# My picture portfolio evaluation thread



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Here you can provide feedback, I will be posting 5 pictures at a time with the big 3 settings.

Thank you. Here we go.









f6.3
1/300
640










f6.3
1/2000
6400









f6.3
1/2000
6400










f8
1/500
450










f8
1/500
1400










f6.3
1/500
250


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I have a feeling that the photos aren't showing up here as they do 'for real' and that makes it hard to do them justice in a critique of picture quality
As far as subject matter and composition goes they'd not look out of place in a good wildlife calendar


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Can you move your watermark to a less conspicuous place? That duck looks like it is about to eat it, and in #2 it is in an unfortunate place, too.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Thoughts: First are you using a calibrated monitor (calibrated with an external calibrator such as a Spydr or Colourmonkey). I say that because a lot of these feel overly dark and heavily contrasty. 

Photo 1:
a) Resolution appears very poor on detail and very high in noise levels despite the low ISO. Did you brighten it a lot in editing? The shot appears sharp at a web resize, but the full view after clicking appears very very soft. 
Angle is good, nice and low to the duck, lower would be good but not always possible. The direction though is wrong. The duck is swimming left to right but its main body is in the middle whilst its head is already well into the right and heading off without much room to move. Better composition would have less space behind and more space in front of the duck so that its got room to move into. Note that you could crop the left side (and some of the top and bottom to keep the aspect ratio) to gain this similar effect.
More minor nit pick is that the duck is heading away from the viewer; this puts increased pressure on having space for the duck to move into on the right. 
The eye (major focal point for animals) also appears rather dark. There's also a lot of vignetting in the upper corners, an intentional vignett can be good but in my opinion its too strong here.

biggest issue though is the high noise/low resolution. 

2) Resolution is again a concern; not sure if this is just me not being used to this camera or if you're presenting quite strong crops? 
First thing that stands out is some very strong chromatic aberrations along the edges of the whites of the wing. A very apparent blue element. Most editing software will have ways to deal with this; lightroom has a very good chromatic aberration control slider that you can use. I also find that in strong light white areas can take on a somewhat cyan tinge to them so starting up an adjustment layer and reducing the saturation in the cyan colour channel only can help (typically you don't want to remove all saturation in cyans, but some of it). 

Composition is good and very dark background works well with this kind of shot. You might even want to increase the effect (There is a neat way to do it but I can never remember the process - google up "low key photography/editing and it should give you some ideas). 

3) This isn't really working, its a nice frame capture but the bird is heading away from the viewer. There's nothing else in the scene to really capture the eye save the bird and the bird heading away like that just isn't interesting. A frame from a series of shots, but not a "photo" itself as such. 

4) Resolution looks a lot better in this shot; a product of better lighting one would hope. Composition is also spot on for this photo! You've got the duck up to one side and even though the body is heading away the head is giving you a good eye looking at you; plus the direction of attention (beak direction) is into the left side where you've loads of space for the duck. Even with nothing on the left side it doesn't "need" anything to balance. 

Eye is still dark though, you really want that sunlight more behind you if possible. In editing I would brighten the shadows globally; then might even locally just boost the brightness on the face and eye areas. You're not trying to make it glaringly obvious, just bring out the light and detail in the area. 

5) Chromatic aberrations are back, still got that fuzzy detail appearance to it which more I look at it is making me feel high megapixel camera high cropping? 
Composition wise a bit of a mess really. You've got two powerful subjects, but only one is the point of interest that you want. The duck heading away has enough of a position and power to draw the eye but has nothing there for the viewer; whilst the duckling has the attention, but isn't really enough; plus its heading into the corner of the frame. Again light on the eye and face of the duckling would help. 

6) Appears soft in the head area and could be motion blur (1/500sec is kind of slow and can blur motions like that). Again we've got the chromatic aberrations; however its the first shot that isn't feeling overly dark and gloomy. Instead you've got a lovely soft white light to the water without overexposing it for the majority of the expanse. A boost to shadows on the duck would help.
Might have been stronger if the head were up possibly; there's a lot of empty space in the upper areas whilst the duck itself is looking downward drawing the viewers attention lower. It kind of feels odd but this isn't a composition that I oft see. I think the positioning works; its all reliant on the right head angle. 


Overall somewhat overly dark in general; light would be best behind you but I accept that limitations of the day might have been against you. Fill flash might have helped if you were working in similar conditions with a different subject or a better-beamer on the flash. 
I'm also still not happy with the resolutions/detail on show and can't be sure if that's a result of the camera/lens/cropping/combination/brightening from underexposure


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> I have a feeling that the photos aren't showing up here as they do 'for real' and that makes it hard to do them justice in a critique of picture quality
> As far as subject matter and composition goes they'd not look out of place in a good wildlife calendar


Thanks. 

What you see is very accurate to how the final image is, in fact there should be no difference.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> Can you move your watermark to a less conspicuous place? That duck looks like it is about to eat it, and in #2 it is in an unfortunate place, too.


Some of them is tough to place the watermark. I don't like having big watermarks in the center so I was trying to avoid it.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


> Some of them is tough to place the watermark. I don't like having big watermarks in the center so I was trying to avoid it.


Your watermarks are in the middle on some of the photos. Is that where you would place your mark permanently if you sold your photo, or are you placing your mark there against possible theft?


----------



## caberto (Jan 6, 2017)

I like the composition in #4 the best, best shot of the lot IMO. The "rule" of thirds is OK, but be creative with it, and remember it's not really a rule, but a guideline, and there are other interesting composition guidelines, not just that one.

Watermarks should be looked for when wanting to see who captured that fabulous image... not blatantly in the viewers face, especially making itself the first thing the eye goes to.

As has been stated in one way or another...
Watch high ISO noise.
Eyes are dark, thus pretty lifeless.
Pay closer attention to white balance, it's all over the place, and not accurate.

Nice pics. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

@Overread, nice critique, and very thoughtful to have put so much time into your critique.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

really great crits!! I cannot offer any technical feedback whatsoever.

however, one quick look tells me that only this one :










has any real artistic merit. the placement of the duck is interesting, the way it is looking into the 'empty' space to the left gets us to also look there, and thus to enjoy the beautiful patterns of the water, as they change upward into warmer and warmer colors, with a hazier focus.

The other photos have dull compositions, not enough balance of fore and back ground, or, too evenly balanced division of the page.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> Thoughts: First are you using a calibrated monitor (calibrated with an external calibrator such as a Spydr or Colourmonkey). I say that because a lot of these feel overly dark and heavily contrasty.


Yes my monitor is professionally calibrated. I tend to be a little aggressive at times with the contrast and shadows. It's a bad habit of mine, I need to know when to use it and when not to use so much.



> Photo 1:
> a) Resolution appears very poor on detail and very high in noise levels despite the low ISO. Did you brighten it a lot in editing? The shot appears sharp at a web resize, but the full view after clicking appears very very soft.
> Angle is good, nice and low to the duck, lower would be good but not always possible. The direction though is wrong. The duck is swimming left to right but its main body is in the middle whilst its head is already well into the right and heading off without much room to move. Better composition would have less space behind and more space in front of the duck so that its got room to move into. Note that you could crop the left side (and some of the top and bottom to keep the aspect ratio) to gain this similar effect.
> More minor nit pick is that the duck is heading away from the viewer; this puts increased pressure on having space for the duck to move into on the right.
> ...


Actually there was very little crop on this photo as I got lucky and the mama geese came within 25 feet of me. I bumped the shadows, increased the vibrance and that's about it. If I recall correctly, this was taken when it got quite dark out last night and the water got quite dark as well. 

There was actually very little vignetting on the photo, the water believe it or not was actually really green and dark but also colorful because the sun was about to set. I do agree about the angle of the duck though. This duck was moving quite fast and I had to move quite fast just to keep up with it and position myself, reset, get up etc. I'm shocked how fast these little ******s swim. 



> 2) Resolution is again a concern; not sure if this is just me not being used to this camera or if you're presenting quite strong crops?
> First thing that stands out is some very strong chromatic aberrations along the edges of the whites of the wing. A very apparent blue element. Most editing software will have ways to deal with this; lightroom has a very good chromatic aberration control slider that you can use. I also find that in strong light white areas can take on a somewhat cyan tinge to them so starting up an adjustment layer and reducing the saturation in the cyan colour channel only can help (typically you don't want to remove all saturation in cyans, but some of it).
> 
> Composition is good and very dark background works well with this kind of shot. You might even want to increase the effect (There is a neat way to do it but I can never remember the process - google up "low key photography/editing and it should give you some ideas).


This was a tough one to edit because there was so much green and I had to do a heavy crop on this (would explain the resolution), but I did put noise reduction on it to help it out. That's also why I increased the vignetting and lowered the blacks and dropped the shadows. 

I know how to edit for low key effects in LR, the only thing is, this photo was too cropped for it. The bird was quite far from me. I basically studied the path the birds go, and position myself to time it when they do their laps. 



> 3) This isn't really working, its a nice frame capture but the bird is heading away from the viewer. There's nothing else in the scene to really capture the eye save the bird and the bird heading away like that just isn't interesting. A frame from a series of shots, but not a "photo" itself as such.


This was a debatable pic for me. I really wanted to get one with the bird coming towards me but I wasn't able to time it right. I was a second too late so of course all my bird shots were just after the bird turns away from me. Tough shot because shooting birds is one of the most difficult things to shoot. Of course doesn't help that they fly and turn so fast and you can't see their angles etc. I wish I had horse vision 



> 4) Resolution looks a lot better in this shot; a product of better lighting one would hope. Composition is also spot on for this photo! You've got the duck up to one side and even though the body is heading away the head is giving you a good eye looking at you; plus the direction of attention (beak direction) is into the left side where you've loads of space for the duck. Even with nothing on the left side it doesn't "need" anything to balance.
> 
> Eye is still dark though, you really want that sunlight more behind you if possible. In editing I would brighten the shadows globally; then might even locally just boost the brightness on the face and eye areas. You're not trying to make it glaringly obvious, just bring out the light and detail in the area.


In this photo I had to brighten the shadows quite a bit. Yes I agree that it would look better with the eye brightened up a bit. IMO, I would have brought the duck in more to the left but unfortunately I shot this with the duck so close to the right edge. 

WHen I shot this, the duck was within 20ft of me, whereas that bird in the previous shots were 200ft. Lighting was just about the same.



> 5) Chromatic aberrations are back, still got that fuzzy detail appearance to it which more I look at it is making me feel high megapixel camera high cropping?
> Composition wise a bit of a mess really. You've got two powerful subjects, but only one is the point of interest that you want. The duck heading away has enough of a position and power to draw the eye but has nothing there for the viewer; whilst the duckling has the attention, but isn't really enough; plus its heading into the corner of the frame. Again light on the eye and face of the duckling would help.


Well the subject here is the baby duck drinking water while they are with mom. I did a heavy crop on this one because I originally shot it flat to the ground and quite a bit of the sky, other side of the lake was in frame and I didn't want that in the shot. I wanted the focus on the baby duck drinking water so I had to heavy crop it. 



> 6) Appears soft in the head area and could be motion blur (1/500sec is kind of slow and can blur motions like that). Again we've got the chromatic aberrations; however its the first shot that isn't feeling overly dark and gloomy. Instead you've got a lovely soft white light to the water without overexposing it for the majority of the expanse. A boost to shadows on the duck would help.
> Might have been stronger if the head were up possibly; there's a lot of empty space in the upper areas whilst the duck itself is looking downward drawing the viewers attention lower. It kind of feels odd but this isn't a composition that I oft see. I think the positioning works; its all reliant on the right head angle.


Maybe a mistake on my part, but this duck was moving quite fast so I shot it with the AF point on it's neck. I could have benefited in shooting f8 on this. 

I do have another shot that is similar.



> Overall somewhat overly dark in general; light would be best behind you but I accept that limitations of the day might have been against you. Fill flash might have helped if you were working in similar conditions with a different subject or a better-beamer on the flash.
> I'm also still not happy with the resolutions/detail on show and can't be sure if that's a result of the camera/lens/cropping/combination/brightening from underexposure


Well the shots of the birds (all the ones I took) unfortunately had heavy crops on them due to me being so far away, like 200ft away. I just couldn't track these guys down close by.

It gets quite dark at this lake (even in the days) because not a lot of sunlight passes through due to big trees being all around the path etc. But this is a big reason why I like it, it creates for amazing sunsets and reflections of light off the lake. The water is actually green due to all the shadows and green trees. But on some days it looks musky grey. 

It's a nice area to shoot but it's limited for light that's forsure.

Now if I went to the other lake near my house (much larger and completely different for light due to much more water and a lot less trees), you will see a significantly different exposure in my photos.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> Your watermarks are in the middle on some of the photos. Is that where you would place your mark permanently if you sold your photo, or are you placing your mark there against possible theft?


No that's just for online use for copyright. If I sold the photo, I would use a signature similar to sketch or paint artists and have it one line of text right in the bottom corner.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

caberto said:


> I like the composition in #4 the best, best shot of the lot IMO. The "rule" of thirds is OK, but be creative with it, and remember it's not really a rule, but a guideline, and there are other interesting composition guidelines, not just that one.
> 
> Watermarks should be looked for when wanting to see who captured that fabulous image... not blatantly in the viewers face, especially making itself the first thing the eye goes to.
> 
> ...


Thanks, #4 I would have liked a heavier crop to get more focus on the duck, but I already had to do a heavy crop on it and didn't want anymore noise. 

This is only my second time ever shooting ducks or any animals at the lake so still learning different compositions in pond animals. This is very new to me and can't say it interests me near as much as horses do. Maybe it's just me but shooting ducks seems much more limiting in terms of the types of photos you can get of them. 

I never set my WB for stills unless I am in a set environment like a studio or indoors where I have controlled lighting. I've always thought it to be too much work, though I have many WB cards. This could be something that I need to start doing more if it will help my photos.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> really great crits!! I cannot offer any technical feedback whatsoever.
> 
> however, one quick look tells me that only this one :
> 
> ...


I like this one too but I would have liked to crop it more to put more focus on the duck and move him in a bit more. This would scale down the background and put more attention on the fact his head is turned. 

I would have loved to get lower but rocks were in the way and it was tough to get this shot off because of the rocks, long grass sticking up, etc.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Here is the only shot of the duck that I was able to get with them coming towards me.










Here is the one similar to my last one in the OP but the duck is going away from me. Sorry for the watermark, I didn't have anywhere else to place it.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Why did you chose these 5? do you consider these your best, or is it that you are unsure of these, and want to see how others perceive them?

On my own artwork journal I usually posted ALL my work from any one session, good and not so good, for the forum's amusement, and maybe a bit of ego building on my part. But, if I were going to show my work to someone whose opinion was really important to developing my career, I would show only the best. Sometimes an artist can improve their standing by not showing the many, many pieces that are 'ok', but arne't 'the good stuff', and only showing the 3 or 4 things that really ARE good.. I have tons of stuff that other people say is good, but I know it's not. It's mediocre, at best.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Wildlife has a lot of potential creativity, but its one hinged more on patience and experience than many other genres because you've not got subject control. So experience can tell you when/where certain activities are likely to occur whilst patience gives you increased chance to see them. 

Much like watching horses in a field you have to wait for the moment. It's unlike portrait photography where you might be more pushed on creating the moment. It's closer to weddings during the dance or reception or party where the moments are there but you've got to hunt them out and spot them.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> Thanks.
> 
> What you see is very accurate to how the final image is, in fact there should be no difference.


 In that case you need to go back to the drawing board so to speak and figure out why some of them just aren't 'sharp' enough.
Using fading and blurring techniques is fine on some photos but when you're doing wildlife the actual 'interest' needs to be really clear and in focus so it catches the eye
1. Could be lovely, the composition is good, the movement on the water, the reflection and the colours are great but it looks all 'blurred'
2. Is a striking shot with the contrast of white against dark green. Its OK for the background to look like that but would be more impressive if it had been zoomed in more to get a larger image of the bird
3. Another shot that would be better if the bird was zoomed in on more but the background looks as if its faded rather than muted 
4. I like it a lot
5. Its cute. Its a good shot for a wildlife feature but the image needs to be sharper for that genre


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

As a customer perspective, the only picture I like is the 4th one. 

The 1st picture, don't know why, but just kind of boring to me.
The 2nd picture is way too much black in the background. 
The 3rd photo has a weird shadow in the corner and it seems odd that the bird is so high in the setting.
The 5th picture is too busy and it's weird that the ducks are not centered. 
The last 6th picture has too much white washed-out going on.

I don't know why the 4th picture is the one I like and the one that sticks out to me. Could be the blurred background color. Could the sharpness of the duck and the water around him. 

While I do have a "fancy" camera myself, I dabble in photography purely for my own enjoyment (and primarily taking photos of my daughter), my knowledge of photography is pretty limited when it comes to taking photos and detail editing. 

BUT coming from a consumer standpoint, the only picture I would be interested in would be the 4th one.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> Why did you chose these 5? do you consider these your best, or is it that you are unsure of these, and want to see how others perceive them?
> 
> On my own artwork journal I usually posted ALL my work from any one session, good and not so good, for the forum's amusement, and maybe a bit of ego building on my part. But, if I were going to show my work to someone whose opinion was really important to developing my career, I would show only the best. Sometimes an artist can improve their standing by not showing the many, many pieces that are 'ok', but arne't 'the good stuff', and only showing the 3 or 4 things that really ARE good.. I have tons of stuff that other people say is good, but I know it's not. It's mediocre, at best.


I just chose 5 good ones with a good change up between each one so that there is variety.

I agree with only showing the best.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> Wildlife has a lot of potential creativity, but its one hinged more on patience and experience than many other genres because you've not got subject control. So experience can tell you when/where certain activities are likely to occur whilst patience gives you increased chance to see them.
> 
> Much like watching horses in a field you have to wait for the moment. It's unlike portrait photography where you might be more pushed on creating the moment. It's closer to weddings during the dance or reception or party where the moments are there but you've got to hunt them out and spot them.


The good news is that I don't have a lot of interest in shooting ducks or pond animals in general and definitely don't plan on making a living in wildlife. But the bad news is that I have such few subjects that I'm interesting in shooting other than horses and people. 

Macro, night, astro, street, product, landscapes, I very much like looking at photos but can't interest myself in any of them. The general concept of Macro actually interests me, but taking pics of stuff like insects and leaves just doesn't interest me.

Food photography I find interesting though. Same with low key, I am a big fan of low key.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> In that case you need to go back to the drawing board so to speak and figure out why some of them just aren't 'sharp' enough.
> Using fading and blurring techniques is fine on some photos but when you're doing wildlife the actual 'interest' needs to be really clear and in focus so it catches the eye
> 1. Could be lovely, the composition is good, the movement on the water, the reflection and the colours are great but it looks all 'blurred'
> 2. Is a striking shot with the contrast of white against dark green. Its OK for the background to look like that but would be more impressive if it had been zoomed in more to get a larger image of the bird
> ...


I was too far from the birds when shooting, therefore I had to do heavy crops on them. When you do heavy crops, it reduces the total M.P. count on the photo and brings in noise. 

If I could a lot closer to the birds when shooting, it will make all the difference in the world because I can capture more light and not have to crop as heavy.

What I learned is that birds are tough to shoot! Believe it or not, this was the very first time that I've shot birds before and only the 3rd time I shot pond animals.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


> But the bad news is that I have such few subjects that I'm interesting in shooting other than horses and people.


Have you asked any of your friends at the barn to pose for a photo shoot with their horses? It is just a thought I have that might be a great way to gain the experience you need.


----------



## PoptartShop (Jul 25, 2010)

^That sounds like a good idea to gain some experience, doing photo shoots with people and their horses. Plus, people may like them and buy them.

1. Looks heavily blurred, kind of takes away from the shot.
2. Bit too dark & looks cropped.
3. The background feels a bit out of place and has some odd shadowing. I agree.
4. I like this one the most, I also don't like where the watermark is but other than that it's a nice shot.
5. Little too much going on but not bad.
6. Too 'white'-ish and bright. Also not bad but I agree it looks washed out which takes away from the photo.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> I was too far from the birds when shooting, therefore I had to do heavy crops on them. When you do heavy crops, it reduces the total M.P. count on the photo and brings in noise.
> 
> If I could a lot closer to the birds when shooting, it will make all the difference in the world because I can capture more light and not have to crop as heavy.
> 
> What I learned is that birds are tough to shoot! Believe it or not, this was the very first time that I've shot birds before and only the 3rd time I shot pond animals.


 Now I understand why the picture quality is poor.
With that in mind I don't think you should put photos like that up for critique because you're not going to get the best feedback for the results or for your photographic abilities
As far as portfolio content you really shouldn't restrict yourself to any one subject at present, that's a luxury you can only afford when you become established. Besides, everything is experience.
If you really want to do this then don't be put off by negativity - it should make you try harder.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> Have you asked any of your friends at the barn to pose for a photo shoot with their horses? It is just a thought I have that might be a great way to gain the experience you need.


Yes I will be asking one of them this weekend, I am sure she will be up for it and most likely ecstatic about it. 

I tried giving this ago last Fall with another friend at the barn but lets just say it didn't work out too well because she wasn't able to control her boy and he was freaking out and running all over her. 

There are technically 4 people at my barn that I would offer to do this for (as in 4 friends). I could eventually swing this with my trainer as well down the road if she is okay with me using our photos in my portfolio for others to view.

Also, I was thinking about putting up an ad on Kijijii offering free equine portraiture shoots to horse owners in exchange for the persons time. But I am not sure if this would be a good idea or not.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


> Also, I was thinking about putting up an ad on Kijijii offering free equine portraiture shoots to horse owners in exchange for the persons time. But I am not sure if this would be a good idea or not.


I hope you do not intend to give away _every_ photo you take. Others have advised you to not give away your work because it is hard to go from free to 'now I am a business and I expect you to pay me'. That is not how to build a business. I have not bought an equine photo in a long while so I can't help you with pricing, but maybe someone else will post with advice.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Trade for Prints 

You get to muck around with your gear whilst someone else gives you their time and horse. They get prints (good ones) from the experience.


Trade for prints sounds a lot better than free and enters into things on the understanding that its not just mucking around with the camera. It's a very valid method to help you build your portfolio and practice before you move to making sales and charging for your work. 

Updown does raise the point that you can't go from free or cheap and steadily upgrade your pricing; however at the stage your'e are where you're still learning its important to have practice. Even if you've got your own horse you'll wand someone there to handle him/her for the posed shots.


----------



## Dehda01 (Jul 25, 2013)

Hoofpic said:


> I was too far from the birds when shooting, therefore I had to do heavy crops on them. When you do heavy crops, it reduces the total M.P. count on the photo and brings in noise.
> 
> If I could a lot closer to the birds when shooting, it will make all the difference in the world because I can capture more light and not have to crop as heavy.
> 
> What I learned is that birds are tough to shoot! Believe it or not, this was the very first time that I've shot birds before and only the 3rd time I shot pond animals.


Are you shooting in RAW? I will vary with my size options. My camera offers me three RAW sizes(depending what I am shooting I may choose the highest quality, or the medium) and I often take a JPEG out of habit. This really helps improve crops and make control of the picture so much better, if you aren't already doing it. If you are- you know

If you are shooting wildlife, GET A BETTER TELEPHOTO LENS!!! If I am at the zoo, or on a hike where I know it am going to have a chance for wildlife far away, my biggest telephoto is on. Honesty, it is is on it normally as well, because I want to be able to reach into my camera bag if I pull over while driving to capture a picture and not have to fiddle with putting a different lens on. 

I prefer how a midsize telephoto lens removes distortion on animals faces if you are at the right angle.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> Now I understand why the picture quality is poor.
> With that in mind I don't think you should put photos like that up for critique because you're not going to get the best feedback for the results or for your photographic abilities
> As far as portfolio content you really shouldn't restrict yourself to any one subject at present, that's a luxury you can only afford when you become established. Besides, everything is experience.
> If you really want to do this then don't be put off by negativity - it should make you try harder.


Only show my best work, I agree. 

I can still show my shows that are good too, because that's how you get better. You can't get better if you don't let others see. But I just won't use it for my portfolio that's all.

If I have a heavy crop shot, I most likely won't use it. High cropping really degrades the original picture quality,


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> I hope you do not intend to give away _every_ photo you take. Others have advised you to not give away your work because it is hard to go from free to 'now I am a business and I expect you to pay me'. That is not how to build a business. I have not bought an equine photo in a long while so I can't help you with pricing, but maybe someone else will post with advice.


I won't be giving away anything. The only reason why I was considering doing shoots in exchange for their time was because I currently don't have anything in my portfolio for equine portraiture. I have photos of horses and people, but not horses with people.

I'd hate to do my first paid shoot, bomb on it because it's still so new to me, then not get a return customer.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> Trade for Prints
> 
> You get to muck around with your gear whilst someone else gives you their time and horse. They get prints (good ones) from the experience.
> 
> ...


WHen you say prints, you mean as in me having to go get the prints done for them? So money out of my pocket? 

I will start with my friends at the barn first, then branch out from there. The only thing with shooting barn friends at our barn is that it will all be the same setting lol. My barn may not be the most spacious or beautiful but I will have to work with what I'm given.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Dehda01 said:


> Are you shooting in RAW? I will vary with my size options. My camera offers me three RAW sizes(depending what I am shooting I may choose the highest quality, or the medium) and I often take a JPEG out of habit. This really helps improve crops and make control of the picture so much better, if you aren't already doing it. If you are- you know


Yes I shoot in RAW, I always edit off RAW. It's just that with those images I was way too far from the subject and I had to do heavy crops. I get that much closer to the subject and I won't have resolution issues at all and my image quality will be that much better.

Birds are tough to shoot that's for sure.

Maybe one of these days I will make a trip over to my local Zoo and spend the morning shooting animals and the surroundings, just by myself. 



> If you are shooting wildlife, GET A BETTER TELEPHOTO LENS!!! If I am at the zoo, or on a hike where I know it am going to have a chance for wildlife far away, my biggest telephoto is on. Honesty, it is is on it normally as well, because I want to be able to reach into my camera bag if I pull over while driving to capture a picture and not have to fiddle with putting a different lens on.
> 
> I prefer how a midsize telephoto lens removes distortion on animals faces if you are at the right angle.


I just got a telephoto and it's more than up to the task. Telephoto and primes are my most used lens, 99% of the time.


----------



## Dehda01 (Jul 25, 2013)

Yes, I love spending a day at the zoo practicing. Botanical gardens are fun for macros, but also just to practice settings with things that DON'T MOVE. 

Basic rule of thumb is to always use a big enough telephoto so you don't crop and loose quality. Hopefully, your new lens is up to the job. I like a significantly robust one for shooting at events so you can still catch action but still be in the bleachers out of the way.... rodeos, fairs, races are all good places to camp out and just play with your camera.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Dehda01 said:


> Yes, I love spending a day at the zoo practicing. Botanical gardens are fun for macros, but also just to practice settings with things that DON'T MOVE.
> 
> Basic rule of thumb is to always use a big enough telephoto so you don't crop and loose quality. Hopefully, your new lens is up to the job. I like a significantly robust one for shooting at events so you can still catch action but still be in the bleachers out of the way.... rodeos, fairs, races are all good places to camp out and just play with your camera.


These latest Nikon lenses are amazingly sharp. I have pretty high expectations when it comes to lenses, I don't buy just anything, I do a lot of research before hand and when I test lenses, I take them through target testing to make sure I have a perfect copy for sharpness throughout it's range and focal length.

The biggest thing that I dislike about zoos is that all the animals are in cages so it obstructs your viewing a bit cause you can't have the fencing in your images. 

Sure I'd love to have a lens like this for my telephoto but it's just not practical or portable to lug around.I like bigger lenses but there is a limit before it becomes cumbersome and too heavy, too much.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Hoofpic said:


> WHen you say prints, you mean as in me having to go get the prints done for them? So money out of my pocket?


Yes money out of your pocket because you're taking time out of their pocket.
Of course you might just do digital prints so you don't have to print any thing out as such so that would cheapen things for you. Depends on your friends really and how much time they can give you; if they'll do it for free or for a cup of tea then go for it.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Hoofpic said:


> WHen you say prints, you mean as in me having to go get the prints done for them? So money out of my pocket?


It is an investment in your career.


----------



## Dehda01 (Jul 25, 2013)

The trend is for zoos to have open enclosures using bank drops rather than bars for animal confinement. Even the smaller zoos I have seen around the US has usually given me lovely chances for pictures. Bars really are a think of the past except for private zoos.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Have a look at some of the sites that sell photographic prints - it'll give you an idea of the sort of things that sell. 
Obviously you need to get the quality right but as far as subject matter goes you really shouldn't be put off by what a small handful of the population like because everyone has different tastes. It's what makes the art world so full of diversity.
Just a few to start you off!!
http://www.art.com/
Prints, Posters, Canvas & Framed Wall Art from Independent Artists at Imagekind
https://www.greatbigcanvas.com/?utm...com%2F&usg=AFQjCNF5oaP4RsORCD_bT1J4vqzP98TErQ


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> Yes money out of your pocket because you're taking time out of their pocket.
> Of course you might just do digital prints so you don't have to print any thing out as such so that would cheapen things for you. Depends on your friends really and how much time they can give you; if they'll do it for free or for a cup of tea then go for it.


I know awhile back, I've seen some people in my shoes offer to do equine portraiture in exchange for just the digital photos. The thing with prints is that not a lot of people print anymore, there are a lot who just want images to share on Facebook, email, etc.

I know my friends would just want the digital file and if they decide to print and frame it, they would do it on their own.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

updownrider said:


> It is an investment in your career.


Yes true.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Dehda01 said:


> The trend is for zoos to have open enclosures using bank drops rather than bars for animal confinement. Even the smaller zoos I have seen around the US has usually given me lovely chances for pictures. Bars really are a think of the past except for private zoos.


It's been years since I've been to my zoo but I remember seeing a lot of fencing. I will visit it again this summer by myself. The bears are very hard to shoot because they have glass walls so you have to worry about reflections.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

jaydee said:


> Have a look at some of the sites that sell photographic prints - it'll give you an idea of the sort of things that sell.
> Obviously you need to get the quality right but as far as subject matter goes you really shouldn't be put off by what a small handful of the population like because everyone has different tastes. It's what makes the art world so full of diversity.
> Just a few to start you off!!
> http://www.art.com/
> ...


Thanks. I have heard of art.com (one of my barn friends uses it and mentioned it to me). From what I see, these sites basically print for you, frame and put everything together all in one shot. Their prices aren't bad and it saves the hassle of shopping for frames on your own time. Besides these sites have a lot of styles not available in stores.


----------



## Dehda01 (Jul 25, 2013)

Hoofpic said:


> It's been years since I've been to my zoo but I remember seeing a lot of fencing. I will visit it again this summer by myself. The bears are very hard to shoot because they have glass walls so you have to worry about reflections.


Polarizing filters!!!  I love them for shooting through glass and water shots.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Dehda01 said:


> Polarizing filters!!!  I love them for shooting through glass and water shots.


Not a big fan of filters unless they are ND filters. You have to spend a good chunk of money on high quality ones to not have your IQ degraded coming from your lens. I'm talking $100+ filter and IMO it's not worth it. I've never owned a filter in my life (except for ND for video) and I just use lens hoods.

And $100 filters aren't even close to top of the line, they can be several hundreds for a single filter.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Polarizing filters are one of the few that you can't emulate in editing* because their ability to remove reflections from non-metallic surfaces is a real night and day difference. I used to have a neat example I might have to put up again (dead due to photobucket going nuts). A good polarizer is worth having for that effect alone when needed.
They also give a greater degree of saturation to colours and the sky; but tend to lose you around one to one and a half stops worth of light (varies depending on the filter)

Some save with filters by getting a large filter and then adaptors for their smaller lenses; of course this can be a pain as well and doesn't always present the most practical quick approach. 

ND filters and graduated ND filters are also good things to have, but can get pricey and most that use them tend to be doing landscapes where, provided the scene is static, you can use HDR methods to get similar effects. 


At this stage (and esp as zoo photography is a side discussion here as your prime aim is equine) I'd say there are better areas to invest in first before any filters. 


Ps - its my observation that people hate filters because they "add glass to the system" but will happily slip a 1.4Teleconverter onto most high end lenses and "hardly see the image degradation". Which is to say that a good quality filter works well and outside of side by side test shots; you won't see huge practical limitations from the effect. 


*in theory you can, but we are talking a LOT of work, way beyond what most photographers would attempt for the effect.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I've made a decision today that I will be selling one of my lenses to upgrade it. The one that I will be selling is the 18-140 Nikon and will replace it with the 17-50 Sigma f2.8. I should be able to get $350 or so for my Nikon and the Sigma is $400. This Sigma lens is very good and lots of bang for your buck.

I'm not a huge fan of this focal length range but I would rather have the constant f2.8 aperture than range since my 70-300 AF-P Nikon covers the rest of my range. I will lack 51-69mm but it shouldn't be an issue. 

The 70-300 will be my telephoto.

Sigma 17-50 f2.8 will be my wide angle and can also be used as a general lenses and a good "B" lens for portraits after my primes. It gives me flexibility in being able to shoot at 35mm or wider with f2.8 aperture. And because I want to key in on equine portraiture, having a zoom constant f2.8 lens is going to be much more beneficial to me than the 18-140.

I will sell my 50mm 1.8G Nikon prime as the 85mm 1.8g is now my go to portrait lens. This lens is king. It's going to be my main work horse for equine portraiture. 

Besides once i get the 17-50 f2.8 Sigma, it makes having the 50mm redundant. So this will be a win win, because I will be slimming my lenses from 5 to 4.

The reason selling the 18-140 Nikon? After getting 85mm and telephoto, I have no use for it. The 18-140 won't be used ever for portraiture and it won't be used for telephoto, so I might as well sell it and replace it with a sharper lens. I think this is a good choice on my part. I haven't used the lens in a long time because the primes and telephotos covers my needs.

If you are not familiar with the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, it's a very popular and well known lens, it's very sharp. Big and heavy yes, but it's super sharp and would clean sweep my 18-140.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

I have to think about this some more.

Another option is to forget the Sigma altogether, sell the 18-140 and just rock all 3 primes in 3 different focal lengths, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. 85mm.

As good as the Sigma may be, it still won't match any primes for sharpness and bokeh and to me, this is everything when it comes to portraiture. 

Sure I won't be able to shoot in the 18-34mm range or the 36-49mm range or 51-69mm range after selling the 18-140 but it shouldn't be an issue. 

Another downfall of the Sigma is the weight and size. It's a brick and will make my camera completely front heavy and completely throw off the balance. This lens weighs over 900 grams, I've used 17-50mm f2.8 lenses before and they are very heavy. I have to think if I really want that weight? This is where primes excel because they are so light and compact. 

I will admit, I'ved used and had a 17-50mm f2.8 lens before and I wasn't overly crazy about it due to me finding the focal length too short. But at the time, that was my ONLY lens, so that was a much different situation.

Primes are so nice because they are so light and compact. 

I think the big question is, how often would I see myself shooting portraiture with the 17-50 Sigma f2.8? Probably not that often as my 85mm 1.8G Nikon will be my main king. So that leads to me asking, why not just sell the 18-140? I already have the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and as we all know, 35mm is great for general portraiture. It's still the most commonly used focal length and it will still beat out the Sigma for portraiture with 3 extra stops of light.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

For equine photography I'd be looking longer rather than shorter. I'm no discounting the shorter focal lengths at all; just being realistic that the bulk of your work is going to be with the 85mm or the 70-300mm. Any eventing is likely going to be with the longer focal lengths; portraits and posed shots will be the fewer times that you get to use shorter focal lengths; but you'll want to be a good distance back for the shorter lengths to work without the perspective distorting being an issue.

As for going all primes that can work really well; but you want to have at least two camera bodies to use them with. This helps cut down on lens changes and speeds the whole process up. Eg you might have one body with a long lens and one with a shorter so that when you're doing an event you just switch one to the other between the event and the prize giving. 


That said these days primes vs zooms is a very personal choice as whilst primes do still beat zooms; the general high end zoom today produces very good image quality. So its really down to how you like to operate.



If I were you I'd hold off of any gear changes for a little; get some practice and find out for yourself how your current gear holds up and where it really shows any weaknesses. Do some events indoor and outdoor; do some posed portraits and stable photos etc... Do a bit of that instead of wildlife or wild horses and see where things land and what your lacking.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> For equine photography I'd be looking longer rather than shorter. I'm no discounting the shorter focal lengths at all; just being realistic that the bulk of your work is going to be with the 85mm or the 70-300mm. Any eventing is likely going to be with the longer focal lengths; portraits and posed shots will be the fewer times that you get to use shorter focal lengths; but you'll want to be a good distance back for the shorter lengths to work without the perspective distorting being an issue.
> 
> As for going all primes that can work really well; but you want to have at least two camera bodies to use them with. This helps cut down on lens changes and speeds the whole process up. Eg you might have one body with a long lens and one with a shorter so that when you're doing an event you just switch one to the other between the event and the prize giving.
> 
> ...


After thinking about it some more last night, I came to the same conclusion. Perhaps I hold off for the time being but I can tell you one thing, the 18-140 is no longer of use to me anymore. I put it up for sale and will see what I can get for it. 

Bringing up having a second body is a good idea, the only thing is, cost and obviously more gear to carry around. 

One thing's forsure is that I want to minimize the number of lenses I use. Like you said, I will mainly be using the 85mm and 70-300 and possibly the 35mm if indoors. This is where the 18-140 has no use for me anymore. It won't ever be used for portraiture cause it's not near sharp enough and it won't be used for telephoto or eventing because its too short.

Even though I may not use it much, it's still nice to have a lens capable of wide angle (24mm and wider), never know when I may need it. But I don't need super wide angle as I have a 7-14mm on my Panasonic and that is more than capable in taking good shots as well.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Another camera is more gear, but at the same time if you've got your shorter lens on it you can easily leave it in a shoulder or backpack at your feet whilst you shoot the event then when you move to take the prize shots you just pull it out as needed. Saves you time over swapping lenses and great on a wet/dusty/windy day when you don't really want to have to open the camera up to swap lenses over. 

You will end up getting more gear the more you get into things; but you won't need it every time. For example you might well get reflectors for light control during portrait shoots; you won't ever need them at an event, but for a portrait scene chances are you will need them or at least benefit having access to them (assistants/tripods/clamps will also be important for lighting control).


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> Another camera is more gear, but at the same time if you've got your shorter lens on it you can easily leave it in a shoulder or backpack at your feet whilst you shoot the event then when you move to take the prize shots you just pull it out as needed. Saves you time over swapping lenses and great on a wet/dusty/windy day when you don't really want to have to open the camera up to swap lenses over.
> 
> You will end up getting more gear the more you get into things; but you won't need it every time. For example you might well get reflectors for light control during portrait shoots; you won't ever need them at an event, but for a portrait scene chances are you will need them or at least benefit having access to them (assistants/tripods/clamps will also be important for lighting control).


That is a good point about the dusty conditions. Right now i would be fully okay and confident just using my 70-300 and 85 and have each on it's own body. 

When I come to think of it, I'm not so sure if the 17-50 f2.8 has many use for me since I almost never shoot at that short of range, for anything, portraiture or not and I'm not into landscapes. I've had many 18-xxmm lens over the past decade from multiple cameras and have never taken photos of usage at the 18-30mm range. To me, this is just general snapshots focal length and I've always just used my phone for this, which even then is rare. 

If anything, by the way I shoot, this shows that I don't like to stand too close to my subject and that I like to have shots zoomed in quite a bit from what I'm actually seeing so that's why the 70-300 and 85 suit me perfectly. 

The only time I would see me using it is shooting portraiture in smaller barns, rooms, areas, but my 35mm would be wide enough and it would still be sharper, faster, better in low light, cheaper. 35mm is wide enough to shoot in smaller barns, besides it's not like I will be shooting inside box stalls and for me (just a personal preference) if I shoot really wide, I actually much prefer the look and FOV of a true wide angle lens than a 17 or 18mm gives you and like I said, I have a 7-14mm ultra wide angle lens that IMO could capture some amazing shots inside tight spaces. The images and perspectives that super wide angles put out for me is much more satisfying.

Another note about this f2.8 lens is that it's still considered a daytime lens, it won't be near usable as any of my primes inside barns and I would need a flash. So that makes me ask myself how useful this lens would be to me, especially when my 35mm could do the job inside barns if I need the extra FOV.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

If you consider perspective distortion chances are you won't be taking that many professional photos close up inside barns of horses. The distortion from a 35mm close in to a horse inside a cramped barn is not going to produce what you want (unless you want those big-nose shots). Even if the horse is inside a barn you might be shooting from outside through a door or window using a longer lens. 

So the shorter lengths do come into question as a key need. They do work; landscape shots of events might well be wanted not by riders by by event organisers for their own promotional material needs. So there IS a market and desire for landscape or wider angle shots at events. 


Also don't forget that at f1.8 you've not got much depth of field and even portrait photographers of people have enough trouble getting both eyes in focus and that's on a fairly flat human face. So even if you've got 1.8 or f1.4 chances are you'll be at f2 or smaller just to get the required depth of field; even more so if you're close up to the horse. So yes lighting gear would be important in those situations. 


Flash itself is always a hotbed and the general view is that at most events its a no go area; at least until you hit the VERY big events then it tends to do a total flip around. For portraits its always a question and the best advice is that it can be done but be sensible. Bring the horse to the lights; make sure the environment around the horse has room to move the horse away if they show signs of distress; be prepared to lose all your lighting gear to a hoofkick; take things slow and make sure whoever is holding the horse is competent. An enclosed yard or paddock would be ideal as if the horse bolts you can at least let go and move back and the horse should remain contained etc...
Most animals are generally very tolerant or totally ignore flash, some react to it but generally not in a "OMG RUN" affair. Those that do it tend sto be other things that have already set them off before the flash itself.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

Overread said:


> If you consider perspective distortion chances are you won't be taking that many professional photos close up inside barns of horses. The distortion from a 35mm close in to a horse inside a cramped barn is not going to produce what you want (unless you want those big-nose shots). Even if the horse is inside a barn you might be shooting from outside through a door or window using a longer lens.


Thats what Im thinking too, 35mm probably wont be much use to me but tough to say. I got this lens for cheap aand dont use it a whole lot.




> shorter lengths do come into question as a key need. They do work; landscape shots of events might well be wanted not by riders by by event organisers for their own promotional material needs. So there IS a market and desire for landscape or wider angle shots at events.


Landscape shots of riders well into the ssurroundings like sunsets work.



> Also don't forget that at f1.8 you've not got much depth of field and even portrait photographers of people have enough trouble getting both eyes in focus and that's on a fairly flat human face. So even if you've got 1.8 or f1.4 chances are you'll be at f2 or smaller just to get the required depth of field; even more so if you're close up to the horse. So yes lighting gear would be important in those situations.


Yes and this is why I love primes, having 3 stops of extra light over a f2.8 lens is nice to have.



> Flash itself is always a hotbed and the general view is that at most events its a no go area; at least until you hit the VERY big events then it tends to do a total flip around. For portraits its always a question and the best advice is that it can be done but be sensible. Bring the horse to the lights; make sure the environment around the horse has room to move the horse away if they show signs of distress; be prepared to lose all your lighting gear to a hoofkick; take things slow and make sure whoever is holding the horse is competent. An enclosed yard or paddock would be ideal as if the horse bolts you can at least let go and move back and the horse should remain contained etc...
> Most animals are generally very tolerant or totally ignore flash, some react to it but generally not in a "OMG RUN" affair. Those that do it tend sto be other things that have already set them off before the flash itself.


Well eventually i would like to do low key photography with Fly. I would need a couple helpers, one to hold her and another to hold up and move around with my reflector.


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)




----------

