeks in DSLR, and don't have anything bigger than 75mm. So I try to get as good an image as I can. Blurring the guys on the background was not possible in the camera.
I have some pictures (from other women) on that crop you posted above, so I thought of varying things out, so they don't all look the same.

I will try and edit some pics on photoshop, try to simulate depth of field and clone out the guys. These pics above were shot in raw and had nothing but sharpening and some exposure adjustments plus cropping.

Thanks

 

[thereyougo!]

Unfortunately, watermarks don't make the image professional. Great composition can, and these definitely need work compositionally. If you want people to pay for a photo then they will have to be far better than these. they'll have to not be composed so tight and they will need to be better exposed and well processed. What ever happened to progression?As in, I'm going to learn my craft and then when I'm good enough, I'll sell them. Instead what happens is that people buy a DSLR, take a phtoto put a watermark on it, sell it for pennies, because people think that it's good 'enough'. Then buyers learn to make do. Then those photographers who do it for a living find that their market has gone. (Not me, I'm not a pro even if I do shoot with a pro camera, I know the difference).

Agree to disagree here.
I don't find anything wrong in selling your pics or service from the start. If the people around you think they are good enough, then they are good enough. I'm trying to get more money to buy myself better equipment. So why not do it, if they think its good? I do it and if my people feel happy about their pictures I produce, great.
And this theory of pro photographers losing their job... I don't buy this. In the end, if they are great and a step above, there will always be perfectionist clients seeking perfect pictures (and paying what it should be paid for those).
It's the same thing as the fear that digital photography would kill real photographers. As time has shown, it has not.

No 3 is the exception here. You could have shot portrait here, or cropped it to portrait in PP: here's an example. I've also adjusted contrast in curves. If you had zoomed closer you might have got the guy in the background more out of focus.

Oh and the watermark can be dealt with fairly easy by others - I'm not very skilled with the clone and heal brush, but I managed to get rid of it


Horse shot C&C 4 forum by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Yeah, as stated above, I wished I could have zoomed more. Unfortunately I have just 2 weeks in DSLR, and don't have anything bigger than 75mm. So I try to get as good an image as I can. Blurring the guys on the background was not possible in the camera.
I have some pictures (from other women) on that crop you posted above, so I thought of varying things out, so they don't all look the same.

I will try and edit some pics on photoshop, try to simulate depth of field and clone out the guys. These pics above were shot in raw and had nothing but sharpening and some exposure adjustments plus cropping.

Thanks

The only problem is that once you start selling one or two images it can become a slippery slope. Just because some people are buying does not make them good. And yes at the very top end people are still paying for the highest quality, but there is erosion between starter and middle quality where the boundaries are less easily defined. Some guy not paying taxes shooting out of his back room undercuts someone else doing it properly. This is how it starts. So legitimate business hits the wall other people selling inferior photos and not declaring their business keep going underground. There are many posts on here about it if you care to look. The problem really sets in when you try and establish yourself, because if one person will do a shoot for $50 cash in back pocket it means someone charging $150 because that person is paying his sales tax income tax and all other responsibilities will not get the business.

That person cannot cut his fees as otherwise he will lose money. That person might be someone who might eventually make it to Art book status at the every top of the business, but the progression route has gone. It's a myth that people always get what they deserve and that those who produce perfect shots will never go out of business. It's all down to the price level. Not even the best photographers started at charging 3,000 for a photo. They all started at the bottom level and progressed from there. It's the progression that is at risk by cheap and nasty 'facebook' photographers.

 

[thereyougo!]

On the photo front, there is a lot of distraction there, not just that one guy, but the guard rails too which divide the scene somewhat. You are limited to 75mm? Then you need to zoom with your feet. Either that or sacrifice some resolution and crop a shot after shooting. You will need to make sure that you focus correctly though if you do this.

 

[thereyougo!]

Alright my man, was not trying to have 'a go' try using a softer brush, like 30 or something, it makes it alot neater and you don't get jagged edges

DSC_2834 by Skateboard C 91, on Flickr

Fair enough. Like I say, I'm still very much working on that aspect of PP work...