# My first horse show picture evaluation thread



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## egrogan (Jun 1, 2011)

I'm no photographer, but definitely agree that the black & white of the older woman smiling is a great image. A lot of the images of the little girl with the blond ponytail are really touching too- I have an immediate reaction to the emotion in them.

My personal preference- I would not want an image of my horse with ears pinned back unless it was in the middle of some sort of intense exercise (e.g., not when she's standing still and should be looking relaxed/content but maybe when she's being asked to do something difficult at speed and looks competitive). I also wouldn't want an image where my riding looked bad.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

(this photo above has become one of my favs and loved by others)


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

(the image above - that is his mom in the right, too bad she wasn't looking, but hold on, I got that image coming).


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

(image above, I wanted to get pics of the riders in motion but I didn't have enough time to change my shutter speed from when they went around the last barrel to taking off back to the gate at full speed). Darn.




































(image above: Again, brother and sister with mom riding the same pony. Wish I knew so I could have captured personal sibling moments. But I did get a good one with mom in it)






















































(one of the very random things you don't expect to happen but I caught it just in the nick of time)


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Still have about 5 or 6 images left to edit. But 94% done! I've been working like a drill sargent getting this done since Sunday lol.


----------



## GMA100 (Apr 8, 2016)

Overall, they are nice photos, but I wouldn't post any pictures that would be embarrassing to the rider....the 4th photo on post #8 would be embarrassing to me if it were my horse as no one wants the whole world to see your horses head being thrown in the air, and to me it looks like the rider is jerking it....there were quite a few photos that jumped out to me and I'm sure that if it were me and my horse those photos were of, I would LOVE them and most definitely buy them! The first picture on post #8 is lovely! as well as the first two on post #10. The ones with the little kids are precious too, but thats prolly cause I love kids so much lol

Action shots are amazing! And the shots that show a communication between the rider and the horse are priceless as well.

Good job, and I can't wait to see more! You'll get better and better!


----------



## NavigatorsMom (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree, there are some very nice ones in here. 

A question/comment about the watermark - on some of those photos you have the watermark across the horse's quarters, or near the middle of the image, somewhat large. If you were selling the photo, would you move the watermark to a corner and make it smaller? To me, having the watermark so large and prominent takes away from the picture. I recognize that you're trying to promote yourself, and I can see posting examples with the watermark, but for pictures that you sell (the file or a hard copy) I think it would be nice for the buyer to have a smaller watermark. Personally, I would hesitate to buy a photo with a larger watermark, even if I really liked the picture, but shrink it and put it in a corner and I would be much more inclined to do it.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Overall, nice photos. These are the types of photos that I like to see as a rider at an event such as this.

I do agree that _some_ of the photos are not flattering, in how the horse's body is moving and/or positioned. So that may be something to be mindful of, or possible take more than one frame on an action shot.

For example, myself personally, I don't think it is flattering when catching the horse in a lope where the leading front foot is the only one on the ground. Or for example if the horse's mouth is gaping open. Sometimes it's hard to avoid these shots if the horse is doing it frequently, but I usually try to capture a "good side" if I can. 

But again, all-in-all, nice photos for your first time out.


----------



## carshon (Apr 7, 2015)

@Hoofpic I agree with what the other posters have said. My Dad used to take photos of our 4-H club many years ago and give them to the club members. This was before computers and photoshop. He was (and still is) an amateur photographer who does photos for his use only. One thing that I remember distinctly was that he took photos of running barrels and jumping with a high speed lens or whatever it was and he took a ton of pics so he could print off and give just the right moment to the rider. As others have said horses body at weird angles, rider body or hands looking not very refined are just not appealing to someone that you may ask to purchase those photos. Humans are vain creatures and always want to be seen in the best light.

Some of these are great and I am sure the families would love to purchase photos at a nominal fee. I think you should spend more time at shows taking pictures to hone your timing and lighting. When a horse is in the line up try not to get the rider behinds head or shoulders in the shot or offer to photoshop it out if purchased. When I want a pic of myself I don't want someone else's head cropping out of my back. I think it is all about the angles of the shots and photographing horse shows would be exhausting because you would need to move around all of the time.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## cbar (Nov 27, 2015)

@Hoofpic, good job on your first outing. As other's have mentioned there are a few un-flattering photos, but you also have some pretty great images too. I would have to go through them again to pick out the ones that I really liked - hopefully you are able to attend some more shows so you can hone your skills.

Great job and thanks for sharing with us.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Last photos, I am done! WOW that is a lot!


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

egrogan said:


> I'm no photographer, but definitely agree that the black & white of the older woman smiling is a great image. A lot of the images of the little girl with the blond ponytail are really touching too- I have an immediate reaction to the emotion in them.


She was by far my best subject. Literally every photo I got of her turned out great. THere are 3 or 4 or her that are IMO top 10 for this entire show.



> My personal preference- I would not want an image of my horse with ears pinned back unless it was in the middle of some sort of intense exercise (e.g., not when she's standing still and should be looking relaxed/content but maybe when she's being asked to do something difficult at speed and looks competitive). I also wouldn't want an image where my riding looked bad.


I agree, thanks. Now I know to use ones that make them look their best.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

GMA100 said:


> Overall, they are nice photos, but I wouldn't post any pictures that would be embarrassing to the rider....the 4th photo on post #8 would be embarrassing to me if it were my horse as no one wants the whole world to see your horses head being thrown in the air, and to me it looks like the rider is jerking it....


Good points thanks. The only bad news is that, that photo in post #8, 4th photo is the one I sent to the rider as her free one. Now I feel REALLY BAD, OMG!!!! I feel terrible! I should send her another photo eh?

EDIT: I double checked and that's not the photo I sent this rider, lol thank god.



> there were quite a few photos that jumped out to me and I'm sure that if it were me and my horse those photos were of, I would LOVE them and most definitely buy them! The first picture on post #8 is lovely! as well as the first two on post #10. The ones with the little kids are precious too, but thats prolly cause I love kids so much lol
> 
> Action shots are amazing! And the shots that show a communication between the rider and the horse are priceless as well.
> 
> Good job, and I can't wait to see more! You'll get better and better!


Thanks. The action shots were pretty good IMO with a few stellar ones. Of course a good rider always makes for great photo take oppurtunities. 

I am happy with the shots focused on communication. I wish I had more time to take more and even outside the arena.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

When taking candids of the riders sitting on horses, try to capture the moment when the horse's ear are forward. No one wants a photo of their horse with their ears back looking grumpy. My favorite is the young girl in the checked shirt standing next to her horse.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

My comment is for your logo. It's in a different place and it's a different size for every photo. I would pick a spot such as the lower right corner and place it there - same size on every photo


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I'm in a bit of a hoop here. I have people wanting to buy photos, possibly 32 up for sale (at least so far as I haven't sent all the riders thier free photo yet).

I have priced my photos, $39.00CDN each. I hope it's not too much, but also I don't want to under charge and then increase the price later. I've spent quite a bit of time deciding my price and I think $39.00CDN is fair.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

NavigatorsMom said:


> I agree, there are some very nice ones in here.
> 
> A question/comment about the watermark - on some of those photos you have the watermark across the horse's quarters, or near the middle of the image, somewhat large. If you were selling the photo, would you move the watermark to a corner and make it smaller? To me, having the watermark so large and prominent takes away from the picture. I recognize that you're trying to promote yourself, and I can see posting examples with the watermark, but for pictures that you sell (the file or a hard copy) I think it would be nice for the buyer to have a smaller watermark. Personally, I would hesitate to buy a photo with a larger watermark, even if I really liked the picture, but shrink it and put it in a corner and I would be much more inclined to do it.


I know many have brought up my watermark as a concern and this is what I've decided to do. I created my signature for bought photos. Here is an example (this was sent as their free photo to one of this rider). It will only go in corners and it will stay this same size, right close to the edge.

I have a black and white version.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

You do have some nice shots, and some really unflattering ones (which happens; even professionals get unflattering ones.) It's something you'll have to work to learn what is wanted. As stated, a horse with only it's front foot on the ground is awkward, but if only a back foot is down it looks much better. Or digging around the barrels. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it the more you study.

With regard to watermarks, I advise you to put a watermark over an image when posting in a public site or if you create a page to put images up for exhibitors to view. I know I've linked this page before, but Korrina plasters a big one on the pictures on her website to deter theft (which is what I'm recommending you do.)

PhotographybyKRae | SAHIBA (this should hopefully bring you to the photos for the show SAHIBA. You may have to put a name/email address, but it sends you nothing. Can make up one for all it matters)

Now I'll attach what I get when I purchase a digital download. Printed images have nothing.

Just some food for thought.


----------



## GMA100 (Apr 8, 2016)

Hoofpic said:


> I'm in a bit of a hoop here. I have people wanting to buy photos, possibly 32 up for sale (at least so far as I haven't sent all the riders thier free photo yet).
> 
> I have priced my photos, $39.00CDN each. I hope it's not too much, but also I don't want to under charge and then increase the price later. I've spent quite a bit of time deciding my price and I think $39.00CDN is fair.



Maybe it's just me, but $39.00CDN is a bit much for me. If I calculated right, it would be about $31.00 US dollors. Again, that's me. 


Have you sold any pictures at all?


----------



## paintedpastures (Jun 21, 2011)

You have captured some very good moments,but several not so flattering ones of horses & riders:smile:. You want to put out the good & should recognize which should be culled:frown_color:. As for price that is steep! Know of a local successful young photographer that charges about that for an 8x10 & 2 5x7.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

beau159 said:


> Overall, nice photos. These are the types of photos that I like to see as a rider at an event such as this.
> 
> I do agree that _some_ of the photos are not flattering, in how the horse's body is moving and/or positioned. So that may be something to be mindful of, or possible take more than one frame on an action shot.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

For a first shot, I have to say that this was harder than I thought to shoot, but I was confident I could do it. I just need to learn the ropes since this is a very new field of photography that I am used to shooting.

But the good news is that it didn't take long for me to get in the groove. If anything I had more trouble keeping track of all the riders, putting faces to names, who their horse is, who is related, who may be riding two horses. 

There are some riders whom I got too many photos of and others who I didn't get enough of. If I plan on selling additional photos to riders, I MUST get equal number of shots per rider. And especially if they are riding more than one horse, I need to be able to keep track of this, what I've shot, what I need to shoot. 

It can be a bit difficult to keep track as these events are literally one after the other and I don't know these riders well enough to know who is who lol.

For future shows, I would perhaps hire a sub contracted photographer's assistant to come with me and they handle all the admin stuff like filling out a shot list for me to keep track of what and who I have shot and who is left and needs to be done, making sure everyone signs forms, is aware of my policy and why I am there, puttings names to faces, carrying my gear, getting gear I need quickly, etc. Where I live you can find a lot of photographer's assistants who will work for cheap.

I just want to focus on shooting and how to get the best shots. 

I am hoping that eventually I can watch the horse's feet more and not just focus on the rider and horse together. 

I know that I wasn't very comfortable the entire day shooting. 

1) I had to shoot through thick metal wire so I had limited movement vertically and as far as moving back. It wasn't at all comfortable laying on gravel rocks (a portable mattress would have helped), especially since I had to literally be 3 or 4 inches from the wire with my lens peeping through so I had no choice but to sit and lay in awkward positions due to the arching up as you get near the wire. I'm glad I didn't put out my back.

If I could have been in the arena to shoot, I would have had a lot more freedom. I could have gotten direct over the shoulder shots (which are one of my favourites). Being in the arena would have opened up a lot of possibilies for me, including shooting along the rail and I have no doubt that I could have gotten a lot more use out of my 35mm lens and got a lot of wide angle shots with multiple riders in frame at once.

I wanted to get over the shoulder shot of the judges talking to the riders but I was too far, I had to be in the arena to do it.

Also, the dust was all over the place and I kept getting showered with dust and sand as each horse got close then passed me. The strong wind for the morning made things worse.

The backgrounds weren't all that flattering but I made sure to change things up. 

I will admit, I took a huge risk in the way I shot this. I had my camera on AF-C the entire time but I didn't shoot a lot. I took a total of 452 shots the entire day, I was only at 156 or so after the morning show. 

It's not my ideal way of shooting events like this but I actually forgot to take my extra 2 batteries off the charger the night before so I went out to the event with only one fullly charged battery. So I was primarily trying to conserve battery the entire day. Thankfully, my battery can take 700 shots per charge, but I still didn't want to risk my battery dying before the show was over. That would have sucked and looked really bad as a professional.

So basically I had to really make my shots count, a lot of the times I only two one or two shots at once and if neither was good or out of focus, then that means I would have missed that entire scene.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Autowinder.... horse photographer's best friend.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

beau159 said:


> Overall, nice photos. These are the types of photos that I like to see as a rider at an event such as this.


Thanks and the day I was shooting it, I was thinking to myself, (now I don't know how often I will shoot shows), but whenever I do, I should mix some equine portraiture in as well. From what I've seen from other event photographers, not everyone of them will shoot the casual silly and non serious stuff. If I can do this, I can see it being a very appealling asset to a lot of show hosters and who knows, perhaps it will get me some follow up business for equine portraiture from the individual riders.



> I do agree that _some_ of the photos are not flattering, in how the horse's body is moving and/or positioned. So that may be something to be mindful of, or possible take more than one frame on an action shot.
> 
> For example, myself personally, I don't think it is flattering when catching the horse in a lope where the leading front foot is the only one on the ground. Or for example if the horse's mouth is gaping open. Sometimes it's hard to avoid these shots if the horse is doing it frequently, but I usually try to capture a "good side" if I can.


I'm hoping I can learn this over time. I want to minimize the number of bad shots that I take and the more important thing is that I need to know what not to share and not give to clients. It will make my work look bad and I will lose business.



> But again, all-in-all, nice photos for your first time out.


Thanks. I have learned a lot of valuable things for the second go at it. 

If I could somehow get a rider's list and what events each one is attending a couple days prior to the shoot, it would be greatly beneficial for me. I could type up all the riders and which events they are doing into my shot list spreadsheet and that will allow for me to keep track of everything a lot easier.

If one rider is in 3 events, I need to get shots of that rider in each event. But I missed some oppurtunities on Sunday as there was some riders in multiple events and I only photographed them in one or two events. If I want to maximize my sales, I need to be able to get photos of every single single rider in every event they are in. 

because one thing that I greatly underestimated is how common friends or family members attend the same show. You will have siblings riding, mother and daughter, mother and son, etc. I need to know this prior to going to the event so that I know who is related and I can get capture extra special moments because this WILL forsure sell. 

Cause like I said, in this photo here,










I didn't find out until the day after that these two were siblings. Had I known, I wouldn't have given this photo to the mother as one of their free photos because if I didn't, she forsure would have bought it from me.

I also would have taken a lot more shots of them together. It just so happens I got really lucky with this shot.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Could I get feedback on this photo? Is it a bad photo to send to the rider?

Again, a reminder, we are not here to critique the riders in the photos, just my photos itself.










Also not sure why there is a black line, I just checked my file on my computer and no line shows up. Wierd. 

She said she was happy with it, but something tells me now that this was a bad photo that should never be shown to riders.


----------



## horseylover1_1 (Feb 13, 2008)

I agree with most of the comments made. (I just skimmed through them)

Glad a show was on board to have you shoot there! Getting your name out there is so, so important. 

Another suggestion: get pictures of people with their ribbons. Do some "posed" shots - not just candids. It looks like this may have been mostly candids, which is fine, but I'd seek out the people sporting a ribbon and ask to take a pic. 

Regarding the price.. I do not think that it is too expensive. Photography is cheapened by the fact that so many people have digital cameras now. $39 for a "copyright release" on a professional photograph is about average I would say. I would recommend giving people generous discounts if they purchase more than one photo though.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I see what you guys mean now. Here is one of the unflattering ones of one front foot on the ground while both hind feet are on the ground. Now when I see it, yes it looks awkward.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

farmpony84 said:


> My comment is for your logo. It's in a different place and it's a different size for every photo. I would pick a spot such as the lower right corner and place it there - same size on every photo


I would love to have my watermark in the same spot on every photo but it's not possible. Also some were really tough to place so I went with different sizes. I also play around with the opacity as well depending on how big the watermark is, what it's on and how it effects the image.

For instance here is one of my favourites.










Now placing the watermark on this photo was very hard to do, so I went with watermark plus signature. If all I had was the watermark in the right corner, say someone sees it, they could just crop it and use just the rider as a portrait image. Done.

I still question whether this is enough for this photo. I wanted to place the watermark over the rider but I couldn't find the right opacity and spot without affecting the great image.

I could go the shutterstock route for images like this where they place their watermark on the entire image itself, edge to edge.

This would be very difficult to photoshop out. Not only that but it would take a lot of time.










There are essentially 3 factors for when I place a watermark.

1) The better the photo is and the more that I feel I can sell it, the better I have to watermark it, this can even mean putting the watermark in the corner and my signature near or overlapping the subject.

2) I always try to best to put my watermarks on locations of the image where it would be a lot of work for someone to photoshop out. I just look at the background and see how difficult it would be for me to photoshop out while retaining the original image and not damaging it.

3) Always try to place my watermark just inside the edge of where someone may crop the image so that if they do crop it, they won't have near the exact image as how it was original shown.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Tazzie said:


> You do have some nice shots, and some really unflattering ones (which happens; even professionals get unflattering ones.) It's something you'll have to work to learn what is wanted. As stated, a horse with only it's front foot on the ground is awkward, but if only a back foot is down it looks much better. Or digging around the barrels. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it the more you study.


Thank you for mentioning this.



> With regard to watermarks, I advise you to put a watermark over an image when posting in a public site or if you create a page to put images up for exhibitors to view. I know I've linked this page before, but Korrina plasters a big one on the pictures on her website to deter theft (which is what I'm recommending you do.)
> 
> PhotographybyKRae | SAHIBA (this should hopefully bring you to the photos for the show SAHIBA. You may have to put a name/email address, but it sends you nothing. Can make up one for all it matters)
> 
> ...


I am checking out that site right now.

I will get a website up. I could whip up a site through Wordpress or Squarespace myself through their templates but I'm not programmer. I would need it built so there is a desktop and mobile version. I would love to get someone to do it for me (I have contacts) but I can't afford it right now. I can do basic website stuff, but you still need a programmer to code if you want it done right (as in having it mobile friendly) and having a mobile version.

For any website built today, it's 100% essential for it to have a mobile version as well because just think of how many people are viewing websites through their mobile, much more than 10 or even 5 years ago. This is where you need a programmer. If you do not have your website mobile friendly, you will lose customers gaurenteed.

Also, about your digital download for a lot less than $39CDN. You have to fact in that it's super low res at 113kb. That means that you won't be able to make a print from it. For my $39CDN prints, I will be supplying the customers with an original size photo (still with my signature in the corner) and 240dpi resolution so if they want, they can make a print from it and frame it on their wall.

Also note that not all photographers will let their clients print their photos (in fact quite a few don't allow this), I will allow this because my signature will be on it anyways. It will just be in my "sales" contract that the photo cannot be tampered with meaning having the signature cropped off. In fact if I could have some of my photos framed in peoples homes, I would be very flattered!


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Okay I have my first buyer! Anyone want to guess which rider it was? She wants to buy multiples of her daughter and I will cut her a discount. She was blown away by her free photo. 

She wants to have me out some more to shoot her daughter, she's asking about my website. 

I need to get my business cards done up ASAP. I can do this myself.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Honestly, this photo:










Is a better shot, in my opinion, than the one you said was your favorite above.

The second one looks awkward while the first one shows a horse in full on power mode, stretching out to get home. The horse has an uphill appearance as opposed to looking like the hind end is a few inches above the shoulders. I get that I'm a Dressage rider and that doesn't always correlate with barrel racing, but the same concepts apply when a horse is going full out like that.

As for the downloads, I know. I think Korrina charges $50 for a copyright released download. I don't print the images I purchase as digital downloads as then I'd have FAR too many. I purchase from her site when I want something in hard copy form as opposed to printing my own. So I wasn't remarking on your cost whatsoever. Photographers vary SOO much in their prices. Like my Regional photos. I paid about $150 for ALL of my images, including a mini photoshoot, and I'm free to print whatever I'd like. For Korrina, her deal is a 6 image download for $250 (print release images that is). Both are good friends of mine, and both have given me lovely work. So that's why I didn't specifically comment on cost 

But I do recommend taking a look. It can be difficult to see the entire image of Korrina's, but they are not stolen. That's the big thing that can happen to photographers. Because people will make screenshots and get the images that way even if you disable the right click feature.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

horseylover1_1 said:


> I agree with most of the comments made. (I just skimmed through them)
> 
> Glad a show was on board to have you shoot there! Getting your name out there is so, so important.
> 
> ...


I agree with you about the ribbons, thanks for mentioning it.

You are right, photography is cheapened by the fact that so many have cameras now (though mostly a smartphone) and if they can't take the photo themselves, many will just buy stock photos or try to steal it online. I don't mind giving discounts on multiple photo purchases but I don't know about "generous" ones, because then everyone will start negotiating all the time trying to bring my price down and their entire focus will be my price and not the work itself. I can do something like 10% when 4 or 5+ are bought but if two are brought, I won't start giving discounts because two really isn't that many. 

One thing I should ask is, should I always state in my pricing that I will give discounts? Or only if asked? Because if I always mention it to customers from the get go, then I should come up with a discount tree right now.

I believe that my price is more than fair as well. I took some time to come to that number. I talked to a good friend in another city who gave me this advice about pricing photos.



> No, you don't want to attract customers who are looking for a bargain. In the fine arts, you are trying to appeal to those who want a unique product and are willing to pay for it. Anything that gives the impression that your work is a cheap bargain is undesirable. Set your price, be firm. If one is buying multiple photos (like more than 5), then you can give a small discount, say 10% overall.
> 
> Photography can be more difficult to sell at a good price than paintings or drawings, as a lot of folks know how much prints and frames cost, and may only be willing to pay so much over that amount for retail markup and goodwill.


You have to remember that when I take a photo off a camera, I look at it and edit it to the best I believe it can look. I'm not just saying files right off the camera and doing minor touchups if needed. I actually always look to enhance every photo that I take to the best of my ability and that is a skill that I would like to push and market as being very appealling to customers. 

I know I could just hand them photos right off the camera or with minor touchups but I am not that way. I want the best product for sale and I put my time into editing them.


Plus also keep in mind that I will not just be doing and promoting horse photography but always video work as well. This is a huge asset that I have over many other equine photographers. There may not be a huge market for equine videographers but that doesn't mean that some horse owners would still like nice videos of them together, riding, being at a show and would like to see it as a montage, etc. There is a market.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

I know it bores you, but the dressage market is a HUGE one for videographers. You contact the show organizer, find out if they have one for the show, and get put on the program. They schedule with you (you do not have to video everyone, only those that want it). They pay, then you send them a CD or a file, or whatever format they want. I would assume it woulld be the same for reining and cutting.....


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> You are right, photography is cheapened by the fact that so many have cameras now (though mostly a smartphone) and if they can't take the photo themselves, many will just buy stock photos or try to steal it online. I don't mind giving discounts on multiple photo purchases but I don't know about "generous" ones, because then everyone will start negotiating all the time trying to bring my price down and their entire focus will be my price and not the work itself. I can do something like 10% when 4 or 5+ are bought but if two are brought, I won't start giving discounts because two really isn't that many.


For discounts, what I've come across most often is show specials. Sometimes it's a package (buy this 5x7, this 8x10, and this download for $xx amount of money) or sometimes it's a percentage off if you use a code (most recent I had was 10% off a purchase of $50 or more). It varies so much from photographer to photographer that it's up to you to decide how you want to do discounts, if you want to keep this a regular thing.

I also forgot to touch on the keeping people/horses straight. You'll notice in any of those albums on the link I sent you that the amount of shots per horse varies. In some I have less shots to pick through than another horse, and some I'll have more. So I'd worry less about making sure each person has the same amount of photos and worry more about getting quality photos so the rider doesn't NEED that many to go through to find the one they like.

Also, what is common in our area of showing is to have all pictures of one class added to an album, and then we as exhibitors go through and pick out our photos. This allows the photographer to get them available to us in a timely manner. I've also seen where albums are split by back number, which could work in your case as well.

Just some suggestions as I spend a lot of time flipping through photographer's websites buying pictures :wink:


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Just wanted to post some thoughts. My favourites, also which ones I had the most difficulty editing and felt it could have been better (which I will post later)

Here are my favourites in random order with some notes. Feel free to comment.









(it was one of my last images to edit but I just love it. I originally was going to convert it to black and white but I changed my mind because I wanted to show the colour of the horse and the riders hat, shirt etc. This is an example of a photo where the angled camera works).










(Again was one of my later pics to edit but that little boy's smile just gets me everytime. He makes this photo special IMO).










(I think this is one of the best, of course the girl being such a great rider helped. Love the blues with the orange halter on a dark bay horse really makes this image pop. Having the time judges in the frame makes it even better)










(Again, it goes without saying, brother and sister. I got luck with this shot and I made a regretful mistake in giving this as the riders free photo, should have sold it instead but I didn't know they were siblings until after. Lesson learned for next time).










(pretty obvious why this one is such a great image)










(Just love this one, not much to it).










(It's always great to see off moments of horse and rider communicating, even better when the rider is a kid. The plaid shirt match the pink hooves makes the photo even better).










(and of course this girl, she made for some of my best shots. I just love the riders focus in this shot. Of course the baby blue leggings, along with the lime helmet and shirt really make this photo stand out with the browns and greens. This rider has a great choice of colours).










(Again, one of my best. Everything from the barrel instantly giving the viewer an idea of what the event is, while watching the rider focus and her horse relaxed listening to her and preparing for their turn to start)










(just love this photo, I caught it in just the nick of time. WOuld love 10 times better if I could get rid of the sign on the house to the right but I wasnt able to).










(what's not to love about this photo. Again this kids smile makes this photo. The great range of colors in this photo make it pop.)










(I wish I could have gotten the horse and rider a bit sharper but this is still one of my favs. I truly do believe that this is the kind of image parents want to see of their kids riding.)










(not much to say other than the photo is just clean, simple and effective)










(just love the angle on this one, the rider is so focused and it's got great composition).


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

greentree said:


> Autowinder.... horse photographer's best friend.


I tried looking it up, but still confused on what it is.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Tazzie said:


> Honestly, this photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. Is the black and white image above still something you would show to the rider?



> The second one looks awkward while the first one shows a horse in full on power mode, stretching out to get home. The horse has an uphill appearance as opposed to looking like the hind end is a few inches above the shoulders. I get that I'm a Dressage rider and that doesn't always correlate with barrel racing, but the same concepts apply when a horse is going full out like that.


Makes sense.



> As for the downloads, I know. I think Korrina charges $50 for a copyright released download. I don't print the images I purchase as digital downloads as then I'd have FAR too many. I purchase from her site when I want something in hard copy form as opposed to printing my own. So I wasn't remarking on your cost whatsoever. Photographers vary SOO much in their prices. Like my Regional photos. I paid about $150 for ALL of my images, including a mini photoshoot, and I'm free to print whatever I'd like. For Korrina, her deal is a 6 image download for $250 (print release images that is). Both are good friends of mine, and both have given me lovely work. So that's why I didn't specifically comment on cost
> 
> But I do recommend taking a look. It can be difficult to see the entire image of Korrina's, but they are not stolen. That's the big thing that can happen to photographers. Because people will make screenshots and get the images that way even if you disable the right click feature.


Okay I finally got some time to spend some time with Korinna's site. I like the layout in terms of ordering photos (simple, clean), but the website itself is a bit dry for my tastes. I'm a visual person so when I have my site up, it will be captivating. But with that being said, I love her checkout system (I will forsure be having this put in) and love her watermark and how she places them. After seeing hers I think I will change up my watermark to something more sophisticated like hers. Not the same, but same idea. You will see. 

Thanks for mentioning her site to me. 

PS - disabling right click, save as on websites is easy to put in.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Thought about it some more - $39CDN per photo will be my rate but $6 of it will go to an equine rescue.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Hoofpic said:


> I tried looking it up, but still confused on what it is.


It may not apply to digital....but a photo person should know what it is.....


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

greentree said:


> It may not apply to digital....but a photo person should know what it is.....


I've never heard of it and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Anyways I am still undecided if I am going with a digital portfolio for now on (viewed on Samsung tablet) or sticking with print and going with something like a 11x14 album. I will go more into this in my other thread in horse talk. 

There are pros and cons to both.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> Thanks. Is the black and white image above still something you would show to the rider?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was merely saying the black and white photo was the better of the two. I don't ever care for a horse to be heavy on the forehand like that, so I'm sorry to say I wouldn't be the best to ask in situations for what barrel racers would want to see. Personally? I'm not a fan of either. I'm not talking composition or anything like that since I know NOTHING about that nor will I pretend to know. I just know what appeals to me in a picture.

As for Korrina's website, I wasn't showing you to let you critique it or to give you an idea of how to design yours. I just respect her a lot as she is a dear friend of mine, and I'd never disrespect her by screenshoting an image off of her website so I could show you the watermark she herself uses. Quite honestly her website is a reflection of who she is: extremely creative, sweet, yet professional and easy to approach. So I'll be blunt when I say I didn't care for the critique as that was not why I shared her work. She's not even the best photographer in our area, but she's been one of my favorites and I've supported her work at every show I go to where she is. She just had the best example I knew of that had a watermark on it that I've also purchased images from.


----------



## horseylover1_1 (Feb 13, 2008)

Autowinder - definition of autowinder by The Free Dictionary

All but obsolete. I've never heard of it either, but I never used film because by the time I was shooting (16) film was history.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Okay one rider loves my other photos and would like to buy them but is turned off by my cost even though I explained to her that what she gets is the high res image file so she can do a print and frame her in her home, barn, wherever. She just can't tamper with the photo like crop my signature off the corner. Not much I can do, I don't want to get into bargaining for my photos. I have a set price and if people REALLY love their photos and wand it that bad, well they have no choice but to pay my price. 

I was thinking about this the other day and there is a reason why I am set on $39CDN with (now $6 per photo going to horse rescue). Because I want people to come to me for my work and what I do and the product I give. I want them to come to me because I offer something special that few others have. I don't want them coming to me because I am a cheap cost.

You see these people today (not just photographers but anyone who freelances...web, programmers, etc), who work for so cheap, but I can gaurentee you that their clients don't go to them because of their work. They go to them because they are cheap and cost is the number one attraction that draws them to them. If that person ever raises their prices, 100% gaurenteed everyone would flee for another provider. I don't want to be seen as this. I want people to come to me for my product because cost won't even be a factor. If someone wants your product, they will pay your price. 

Again, I will be covering the video side of things as well and to me this could be a double edged sword but I will play this to my benefit. I think it is a huge asset to have and offer. I am going to pounce on it but I am wanting for this to be what seperates me from just another "equine photographer" out there, (BTW, my title will be "Equestrian Photographer & Videographer". I will specialize and target equine portraiture and shows (most if not all of my video work would be in shows, like english jumping side I would think). I was originally only to specialize in equine portraiture but I've changed my mind, it will now be shows as well.

Parents want to see and have memories of their kids riding in these shows and events. There is a market and I would be dumb to not target this as well. Especially seeing how I will be offering video services as well and I could really have a good product to sell to parents and riders. Just imagine!


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Autowinder or not....my point was that you take a succession of photos and choose the best point of the stride, as Katie said....just like using several different light readings, or stops to see which is the best, because right AFTER that downward stride, the horse LIFTS, and Immediately BEFORE and AFTER that horse in the barrels THROWS its head, it has it DOWN, and THAT would have been a flattering shot of the ride, instead of an insult.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

greentree said:


> Autowinder or not....my point was that you take a succession of photos and choose the best point of the stride, as Katie said....just like using several different light readings, or stops to see which is the best, because right AFTER that downward stride, the horse LIFTS, and Immediately BEFORE and AFTER that horse in the barrels THROWS its head, it has it DOWN, and THAT would have been a flattering shot of the ride, instead of an insult.


Interesting. But how would this help me? I need to see the photos after.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Hoofpic said:


> Interesting. But how would this help me? I need to see the photos after.


???????


----------



## Whinnie (Aug 9, 2015)

https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/8-tips-for-taking-sports-photos-like-a-pro--photo-296


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

For the price you're trying to command, your photos don't reflect the quality I'd expect for that kind of money. None of them are what I'd term excellent, and only some are passably good enough that people might want them enough to pay for them, but certainly not for the price you're asking.


You also can't say you're donating part of the proceeds without naming the charity, and proving that the funds have gone there. Most businesses donating part of their proceeds from an event _don't _jack up their prices to reflect the percentage they're donating, they merely take the credit when they file their taxes. You don't appear to understand how charitable giving actually works.


Bottom line, until you can greatly improve your photography skills you can't charge premium prices and expect people to pay them, especially people at a backyard show. As for videography, most people have the means to video their own child's ride and aren't going to want to pay for something they can do themselves. The only videographers who make any money are those good enough to get invited to A rated and above shows.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> Interesting. But how would this help me? I need to see the photos after.


Really? You don't think taking multiple pictures in a row so you can really snap the RIGHT moment is a good thing? Its much harder to time it right then it is to set your camera to take multiple pictures then when you load on your computer later delete the bad ones and keep the good one. I guess its called continuous mode or burst mode on dslr cameras?


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

"If you look away from the action, you might miss great shots. Image via Unsplash.
When you chimp, you take your eyes off the field and the action. If you're shooting football, you can easily be run over on the sideline when not paying attention.

While reviewing your pictures is ok, there is a time and a place to do so. In sports, after the shutter clicks there's no second chance. You must move on to the next play."

Quote from the excellent article in the link that @Whinnie posted.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

Yes you shouldn't be checking each shot right after you take it, thats for when you get home. You just need to focus and try and take as many as possible and then once home you weed out the bad ones and edit the good.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> I have priced my photos, $39.00CDN each. I hope it's not too much, but also I don't want to under charge and then increase the price later. I've spent quite a bit of time deciding my price and I think $39.00CDN is fair.


What is that the price for?
A print? (What size?)
A digital copy?

That translates to over $30 in US dollars and quite honestly, I would not pay that much even for one digital copy. That's pretty steep, in my opinion. Especially for an event that looked more casual. If you were shooting a big name event, sure, then that might be reasonable. But not for a local fun show.



Hoofpic said:


> Could I get feedback on this photo? Is it a bad photo to send to the rider?
> 
> Again, a reminder, we are not here to critique the riders in the photos, just my photos itself.


While it's not the best picture, it probably is the best picture you could have gotten. The horse's head is most likely elevated b/c that is where the rider is holding her hand ...... (not meant to critique the rider, but it's true ... especially with all that headgear.....). So this is probably an example of not the best shot, but probably the best shot you are going to get of this horse-rider combo, and it is what it is.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> I see what you guys mean now. Here is one of the unflattering ones of one front foot on the ground while both hind feet are on the ground. Now when I see it, yes it looks awkward.


This picture is fine. The horse is powering off with it's hind end, and head is in a good "power" position. I think this is a nice picture.



Hoofpic said:


> For instance here is one of my favourites.


For me, I think this is a very awkward photo with the horse only having the one front foot on the ground. It's just not a flattering pose for the horse.


----------



## egrogan (Jun 1, 2011)

^^ I think beau's feedback is all really good. Maybe the broader theme is that this will be a good opportunity for you to learn more about how horses move when they're using themselves well (and when they're not!) and how to identify good (and less good) riding position. A lot of the pictures you posted as your favorites, I look at and think the horse or rider looks awkward or not their best. 

I won't say much more because it's clear we're not supposed to wander into riding critique territory, but maybe if you spent some time in that section of the forum looking at photos/video people have posted of themselves, and the critiques that have been given, it will start to develop your eye for good movement in the disciplines you're interested in. Also, have you reviewed the guidelines for taking good conformation shots so you are thinking about how to help show off a horse's assets?


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I will reply shortly but I just wanted to say that I still believe that $39CDN per photo is reasonable. Could I drop it to $33? Sure and at the end, it was either $33 or $39. Why $33 exactly? Cause if they buy 3, it would be $99, as opposed to $120, so it would look more enticing to the buyer. That is exactly why I have $39 instead of $40. Why stores have say a jug of milk for $3.99 instead of $4, it's all a visual thing to give the buyer a great sense of feeling that by dropping the price to one dollar lower, that they are saving more. Obviously with something like photography (which is considered fine art, you don't sell as retail, so you round to the dollar).

As for the equine rescue, I have contacts with quite a few on my Facebook page and I will be setting up a plan with one or two of them so that I can show their name as to where the $6 per photo will be going to.

If I do the $6 to rescue, I would most likely stick with $39 and not $33.

You have to keep in mind that, as time goes on, I can't just increase my prices, you will lose customers. 

$33 is the lowest I would go, anything lower and then all of a sudden your customers are coming to you for your low bargain bin price and not your product as their primary focus.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Another thing I should mention is this. I will be having a checkout system online for people to purchase digital downloads. 

All my photos bought will be the full size high res file, meaning the person can go print huge poster size prints if they wanted. 

I know I could have different prices for different size files and give the person the option of what to go with. I don't want to be bothered with that extra complicity, it would take quite a bit more time having to make different sizes for each and every photo.

So I have a set price, they get the highest res, original size image file and say, even if the person only wants to print say a 4x6 off of it for the time being. If down the road, they decide they would like to print it again but much larger so they can frame it on their wall, they already have the right file needed and don't have to come back to me. 

I state this in my pricing. When someone asks how much for photos, I will say X amount. This gets you the original sized, high res image so you can do very large prints if you choose to frame the photo. I will have to reword it in a shorter and more effective selling tactic but you get what I am saying.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Personally - I wouldn't buy any of your photographs when I could just pop on over to this forum and save them right to my desk top...


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

farmpony84 said:


> Personally - I wouldn't buy any of your photographs when I could just pop on over to this forum and save them right to my desk top...


Wait, what? So you are fine making prints of watermarks on them?

You have to remember that $40 for an original size digital file, allows the person to do large prints off of it and they get the licensing rights to do what they want with the image. Just no tampering or modication of the image. My signature must always remain on it. Original size digital image will always be much more than a 4x6 5x7 or even 8x10.

You can right click and save as my image off here and print it, but I gaurentee that it won't look the same because it's not the original file, which always retain more quality allow for higher quality and larger prints.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

But Hoofpic, not everyone wants the original size digital file. I, personally, do NOT care if mine are. The ones I have are from two of my local, favorite photographers (people wise), who had a deal for the files. My show middle of June I paid $45 (it was $50 with a 10% discount) for ALL of my images from the show because I was in so few classes. It amounted out to a bit under $10 for the images I liked. These were full size images.

The majority of what I buy are Facebook/Social Media images ONLY. I do not need a house full of images of Izzie and I at various shows. Thinking about it now, I have 7 images I've purchased from the 4 years of showing she's done. But I have HUNDREDS I have from buying the smaller, lesser quality file.

At the kind of show you went to this past weekend you'll be very hard pressed to find people to buy pictures at that price. This is NOT a knock on you, but a reality of the smaller shows. One friend, who is a photographer for our A RATED show end of April, confided in me very few people purchase images from their show. Which is why even though there were few images that I loved from them, I bought some as a way to support the photographer. These came as original size files. I'll never use them outside of sharing on here or Facebook.

I think you need to sit down and rethink the pricing. I can honestly say I wouldn't pay $39 for an original size file of my picture because I have NO use for the entire file size. What these people are probably going to want to use it for is to show their friends how they did at a show, or to show off a first show. Again, not a knock on you. But this is the reality of horse show photographers. You have to be SUPER good to command higher prices, and you're not quite there yet. Also, there is no reason to think you'll lose customers if you raise prices. Pricing CAN vary per show depending on if it's schooling vs rated. BUT you NEED to have quality images that your customers will want to buy.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Hoofpic said:


> Wait, what? So you are fine making prints of watermarks on them?
> 
> You have to remember that $40 for an original size digital file, allows the person to do large prints off of it and they get the licensing rights to do what they want with the image. Just no tampering or modication of the image. My signature must always remain on it. Original size digital image will always be much more than a 4x6 5x7 or even 8x10.
> 
> You can right click and save as my image off here and print it, but I gaurentee that it won't look the same because it's not the original file, which always retain more quality allow for higher quality and larger prints.


I'm just making an observation. Most people want to see their picture and maybe share it w/ their friends via social media. Once the picture is out here on the forum - they can save it to their computer with no need to pay a huge amount of money for it. In my opinion, you are asking a ton of money for these photos. It seems to me that electronic copies of pictures were only about $10 when I bought them the last time I went to a show.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

farmpony84 said:


> I'm just making an observation. Most people want to see their picture and maybe share it w/ their friends via social media. Once the picture is out here on the forum - they can save it to their computer with no need to pay a huge amount of money for it. In my opinion, you are asking a ton of money for these photos. It seems to me that electronic copies of pictures were only about $10 when I bought them the last time I went to a show.


$10 is exactly what I pay for a social media/Facebook digital download, which is extremely reasonable.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

I have a lot of trouble with my old super slow computer, can barely type this reply. Had to leave computer on over night to see the images you took on page 1.

For that reason I will not go back and list my 10 favorite shots that you took. I can say it would be nothing like your 10 favorite list. Maybe 2 or 3 the same.

I do think you did very good, probably better than many expected. 

I wonder if making an ALBUM in your profile page of a show or event, then putting a link to it in your post would make it easier/faster for me (and others) to view.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Tazzie said:


> But Hoofpic, not everyone wants the original size digital file. I, personally, do NOT care if mine are. The ones I have are from two of my local, favorite photographers (people wise), who had a deal for the files. My show middle of June I paid $45 (it was $50 with a 10% discount) for ALL of my images from the show because I was in so few classes. It amounted out to a bit under $10 for the images I liked. These were full size images.
> 
> The majority of what I buy are Facebook/Social Media images ONLY. I do not need a house full of images of Izzie and I at various shows. Thinking about it now, I have 7 images I've purchased from the 4 years of showing she's done. But I have HUNDREDS I have from buying the smaller, lesser quality file.
> 
> ...


Okay after doing some more research and reading a very good article, as well as calling up a few local photographers and chatting with them, I will expand my pricing tree (I unfortunately have to).

The one thing I was told is to not provide the digital files in it's full resolution because someone could just use them commercially. Staples prints up to 60x100, so I chose 24x36 to be the max size since that is generally the largest size that people would generally have in their home if framed.

1) I have my Print Release done up and just updated it. Few key points in it that I have.
a) photos can be printed for home and workplace use only to the maximum size of [the size this specific customer wants].
b) they are not to be resold
c) Images are NOT to be used for or displayed through social media on any social media channels. (I will provide a seperate version of each photo for the customers to use for social media. This photo will have my watermark on it but it will be in the corner and discreet.

So with that being said, as much as I don't want to deal with offering multiple sizes and etc, I will have to.

Here is what I've come up with (each photo purchase will include two versions (one for online use[social media etc] and the other to print in the size that they ordered)

4x6 = $15

5x7 = $20 (extra time to resize in post, so it has to cost a bit more)

8x10 = $30 (same goes here)

24x36 = $40 (this is for people who want to frame the photo and from my research $40CDN is cheap!). In fact I might even increase the price on this one because your photo will be used as a work of art in someones living room or what not. I'm thinking $60 is more than fair.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> I will reply shortly but I just wanted to say that I still believe that $39CDN per photo is reasonable.


Of course you are free to set your prices where you see fit, but myself (and others) are just trying to give you perspective from the consumer standpoint.

In the past, I've paid $10 to $15 US dollars for a digital copy of a barrel racing photo from a jackpot. 

In addition to what Tazzie said, I also had an experience where I paid $50 US dollars at a local horse show for the photographer to take professional photos of me all day. Now she did not get every single event and I knew that up front, but I still got about 25 images (digital copies on a CD) for the single price of $50. For an all-day free, I thought $50 was reasonable. (and it literally was an all-day show)

So again, if you want your photos to be $39 canadian EACH, then set that price. But, I will tell you, I personally would not pay that. So just don't be surprised if others won't either.



Hoofpic said:


> Wait, what? So you are fine making prints of watermarks on them?


Oh heavens, I've seen people share photos on Facebook that has the photographers watermark all over it saying the photo is stolen. They don't care. They share anyway. 

I wouldn't ... but lots of people are fine doing lots of things, including printing photos with watermarks on them. 

It wouldn't be a bad thing so have some sort of translucent water mark over the entire picture for people to view on your website or whatever you set up. Even if you disable pictures from being downloaded and saved via right-click on the mouse .... everyone can always press the Print Screen button easily. Won't be as high resolution, but they may not care. 

As you know, theft is pretty high when it comes to digital photos.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

I would never pay $33 or $39 for ONE digital picture download. That's WAY too high. That's more expensive then it even costs to do some of those show! Maybe you'll find people that will pay it but not many. If I was paying that much I'd expect actual prints. The photographer that shot my wedding only charged $200 or $300 I believe for ALL my shots edited on a cd!


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Few more things I will bring up.

1) I was advised to put the Copyright "C" logo next to my signature on all images licensed when bought as a digital download.

Is my name not enough?

2) I will no doubt have two version for every photo downloaded - online version for social media and one for personal use. Personal use will be for prints and have my signature in the bottom corner and the online version will have my watermark in the corner.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

anndankev said:


> I have a lot of trouble with my old super slow computer, can barely type this reply. Had to leave computer on over night to see the images you took on page 1.
> 
> For that reason I will not go back and list my 10 favorite shots that you took. I can say it would be nothing like your 10 favorite list. Maybe 2 or 3 the same.
> 
> ...


Right now I only have a Flickr account and I've only uploaded the photos to the riders who requested to see the rest of their photos for sale. 

Flickr can be a pain to use at times but it's a temporary solution for me. 

I will hopefully have the rest of the riders photos uploaded by tomororow as I have 6 people interesting in buying, they just want to know about pricing.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Okay it's done, finalized and I have notified all 6 people interested in buying.

PER PHOTO PRICE:

4x6 = $15

5x7 = $20 

8x10 = $30 

up to 24x36 = $40

These prices grant a lifetime, personal, non-commercial use license to immediate family to print or have printed reproductions of these images, up to a maximum size of [your requested size], for display in their home and workplace only. 


Now I didn't just make these numbers up, after reading some good articles on pricing photos, this is what I have calculated to be the best fit for me.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

anndankev said:


> I have a lot of trouble with my old super slow computer, can barely type this reply. Had to leave computer on over night to see the images you took on page 1.
> 
> For that reason I will not go back and list my 10 favorite shots that you took. I can say it would be nothing like your 10 favorite list. Maybe 2 or 3 the same.
> 
> ...


Okay try my IMGUR account, HERE

I re-uploaded a few images so they're not broken in the original post, so I am reposting them now on here.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Why would you put a signature on your photo? I guess you *could*, but from what I've seen it's only been for people that have made a name for themselves within the industry, like this guy: Shows - Ferrara Photography. Though even then I'm not entirely sure he actually puts a signature on his photos.

This is what is on my desk at work, from Korrina. There is no signature, no watermark, nothing (click the image, it'll be upright).










Same photo, but the social media/Facebook version (ignore the watermark my blog puts on there; I've had people stealing pictures to use for selling Izzie's half siblings):










As opposed to the media download I bought from Regionals that allows me to use as I wish (again, my watermark is added to keep people from stealing):










I'm not entirely sure how you think you'd be able to stop people from posting the images on social media if they've purchased the download from you. Unless you're giving them a free social media download, you'll most likely be SOL in keeping them from putting them on Facebook. Considering that is where ALL my photos are posted, with very few in comparison being posted here, that alone would deter me from buying any. That is, unless you offered just a social media purchase to begin with.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Tazzie said:


> Why would you put a signature on your photo? I guess you *could*, but from what I've seen it's only been for people that have made a name for themselves within the industry, like this guy: Shows - Ferrara Photography. Though even then I'm not entirely sure he actually puts a signature on his photos.
> 
> This is what is on my desk at work, from Korrina. There is no signature, no watermark, nothing (click the image, it'll be upright).
> 
> ...


Because like with paintings or drawings, it's a copyright basically. If you have someone frame your photo on their wall, you want to have your name on it. They will always get asked who did it and if you don't put a small signature on it, that person can say it's theirs.

Also, many print shops will notice copyrights on photos and they will ask for a form stating that the person has licensing rights to print it. This is where i put in my Print Release that the person must show the form to the print service provider if they wish to do prints in a retail or print shop.



> I'm not entirely sure how you think you'd be able to stop people from posting the images on social media if they've purchased the download from you. Unless you're giving them a free social media download, you'll most likely be SOL in keeping them from putting them on Facebook. Considering that is where ALL my photos are posted, with very few in comparison being posted here, that alone would deter me from buying any. That is, unless you offered just a social media purchase to begin with.


It is in my Print Release that posting anything but the social media version is allowed on social media. 

"These images are NOT to be used for or displayed through social media on any social media channels. Usage of these images through social media, or any other violation of any of the other terms, will constitute a breach of this entire Print Release; Use License, rendering it null and void in its entirety."

I thought about this long and hard last night. I will be going with a watermark + signature for proofs. This watermark won't nessecarily be in the corner, but rather where I feel is the most effective. I was going to do Korrina's route for her watermark but with my watermark, it doesn't really work and it's just too big if I scale it and place in the center so I opted with watermark + signature.

So online versions that are downloaded will have a much smaller watermark in the bottom corner and print version will have my signature in bottom corner.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

And people post photos all over Facebook with their watermarks still on the photo and nothing is done about it. Unfortunately I don't believe you'll get very far trying to keep the images off social media.

As for photos and what not, I have a NICE canvas print of Izzie by Korrina. It is not signed in any way, nor have I been asked who took the photo. It's your prerogative if you decide to add it, but I'd urge you to make it discreet. And NOT in the middle of the photo.

Also, forgot to mention. This is not a good photo in the sense of horse's stride. I, again, can't say about the composition or whatnot. But as a rider, I'd DESPISE if a picture like this of me made it out into the internet. That horse is cross cantering, which is NOT good.



Hoofpic said:


>


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

beau159 said:


> Of course you are free to set your prices where you see fit, but myself (and others) are just trying to give you perspective from the consumer standpoint.
> 
> In the past, I've paid $10 to $15 US dollars for a digital copy of a barrel racing photo from a jackpot.
> 
> ...


You have to keep in mind that MOST (not all, but most) photographers just "touch up photos" and do the absolute bare minimum that they have to, to make each one look it's best. Trust me, I've seen a lot of photographers work over the years and yes they have good work but they just look flat to me. There are a ton of photographers who there who don't know how to post edit beyond the box. I am not that way. This is where I can attract customers after they see my ability to post edit and think outside the box a bit. 

For instance this photo here










Do you think that's how it looked right off the camera? Not even close. But I know how to give different images various looks and feels to them. It just so happens that the way I finished this photo very much suits the action and enhances it. 



> Oh heavens, I've seen people share photos on Facebook that has the photographers watermark all over it saying the photo is stolen. They don't care. They share anyway.
> 
> I wouldn't ... but lots of people are fine doing lots of things, including printing photos with watermarks on them.
> 
> ...


Yes they share with watermarks but still the person owning it, still has that exposure. When people see the photo, like it, they see the name and will look that person up curious about their other work, services etc.


----------



## egrogan (Jun 1, 2011)

Wait, you're saying if someone pays you $40 for the photograph that they will have printed and framed, it would have your signature _on the picture? _Like, in the middle of it as in the pictures you posted above? Who would want to hang a print on their wall with your name across the middle of it?

I'm staring at the pieces of professional art on my living room wall right now- I have 1 18x24 black and white photo and 6 paintings (two personal commissions)- the photo has an artist signature on the matting of the framed print; paintings have a small signature in the bottom right hand corner.

I am very confused about all the terms that are being used here but if I bought a photo of me having fun with my horse at a local show, it would primarily be because I was going to share it on FB, and maybe if it was artsy enough I'd take it to my frame shop so I could put the print on the wall. If there was a logo on the print, I'd want my framer to try to cover it up with matting. I would think the vast majority of people at a fun show would want to be able to send some pictures around on social media, maybe have a small copy to put on their desk at work, but are not going to spend more than the picture cost to have it framed. But I really doubt you need to be worried about commercial resale or some of the other uses you seem to be trying to protect yourself against.

Did you have all these restrictions on photos when you were a wedding photographer? I got married in the stone age and social media wasn't a thing, but I can't remember my photographer treating me like I was a criminal...


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

beau159 said:


> I still got about 25 images (digital copies on a CD) for the single price of $50. For an all-day free, I thought $50 was reasonable. (and it literally was an all-day show)


Also keep in mind that I don't want people to come to me because of my price. That is the window shopper. I don't want them. I want them to come to me because of my product and that they feel I offer something others lack. A photographers ability to post edit is a greatly underestimated but incredibly powerful skillset to have. Every photographer has different abilities and some lack it. This is why you look at composite photgraphers - these guys make big money because they have a unique talent that very few people have. I would love to get into composite photography but I don't have the skillset for it. 

If all these other photographers want to shoot all day events and provide dirt cheap prices, then that is fine, I don't want to be in that target market. One thing's forsure in the photography industry is that within a certain reason, you get what you pay for. 

Cheaper photographers will always have to cut corners somewhere, whether it's in their work, their communication, whatever.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I changed my pricing, it was too low, especially once i start putting in 10 or 15% of each photo to be donated to equine rescue. THis is what I will go with. 

4x6 = $20
5x7 = $25 
8x10 = $35 
up to 24x36 = $50 (I know you all may see this as expensive for a print up to 24x36 but this is cheap! They could put this up on their living room wall if they wanted and this is a cheap price. I will say that it's not that uncommon for digital files of this size to be $100+). If someone wants to frame the photo at this size, that obviously means that the photo means that much to them and they will pay the price to get it nicely framed and the photo itself. $50 is cheap. I would go higher but the main reason why I wanted to keep it at $50 is to entice more people to get this size and frame the photo.

But for the riders who I just emailed with the previous pricing, I will honour it for them.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

I think you're over rating your editing abilities. Quite a few of those pictures look way too over done. It should look natural and enhanced.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Tazzie said:


> And people post photos all over Facebook with their watermarks still on the photo and nothing is done about it. Unfortunately I don't believe you'll get very far trying to keep the images off social media.


I know but you try to do what you can do. It's better than nothing.



> As for photos and what not, I have a NICE canvas print of Izzie by Korrina. It is not signed in any way, nor have I been asked who took the photo. It's your prerogative if you decide to add it, but I'd urge you to make it discreet. And NOT in the middle of the photo.


Having your signature on it will still give you exposure. Maybe it's just me but I may see things differently. Just like with drawings and paintings, an artist would never sell their work without their signature. Though my case is different, I am not selling the image, just the licensing to it. 



> Also, forgot to mention. This is not a good photo in the sense of horse's stride. I, again, can't say about the composition or whatnot. But as a rider, I'd DESPISE if a picture like this of me made it out into the internet. That horse is cross cantering, which is NOT good.


Okay thanks, now I know.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Interesting, you want top dollar for your work, but get upset when people say you should go on a course to improve your skills.

You want top dollar for your work, because otherwise you will just get value shoppers? Er hello how many photographers covered that event? Just you, and as a competitor I would not pay too money for your work, especially at that sort of event. I can get people to take great snaps of my mare and I, at no cost, so I'm not interested in more snaps.

I want technically good pictures, and I want them showing me and my horse at its best.

My biggest MAJOR issue here is some of the photos you have shared here. If I signed a release for my likeness to be shared I would be trusting the person taking the pics not to share ones that made me, and or my horse look bad. Some of those images will be just deeply embarrassing to people, and that isn't fair.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

egrogan said:


> Wait, you're saying if someone pays you $40 for the photograph that they will have printed and framed, it would have your signature _on the picture? _Like, in the middle of it as in the pictures you posted above? Who would want to hang a print on their wall with your name across the middle of it?
> 
> I'm staring at the pieces of professional art on my living room wall right now- I have 1 18x24 black and white photo and 6 paintings (two personal commissions)- the photo has an artist signature on the matting of the framed print; paintings have a small signature in the bottom right hand corner.
> 
> ...


No the signature goes in the bottom corner and it's small.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> You have to keep in mind that MOST (not all, but most) photographers just "touch up photos" and do the absolute bare minimum that they have to, to make each one look it's best. Trust me, I've seen a lot of photographers work over the years and yes they have good work but they just look flat to me. There are a ton of photographers who there who don't know how to post edit beyond the box. I am not that way. This is where I can attract customers after they see my ability to post edit and think outside the box a bit.
> 
> For instance this photo here
> 
> ...


 How about you put the pre-edited original up alongside this edited one and allow members to say which one they think works best?


----------



## Nmcowgirl26 (Mar 10, 2017)

wow some of these photos are breath taking!!!


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


> You have to keep in mind that MOST (not all, but most) photographers just "touch up photos" and do the absolute bare minimum that they have to, to make each one look it's best. Trust me, I've seen a lot of photographers work over the years and yes they have good work but they just look flat to me. There are a ton of photographers who there who don't know how to post edit beyond the box. I am not that way. This is where I can attract customers after they see my ability to post edit and think outside the box a bit.
> 
> For instance this photo here
> 
> ...


I do think it is a cool edited photo ..... but I will agree with some of the others that it is indeed fake looking due to the effects. Some people might love it - others may not care for it.



Hoofpic said:


> If all these other photographers want to shoot all day events and provide dirt cheap prices, then that is fine, I don't want to be in that target market. One thing's forsure in the photography industry is that within a certain reason, you get what you pay for.


I* did *get what I paid for: _Nice_ photos of my horse and I that were edited and looked great. 

And ..... not a single photo was an awkward or unflattering picture. My horse and I looked great in each shot.



Hoofpic said:


> A photographers ability to post edit is a greatly underestimated but incredibly powerful skillset to have


You can have all the editing skills in the world, but if you captured an awkward shot of the horse/rider, the editing won't save you.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> How about you put the pre-edited original up alongside this edited one and allow members to say which one they think works best?


Sure here you go.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Nmcowgirl26 said:


> wow some of these photos are breath taking!!!


Thank you.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

beau159 said:


> I do think it is a cool edited photo ..... but I will agree with some of the others that it is indeed fake looking due to the effects. Some people might love it - others may not care for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like to take risks because for me, risks are rewarding but also challenging. I'm not saying that I took those awkward shots on purpose but now I know a lot more on what to look for.

Once I get more experience, it will be a wonderful combination. I just need more experience under my belt. 

BTW, that pic was the free one that I sent that rider and she loved it. Again, I took a risk by sending her that one but I had a good feeling she would like it.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

Since you posted the un-edited version I decided to play with it some. IMO your edit just looks off. Its too washed out and then the halo around the rider and dark corner, I also would of cropped it differently. But everyone has their own styles...I also brought out the horses color/tack color more too, everyone wants to see their horses beautiful and shiny not dull. Also I cropped it differently because IMO the rider doesnt care about the ugly fence in the background, THEYRE the main attraction so make the pic more around them and ditch the ugly fence where you can?

But here is how I'd edit it, well yours vs mine so you can see the differences side by side. I only spent MAYBE 5 minutes on it, it really didn't need much just colors brought out better and I cropped it differently.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


> You can right click and save as my image off here and print it, but I gaurentee that it won't look the same because it's not the original file, which always retain more quality allow for higher quality and larger prints.


Sorry if someone else mentioned this.

Some people are not picky about quality. They just want to share their picture on Facebook. Many don't even bother with right click save anymore. They use their cell phones to take pictures of their photos that you have posted online, edit the photo, and post it.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

evilamc said:


> Since you posted the un-edited version I decided to play with it some. IMO your edit just looks off. Its too washed out and then the halo around the rider and dark corner, I also would of cropped it differently. But everyone has their own styles...I also brought out the horses color/tack color more too, everyone wants to see their horses beautiful and shiny not dull. Also I cropped it differently because IMO the rider doesnt care about the ugly fence in the background, THEYRE the main attraction so make the pic more around them and ditch the ugly fence where you can?
> 
> But here is how I'd edit it, well yours vs mine so you can see the differences side by side. I only spent MAYBE 5 minutes on it, it really didn't need much just colors brought out better and I cropped it differently.


Thank you for your sample. Mine is suppose to be white towards the center to give the rider a star/spotlight vibe to it, thought it would go well with the energy in that photo and her giving her horse a tap on the HQ.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> Thank you for your sample. Mine is suppose to be white towards the center to give the rider a star/spotlight vibe to it, thought it would go well with the energy in that photo and her giving her horse a tap on the HQ.


I figured that was your reasoning behind it. Some people may like it but some may prefer it to look more natural. Its a risk you take! You were trying to be more artsy with your edit but I feel most people don't care for that so its not worth spending the time. I usually try to enhance colors and crop in a way thats most flattering...but leave out "special effects" unless I KNOW they would want it. Just something to think about. As you get to know your clientele you'll get a better feel for what they like to see as well. Best thing you can do now is research though, look at how a lot of other photographers are editing their pictures? That will give you a better idea on what the public likes.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

OK, I have not read even quarter of this thread, but it seems like you're asking for opinions on what people think. I will first say I'm NOT a pro photographer - did a course once & aspired to be for a time - so my comments are my 'lay' opinion. Just what I personally think, would spend money on. For whatever that's worth to you.

I think pics need to be pretty good in order to pay good money for them, esp in this day of digital photography, where they're a dime a dozen. After your post 74(page 8) there was comment about signatures. The 'watermark' signature thing can well be big & obtrusive in *unpurchased* pics, but I would not buy prints that had the photographer's name scrawled on it - I would accept a very small, light 'advertisement' in one corner though.

In the post 74 pics you put up, aside from lables, I like the first pic. Would buy that of my child. The second pic I like too, but I think it's a little close - to include the whole horse would have been better. The 3rd pic is too far away, bad angle and is confused, with the rider in the background. Don't think it's a good one. 4th pic is lovely, of the girl & horse. Pity about the background, but maybe fading/fuzzing it would be adequate. 5th pic the composition has too much 'nothing' in front & cuts off the rear of the horse. I would not be happy with that pic tho because of the ugly, stressed look of the horse's expression personally. 6th pic would be a great photo if the hooves weren't cut off. But again, I'd be picky about facial expression of the horse. I really like all the subsequent ones except the second last, because the horse's feet have been cut off again.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

I'll have to say I like @evilamc 's edit better. It shows a more vibrant shade to the horse's coat, and doesn't give the appearance of being washed out. Your editing dulls things such as the halter under the headstall and the overall coat color of the horse. And the awkward lighting.

I MUCH prefer something that shows the natural look to my horse. I've never been into artsy type edits with VERY few exceptions. Most of the time for my own personal humor.

I've attached the few "artsy" shots I have. Two are the same photo showing that they gave me the original of what they tweaked to make look artsy. It was actually an edit I liked since it drew me in to a moment with me and my horse. The other is one that was done for a photo I purchased PURELY for humor. It highlights my mare's sassy nature. It is not an image I typically purchase, but it cracked me up enough I wanted it. The editing made it seem dreamy. Is it for everyone? Probably not. But I'd pick a dreamy feel to something as opposed to a harsh edit to cause a drastic change.

By all means, continue with the way you edit photos (no, this is not a knock on you), but just realize you'll slim down your market a bit in doing so.

Also, the regional photos from last year? Where I got the two pictures posted below (the duplicate picture)? I received over 100 photos, and paid $75 for them. They are incredible photos, and I really got what I paid for: quality, natural pictures of my horse. I also have full rights to do as I please with them.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

evilamc said:


> But here is how I'd edit it, well yours vs mine so you can see the differences side by side. I only spent MAYBE 5 minutes on it, it really didn't need much just colors brought out better and I cropped it differently.


 If I was wanting to buy a photo of my horse I'd definitely chose the one on the right. Your lightening effect does nothing to enhance the overall effect and it does that 'nothing' at the expense of losing the natural rich colour of the horse's coat making it look washed out and faded.


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Hoofpic said:


>


One thing I will comment on your edit is you changed the horse from a bay to more looking like a dun. 
_
(Don't flame me horse color experts .... I am not one. ;-) )_

But you did change the coat color of the horse somewhat. For that reason, I would also choose evilamc's edit over yours that kept the horse's coat color more true.

....but some people might like the artsy look sometimes, and I too do a more "fun edit" from time to time on my photos.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

If you are editing for a photography competition or because someone requested something special then the edits are ok but for a horse show picture - you should only edit to clean up the photo. You also need to position yourself so that you can get the best back drop possible. In this photo he maybe have added a shine to my boot and my hooves.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> If I was wanting to buy a photo of my horse I'd definitely chose the one on the right. Your lightening effect does nothing to enhance the overall effect and it does that 'nothing' at the expense of losing the natural rich colour of the horse's coat making it look washed out and faded.


Another reason why I did what I did was to break up the blue shirt and blue hat from the blue sky and give it more seperation visually. I could turn up the saturation but then it wouldn't look right in my pic.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

evilamc said:


> Since you posted the un-edited version I decided to play with it some. IMO your edit just looks off. Its too washed out and then the halo around the rider and dark corner, I also would of cropped it differently. But everyone has their own styles...I also brought out the horses color/tack color more too, everyone wants to see their horses beautiful and shiny not dull. Also I cropped it differently because IMO the rider doesnt care about the ugly fence in the background, THEYRE the main attraction so make the pic more around them and ditch the ugly fence where you can?
> 
> But here is how I'd edit it, well yours vs mine so you can see the differences side by side. I only spent MAYBE 5 minutes on it, it really didn't need much just colors brought out better and I cropped it differently.


One more thing I should add is that the over saturation in your pic doesn't look natural given the backlight. The first things that draw attention from my eyes is the barrel, saddle pad, halter and house. I still appreciate the suggestion, but just wanted to mention it.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> If I was wanting to buy a photo of my horse I'd definitely chose the one on the right. Your lightening effect does nothing to enhance the overall effect and it does that 'nothing' at the expense of losing the natural rich colour of the horse's coat making it look washed out and faded.


The horses coat doesn't look faded, it just looks like light hitting it naturally.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

You might have broken up the colour between the two but you ended up with a sky that looks like a thunderstorm is brewing and a horse that changed from rich bay to something closer to a dun
Again - horse people aren't as much interested in the contrast between their shirt and the sky as they are in the colour of their horse in the photo being the same as the one they own
If you want to play about creating arty shots for a separate market that's fine but if you're at a show selling to competitors/their families then you have to make it all about producing shots that are faithful to the horse that make horse and rider/handler look their absolute best


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Hoofpic said:


> The horses coat doesn't look faded, it just looks like light hitting it naturally.


It looks sun-faded and some of the shine has been removed. Removing the shadowing is one thing, changing the color is another. Do you have a nice photo-shop type software?


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

farmpony84 said:


> It looks sun-faded and some of the shine has been removed. Removing the shadowing is one thing, changing the color is another. Do you have a nice photo-shop type software?


It's suppose to look like that because the rest of the image is a dimmer setting. There is a fine line to balance the two.

I mainly use lightroom and also photoshop for some images as I have plugins and presets in it.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> It's suppose to look like that because the rest of the image is a dimmer setting. There is a fine line to balance the two.
> 
> .


 And you failed because you completely changed the colour of someone's horse
If you take a photo of my bright chestnut mare I don't want her to come out looking like she's been washed over with chalky paint because you felt the sky needed messing with so it contrasted with my shirt
You have to think less about what you want and more about what the potential client wants - that's how you succeed in a selling business.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

You have mentioned that you have had helpful conversations with other equine photographers. Have you ever considered asking one if you could tag along with one when they are at a horse show, maybe act as an apprentice for a few hours or a day? It wouldn't make you any money but you would be able to watch an equine professional at work and gain a better understanding.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Where's Fly? You haven't updated your journal forever.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Honest question, is this a bad image (with the jerking) and shouldn't be shown to the rider?










Got a few more to share.

















































(ABOVE: I really like this one)










(ABOVE: I really like this one too)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

You are right Hoofpic, the first picture you should delete, not send to rider, that would be a good call


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Out of respect for the rider I wouldn't even post the first one here - its one of those shots that catches a horse/rider at exactly the wrong time and the anti-bit brigade would love it
The rest are just average and something any amateur photographer could take themselves. You might be able to sell them to someone who hadn't got someone with them taking photos and wanted a memory but for some reason your photos all lack sharpness/focus. The horses look washed out and lacking in detail.
I think you should spend some money on a professional course on how to use things like photoshop for the best advantage. What you seem to think is using light to enhance the shot is just washing the colour and detail out of it


This is straying away from the critique of these photos but something you seem to have failed to do is market research on the demand for equestrian photography - how many horse owners pay a photographer for photos of their horse and how often. 
You need to know what the market demand is - it would be like opening a store to sell hats for leprechauns and then finding there aren't enough of them around to buy them


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Yeah, that first one needs to be deleted and hidden from any source of public attention. It's HORRIBLE. I'd be down right embarrassed if a photo like that of me and my horse surfaced like that.

It's a tough industry to crack into. Especially when (from my experience here) the larger barns bring their own photographers. Not joking either. At Regionals (REGIONALS!) a barn had a private photographer come take pictures. They can't be in the ring, but they sure can get a good photo without that. My mother in law will often come take photos of the show. I COULD be a jerk and never buy photos when she's come to take them for me. Instead, I DO still support the show photographer. I KNOW I'm a rarity.

I don't like the washed out look you give the horses. Horse people don't want a halo around them making them the "spotlight". They want their horse to pop from the image because the horse is VIBRANT.

And I agree with @jaydee on literally all of the points she hit.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> You have mentioned that you have had helpful conversations with other equine photographers. Have you ever considered asking one if you could tag along with one when they are at a horse show, maybe act as an apprentice for a few hours or a day? It wouldn't make you any money but you would be able to watch an equine professional at work and gain a better understanding.


Ive mainly just talked to them at shows. I k ow there are some that offer you to go with them to shoot for a price.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I would like to clarify on a few things.

I've been told that riders and owners do not want images that look unnatural. But how does cranking up the vibrance and saturation do justice? I like my vibrance and saturation but there is a fine line (more so with saturation than vibrance) where it degrades the image.

Second, when you want to personify an image that has natural light hitting the subject and emphasizing it, you need to ease up on the vibrance and saturation. There is a time where these two settings are used much more generously than other times and natural light is not one of them.

Third, I know my Photoshop, I use this program just about daily. I haven't told anyone on here this, but I actually got my Adobe certification in Photoshop back in 2001 when I took a Photoshop and Illustrator course for 2 years from a Adobe instructor. I know how to use this program. Could I always learn more? Of course. But paying someone to learn it is not on my priority list. Now paying for a course on equine photography or going to shoot with someone would be. I try to do as little as possible (in terms of processing) when it comes to photos, but I do what I need to do to make them look 100 times better than off the camera. So with this being said, I use Lightroom for my photos 100% of the time and only use Photoshop when I absolutely need to. 

Fourth, I've talked to a lot of people (just people in general) and you may be surprised but most (at least 85%) of the people I have talked to prefer images to look as unprocessed and touched up as possible. So that means that they aren't too much into the oversaturated images. Yes riders want the rider and the horse to pop, but there is a fine line between doing it enough and over doing it. 

Fifth, I thought people don't want their images touched up too much.
Like already said, I think the best thing for me to do moving forward, is prior to shooting, sit down with every person, rider and ask them what kind of images they want.

If they want images that pop with oversaturation, I will do that. I can even include HDR package into my services. It obviously takes more time in post because I bring it into LR then PS (both programs have their pros and cons, just my personal preference). and if they want images that have oversaturation then and really pop, then I might as well just propose them with an HDR package. 

If they want straight off the camera, as natural as it can be with minor touch ups when needed, then that would save me a lot of time in post.

So what I am getting at here is, I think what I need to do is sit down with each customer and find out exactly what kind of images they want. 

Here is an example of one of the photos I just posted.

I know Photoshop well enough to do these kind of images if this is what people want. Obviously it takes more time and this factors into my pricing. And people still think I'm too expensive?


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Since the discussion on the horse's color I have wanted to see all 3 versions in one place. Mostly I guess to see if both edits altered the color.

So I am trying here to get all three together, don't know if it will work, but I could not get Evilamc's separated from Hoofpic's edited one, so I guess one will be here twice (if at all--LOL).

























By the way, this pic was not (in my opinion) the best of that particular rider.



PS. I just looked at a preview of this post. It appears both edits altered the color of the horse to me. So I guess a crop only would be most accurate as far as color. Maybe also the quality of the camera, but these 3 were the same pic, and all taken with the same equipment.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


>


I read your post, but I have no idea what you said except you received a certification 16 years ago. This is The Horse Forum, not a technical photography forum, and I did not understand your post enough to know if this photo is touched up or not.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> I would like to clarify on a few things.
> 
> *I've been told that riders and owners do not want images that look unnatural*. But how does cranking up the vibrance and saturation do justice? I like my vibrance and saturation but there is a fine line (more so with saturation than vibrance) where it degrades the image.
> 
> Second, when you want to personify an image that has natural light hitting the subject and emphasizing it, you need to ease up on the vibrance and saturation. There is a time where these two settings are used much more generously than other times and natural light is not one of them.


 You're quite right - horse people do want their images to look natural - so why mess with your photos so they fade the horse's naturally beautiful colour? 
You don't have to crank anything up so it looks unnatural - you have to make the most of what you have to create the closest you can to the horse's natural colour
What you've done hasn't achieved that and its also lost an awful lot of fine detail because it looks as if you were shooting the shot through a misted up lens
You did your course a long time ago so maybe you need a refresher as they've updated a lot since then - and maybe a fine arts course at a local college would help you understand better how to use light and shade to get the best effects
You're trying to talk a lot of technical jargon to prove you know what you're doing but it's not evident in your work that you do
Take a look at top equestrian photographer Libby Laws work and compare how her horses 'pop' against a busy show background to the way yours don't
If you can't 'do better' by realizing that you need to improve your knowledge base you will only ever be able to consider your photography to be a hobby and you'll need your day job to live on - you're nearly 40 aren't you? Not a time of life to be taking too many gambles
EQUESTRIAN PHOTOGRAPHY | LIBBY LAW PHOTOGRAPHY - NZL


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> I read your post, but I have no idea what you said except you received a certification 16 years ago. This is The Horse Forum, not a technical photography forum, and I did not understand your post enough to know if this photo is touched up or not.


You do know this is a picture evaluation thread right? Any picture evaluation post will be technical.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> You're quite right - horse people do want their images to look natural - so why mess with your photos so they fade the horse's naturally beautiful coNZL[/url]


Because you can always make photos, any photo look better after post. 

If some images are too dark or over exposed in the original file, but you like the subject and composition, you can easily fix this.

Photos through a misted up lens look nothing like my photo. Through a misted up lens you will get Silhouettes , grain, bubbles and fogginess.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

You are asking for evaluations and when we say something negative you proceed to defend what you've done. 
If you want to consider this forum to be like a sample group of your potential customer base then you should listen to us because we'd be the one's buying your work so we are the one's that have to like it - not you. 
My DH took this photo with his cell phone on a dull day and we were sitting in the stands right on the other side of the ring. I've cropped it a bit but otherwise not enhanced it at all and yet the image is still sharper than yours so what are you doing wrong? 
Figure it out and then fix it


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> Where's Fly? You haven't updated your journal forever.


Well I dont record my riding videos anymore so that really cuts back on what I need to post.

Other than that, I just havent had a lot of questions over the past few months, which I guess is a good thing.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> You are asking for evaluations and when we say something negative you proceed to defend what you've done.
> If you want to consider this forum to be like a sample group of your potential customer base then you should listen to us because we'd be the one's buying your work so we are the one's that have to like it - not you.
> My DH took this photo with his cell phone on a dull day and we were sitting in the stands right on the other side of the ring. I've crobpped it a bit but otherwise not enhanced it at all and yet the image is still sharper than yours so what are you doing wrong?
> Figure it out and then fix it


Im not defending anything and you cant compare a smartphone pic to a DSLR shooting in AF-C. I shot wide open, smartphones shoot at much lower apertures.

That image is completely different than the one I took. Let me shoot that at f8 and it will be sharp across the entire frame.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

You seem to forget that you are on a horse forum asking about equine pictures.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> You seem to forget that you are on a horse forum asking about equine pictures.


You said that you were surprised that I was getting technical. Why?

Talking about photos is always technical. Besides my post wasnt all over the top technical at all. I was talking about certain things in post like vibrance and saturation. 

Unfortunately post edit is a key factor in any photographers business so it will be talked about regardless.

I mean what did you want me to say?


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Did I say I was surprised? Can you show me the quote?


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

*MODERATOR'S NOTE*

Few posts in this thread have been edited or removed. Please remember to follow the Conscientious Etiquette Policy while discussing on the forum. Disagreeing is all right, but please provide your feedback in constructive manner.

-The HorseForum.com Moderating Team.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

@Hoofpic I read this and I have to wonder.



> I've been told that riders and owners do not want images that look unnatural. But how does cranking up the vibrance and saturation do justice? I like my vibrance and saturation


Remember a lot of the success of a business is in people skills, and delivering what the client wants. WE are your potential clients, and we are giving you valuable free feedback on what we like and don't like as riders and competitors. 

I think you need to step back and think about a few things, you are quick to respond, but try to start thinking as a business man. 

If you opened a sandwich shop and you made boiled cabbage sandwiches because you like them, probably wouldn't do so well. Research the market and serve the sandwiches people will buy.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

For fun I did 2 more of your pics, yours on left mine on right. I was just editing from your edit though...Honestly editing from a raw pic though if no HUGE issues it doesn't take much more then a few minutes.








Again you put like a halo around the rider/horse and have the horses color washed out. You may say its over situated but its vibrant..full of color and LIFE. The little girl has color in her face rather then looking like a pale child thats never been outside. You can't take away the colors, maybe your pic didnt' have them as well to begin wtih but thats why we have photoshop....









This pic its like you turned it YELLOW?! Why would you want to turn a beautiful white/red pinto colored horse YELLOW!? Makes it look like its covered in manure stains. Again with the halo....and you let the sky be that dark color rather then a friendly welcoming blue. I'll admit mine is a bit over-saturated but since I wasn't editing from the raw version but your yellow-poop version I did what I could. You want your pictures to look alive and beautiful..have the horse and rider pop in them by being full of color NOT by halo'ing them like they're in a spot light.

You got a photoshop cert 16 years ago? Oh boy. I graduated from college with a 4 year degree in graphic design in 2010...and you know what? What I learned then is pretty much already out-dated...and Thats only 7 years ago not 16. If I wanted to do photography I'd probably try and find a course/mentor but I mainly just build websites. With websites I'm able to do a lot self taught and manage to keep up more with times then taking classes year over year for them to only be outdated the next year.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Hoofpic, do you have these people's permission to post their pictures here on a public forum?? While that woman you posted, her horse's mouth is open in virtually every picture, showing he is obviously unhappy with the bit, I'm quite surprised you have to ask about the first one. It's awful & I'd be very angry with you posting it here if it were mine.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> Im not defending anything and you cant compare a smartphone pic to a DSLR shooting in AF-C. I shot wide open, smartphones shoot at much lower apertures.
> 
> That image is completely different than the one I took. Let me shoot that at f8 and it will be sharp across the entire frame.


 Yes the image is different because its sharper and clearer and that's what your clients will want to see - and that photos wasn't even taken as a serious shot
If you know how to take sharper images then why not do that?
If someone can take clearer images with their phone then why would they pay someone to take blurred, out of focus, washed out looking photos
I'm not trying to be horrible to you, I'm trying to help you to move forward in the right direction


All of my son's are in good well paid jobs because they were always told the truth.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> You are asking for evaluations and when we say something negative you proceed to defend what you've done.
> If you want to consider this forum to be like a sample group of your potential customer base then you should listen to us because we'd be the one's buying your work so we are the one's that have to like it - not you.
> My DH took this photo with his cell phone on a dull day and we were sitting in the stands right on the other side of the ring. I've cropped it a bit but otherwise not enhanced it at all and yet the image is still sharper than yours so what are you doing wrong?
> Figure it out and then fix it


I also forgot to mention (and this is quite an important one) but shooting in direct sunlight with no shade is actually just as hard if not it can be more difficult than shooting in lowlight. Its one of the things that I usually try to avoid whenever possible. If i have a choice I wait until the sun has come down or an overcast day to shoot subjects outside. I never shoot in direct sunlight by choice. Yes it is nice to have all that light but because there is no shade, it creates other issues.

You deal with harsh shadows, overexposure, blown highlights, high contrast as you have a lot less control over where the shadows fall on a persons face or body. This is why portraiture is never shot in direct sunlight unless reflectors are being used.

In your pic, its not even remotely the same scenario. You have much more controlled lighting (since there is considerable shade at english jumping shows and competitions so you have much more control over your shadows, contrast, your shadows being softer and more controlled.

Thats why I always under expose by 1/3 of a stop on bright sunny days or anything where the camera cant detect accurately properly like snow.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

loosie said:


> Hoofpic, do you have these people's permission to post their pictures here on a public forum?? While that woman you posted, her horse's mouth is open in virtually every picture, showing he is obviously unhappy with the bit, I'm quite surprised you have to ask about the first one. It's awful & I'd be very angry with you posting it here if it were mine.


Yes this has been discussed many times and its posted in the O.P.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

While I understand you have a signed waiver and are not currently breaking a rule on this forum, I personally feel like these photos being posted here are an ethical error on your part as a business man. This comment is merely to point out to you that customers may not appreciate it as you build a business.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> Yes the image is different because its sharper and clearer and that's what your clients will want to see - and that photos wasn't even taken as a serious shot
> If you know how to take sharper images then why not do that?
> If someone can take clearer images with their phone then why would they pay someone to take blurred, out of focus, washed out looking photos
> I'm not trying to be horrible to you, I'm trying to help you to move forward in the right direction
> ...


If you blown up my photo and zoom in, you will see that the "subject" is clearly not out of focus. I would not post a pic if the subject was out of focus.

So you must be referring to the background. There is a reason why this is out of focus, because its supose to be. If I shot all my photos at low aperture like f11 (since thats the lowest I ever go of any camera) you will get your edge to edge sharpness but the entire rule of thirds will be completely different as there will be such high depth of field from the subject to the background. Your eye wont even be immedately drawn to the subject in most of the photos.

And like I said in my previous post, I took all my photos in direct sunlight, no shade what so ever. That makes for a very different experience and outcome than shooting in a setting with natural shadows and softer lighting.

I think many people tend to underestimate jist how hard it is to shoot in direct sunlight. Ask any photographer this and they will all tell you the same, that shooting on a controlled lighting environment or one with shadows is a lot easier than in direct sunlight. I know the ones that Ive known and talked to over the years have said this.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Many of us can help you with getting the horse/rider in good positions, please take that as a positive here.

As for editing and shooting with the right set up though, you need to talk to someone like @Overread. He also came to the HF looking for advice on what/when to shoot in the equine arena. He seemed to graciously accept horsemanship advice, and put it to good use. I will put a link to one of his threads if I can find one. 

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-pictures/few-show-jumpers-716873/

Anyway he seemed quite willing to offer technical advice to you on the cameras, lens, angles, speed and whatever aperture and f8 is. However; your replies seemed to mostly address other peoples comments.

I suggest you start a conversation with him here:

http://www.horseforum.com/hobbies/hobbies-photographers-united-700385/http://


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

If you won't accept jaydee's comparison with your pic because of the difference in conditions (which sound like excuses to me), how about this one? Taken with an iPhone 4 at about 1 or 2pm on a sunny day. Untouched, unenhanced, just posted from the phone straight to Facebook.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> If you won't accept jaydee's comparison with your pic because of the difference in conditions (which sound like excuses to me), how about this one? Taken with an iPhone 4 at about 1 or 2pm on a sunny day. Untouched, unenhanced, just posted from the phone straight to Facebook.


How am I making excuses? So shooting in an english show arena is the same environment and shooting scenario as an outdoor arena with mid day sun hitting directly onto the sand and railings and no shade any where in sight?

Again, I explained it in my previous reply. I do not shoot with a low aperture unless I want everything in the frame, edge to edge to be of equal sharpness.

But why would you if my subject is say the horse and rider and thats where I want eyes to be immediately drawn to? 

Smartphones AF work completely different than a DSLR does. Smartphones heavily rely on the manufacturers built in software itself in processing and outputting the image whereas a DSLR isnt anything like that. Not evem close.

Wherever my focus point is, that means that anything in frame sitting on that focal plane will be in focus and anything not in the focal plan will be in less focus. The further back or ahead something is from the focal plane, the more out of focus it will be.

Smartphone cameras cant be compared because its not the same technology. And even if it was, I shot my shots much more wide open than any smartphone camera is capable of.

I can gaurantee that if I took all those photos at the lowest aperture that I go, they would not give off the same vibe and you would stop comparing your smartphone photos to it.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> *I also forgot to mention (and this is quite an important one) but shooting in direct sunlight with no shade is actually just as hard if not it can be more difficult than shooting in lowlight. Its one of the things that I usually try to avoid whenever possible. If i have a choice I wait until the sun has come down or an overcast day to shoot subjects outside. I never shoot in direct sunlight by choice. Yes it is nice to have all that light but because there is no shade, it creates other issues.*
> *
> You deal with harsh shadows, overexposure, blown highlights, high contrast as you have a lot less control over where the shadows fall on a persons face or body. This is why portraiture is never shot in direct sunlight unless reflectors are being used.
> 
> ...


Right where I bolded. You said it's not a fair comparison because you were shooting in harsh direct sunlight, midday, blah, blah, blah, whatever. Those are excuses for why your pics are over-exposed and washed out. My pics were taken in similar circumstances to what you were shooting in. They're not washed out and they're not over-exposed. 

Why do you get so defensive? You posted asking for critique. You have been provided with A LOT of good feedback. I don't think anyone was overly harsh, at least not until you started telling everyone how and why they were wrong. I think this has been said to you before, but if you cannot take critique and feedback like a mature adult without telling everyone that they're wrong and don't know what they're talking about (which is basically what you're doing), then don't post stuff for critique. It is a waste of everyone's time and is just ridiculously frustrating for those who are genuinely trying to help you be better.

Check out the photo gallery for the schooling show series at my barn. The photographer is the BO's husband using a nice setup, I'm guessing on par with that you are using. Compare the quality and composition of his shots to yours. Shows run 8am to whenever they're done. No shade on the arena or anywhere close. Plus, we invented "harsh direct sunlight" in Arizona. Also, no extraneous butts in any of the pics.

www.thehighdeserthorseshow.com


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Hoofpic said:


> You do know this is a picture evaluation thread right? Any picture evaluation post will be technical.


AGAIN, a true photography forum/group is where you need to be posting.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

farmpony84 said:


> While I understand you have a signed waiver and are not currently breaking a rule on this forum, I personally feel like these photos being posted here are an ethical error on your part as a business man. This comment is merely to point out to you that customers may not appreciate it as you build a business.



I would be mortified if I had signed a waiver and found out that you had posted a 'bad' picture of me online. I trust that a professional on a shoot would only share the best, and that means knowledge beyond just technically being able to use the equipment. 

The fact that you chose to share a number of those, that you do not have the ability to look and think to yourself, that horse looks unhappy, or Wow, that was an ugly moment for that rider, and bin it, says that you have a steep learning curve in front of you.




> How am I making excuses? So shooting in an english show arena is the same environment and shooting scenario as an outdoor arena with mid day sun hitting directly onto the sand and railings and no shade any where in sight?


I don't understand this comment @Hoofpic, I ride at dressage shows, I ride Western but the classes are at English shows. They are all on sand arenas, with no shade, if it's windy it's very dusty, not sure why that is any different from your show?


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

I've posted four different pictures. All taken midday. All taken during direct, bright sunlight. All taken with fancy cameras, not a cell phone. None looked washed out or having awkward halos around them. THIS is what an exhibitor is going to want to see. THIS is what people will buy. Not images with halos around their horses.

Me in the black native costume was taken by my mother in law, outside of the arena. She is an amateur and I think this was the fourth show she ever took pictures of me at. Perhaps the third. I can't remember.

Me in the blue costume was taken by the show photographer, inside the arena. Same arena as the black costume picture.

In the dressage arena, cantering, was taken by a hobbyist who came to take pictures at a dressage show last year.

Final is at regionals at the Kentucky Horse Park, shot directly toward the sun (I know this since she wanted our victory passes reversed so she didn't have to shoot in this direction and risk the pictures not coming out well.)

People don't want you darkening the area around them to highlight them. They want the true beauty of their horse to shine through.

I'm not trying to be harsh. But I AM an exhibitor who will vote with their wallet. I've tried to give you suggestions, but you come up with reasons why you don't want to do it. Which is just sad. Your attitude, and the fact you don't know what a bad picture even is, would turn me off from purchasing from you. Bad moments happen. Lord knows I have A TON. But NO ONE wants photographic evidence of that happening.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Right where I bolded. You said it's not a fair comparison because you were shooting in harsh direct sunlight, midday, blah, blah, blah, whatever. Those are excuses for why your pics are over-exposed and washed out. My pics were taken in similar circumstances to what you were shooting in. They're not washed out and they're not over-exposed.
> 
> Why do you get so defensive? You posted asking for critique. You have been provided with A LOT of good feedback. I don't think anyone was overly harsh, at least not until you started telling everyone how and why they were wrong. I think this has been said to you before, but if you cannot take critique and feedback like a mature adult without telling everyone that they're wrong and don't know what they're talking about (which is basically what you're doing), then don't post stuff for critique. It is a waste of everyone's time and is just ridiculously frustrating for those who are genuinely trying to help you be better.
> 
> ...


Im not getting defensive, I am just explaining how it is. My shots are simply shot with more shallow DOF, it does not mean that your images are sharper. If you think a cell phone can even match a standalone camera for image quality than I dont know what to say to that. You guys always get upset when I dont agree and then say Im being defensive, a jerk, rude, you name it. Which is fine, you can label me however you guys want. But its always your way or the highway. There is only so much i can do. 

Just because I dont agree doesnt mean Im wrong for doing so. 

Just like how Tazzie gets her digital prints with no signature for peanuts. Thats great. It doesnt mean I will do the same. And because I am not going to do the same that means I am wrong. Fine.

Like I said, equine portraiture will be my main market, shows second. Shooting for 1 person will be a completely different outlook than shooting a show of 10 or 15 riders. I have a planned approach as to what to do prior to doing an equine portraiture shoot, it will save me a lot of hassle and it will gaurantee to give the customer what they want.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Anyways, I have spent the past 3 hours writing up my business plan and I will follow through with it as listed. I had a good chat with a good friends wife today (who is a graphic designer but has a very good artistic eye for visuals).

I have a well laid out and clear concise direction of whats next and where I will be going from here. 

The next two steps will be key IMO. I will be meeting up with a couple key people over the next week. Id say in a week to two weeks time certain things will be a lot clearer for me.


----------



## Tazzie (Nov 8, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> Im not getting defensive, I am just explaining how it is. My shots are simply shot with more shallow DOF, it does not mean that your images are sharper. If you think a cell phone can even match a standalone camera for image quality than I dont know what to say to that. You guys always get upset when I dont agree and then say Im being defensive, a jerk, rude, you name it. Which is fine, you can label me however you guys want. But its always your way or the highway. There is only so much i can do.
> 
> Just because I dont agree doesnt mean Im wrong for doing so.
> 
> ...


NO ONE here has said you were wrong because you won't sell digital images with no signature for "peanuts." But your prices currently do NOT reflect the images you have posted here. I'm not saying they won't EVER be worth it, but in their current state? No. I pay $10 for a digital download from most of them here. Not hi res images, but FB/Social Media images because the normal show goer will have NO USE for the hi res images. And right now, $10 is too much to pay for your images. They are far too edited and you do not currently have the eye for what looks good and what doesn't look good when taking pictures of horses.

You tend to get on the defensive when we say your images are washed out, too edited, etc and go on and on about how long it took you to do it. I am, as an exhibitor, telling you to quit wasting your time on the heavy edits and give exhibitors what they WANT. Even in personal photoshoots, which you keep mentioning will be what you're planning on doing, people will not want heavily edited images.

But good luck since it's seeming like none of us will ever give you what you truly seem to be seeking: a pat on the back and telling you how wonderful your images are. Sorry, but on a horse forum no one will give you that when you have horses with gaping mouths and riders yanking on reins (clearly bad moments) and you can't seem to see that it is a BAD photo.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

If you say so. Go back and look at your responses to everyone. Not once did you say "Okay, I see what you're saying. I understand that maybe what I am doing doesn't appeal to a large audience. I will take it into consideration." Every. Single. Response from you has been defending the work you have done (which 95% of the people who have taken the time to provide critique to you have said is NOT something they would purchase and is mediocre at best...if we're all saying the same thing, we can't all be wrong) and basically telling everyone that they don't know what they're talking about because you have all this figured out and we, as a representation of your potential customer base, don't know what we want. 

I don't ever want to see anyone fail at something they want to do. That includes you, regardless of how I feel about you personally. However, if you don't get out of your head and leave behind this "I don't need to listen to you because I've already got this all figured out" mentality that you have, I don't see you succeeding at this enterprise, regardless of how confident you are. Sorry, just calling it like I (and a lot of other people) see it.

Good luck.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Tazzie said:


> NO ONE here has said you were wrong because you won't sell digital images with no signature for "peanuts." But your prices currently do NOT reflect the images you have posted here. I'm not saying they won't EVER be worth it, but in their current state? No. I pay $10 for a digital download from most of them here. Not hi res images, but FB/Social Media images because the normal show goer will have NO USE for the hi res images. And right now, $10 is too much to pay for your images. They are far too edited and you do not currently have the eye for what looks good and what doesn't look good when taking pictures of horses.
> 
> You tend to get on the defensive when we say your images are washed out, too edited, etc and go on and on about how long it took you to do it. I am, as an exhibitor, telling you to quit wasting your time on the heavy edits and give exhibitors what they WANT. Even in personal photoshoots, which you keep mentioning will be what you're planning on doing, people will not want heavily edited images.
> 
> But good luck since it's seeming like none of us will ever give you what you truly seem to be seeking: a pat on the back and telling you how wonderful your images are. Sorry, but on a horse forum no one will give you that when you have horses with gaping mouths and riders yanking on reins (clearly bad moments) and you can't seem to see that it is a BAD photo.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!!!!! :clap:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

This is a LOVELY photo! horse caught in self carriage, rider in good position. It's a picture of lightness and harmony. the background is not intrusive. it's a perfect example of the tried and true, and successful, portrait of a rider and horse. the only thing that might improve it is to crop it down a bit tighter.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Not once did you say "Okay, I see what you're saying.


And how do you know this? Do you know what I'm doing and have been doing that I haven't mentioned on here? How do you know what I am thinking?

If you go all the way back to when i first became a member on here, you will see that I have followed a lot of advice given to me. Why do you think I dont post in my journal very much anymore? Could it perhaps be because I am not at the same stage and mindset that I was at almost 2 years ago or even a year ago? I will mention one thing, my journal is much better where it's at today than it was even a year ago and that is because I haven't had to rely on it. And that is obviously a very good thing because it clearly shows that I have done and followed through on many things given to me by the HF community (which I am very grateful for btw but I know you don't believe it) throughout my time when writing and updating that journal.

Just because I don't fall head over heels for opinions every time doesnt mean I am not doing anything about it. 

I know the mindset on HF well enough by now, its the my way of the highway approach and that is fine by me. Just dont assume that I am a bad person because I dont agree with everything said on here.

Some people on here may just sit here and take it on how they are a bad person, have a bad attitude, bad businessman, bad this and that but I am not one to take it.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

MODERATOR NOTE:

This thread is in need of a rest, a cool down rest. Temporarily closed .


----------

