Introducing myself.
novemb...@my-dejanews.com
polite to introduce oneself, so here I go.
Hmm... My name is Alice and I'm a chocoholic. No wait, wrong group. I'm 23, I
have a B.Sc. in Astrophysics, and I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
However, I grew up in France, where I learned most of my horsemanship and
horse vocabulary. As a result, I generally don't understand half the
technical terms in a horse discussion (particularly tack, horse body parts
and colours).
I have been riding since I was 8 years old. I competed in show jumping on
ponies from 1987 through 1991, then switched to horses for a year, then moved
to Canada. Most of the riding I did for the next six years was bareback on a
friend's ranch horses. Now that I have a job, I can afford lessons at a
school again, but I find that schools do not have the quality of horses or
instruction I have been used to in France.
The one thing that really bugs me about my current riding school is that it's
a hunter barn, which is far from my favourite equestrian activity. My
inclination runs more to dressage, although I've never had much instruction
that way. I'm told I have a good dressage seat, though, and I can do a
pirouette at the walk relatively well.
Currently I ride a puny little mare (I swear she can't be more than 14 hands)
by the name of Chi-Chi. She's 20 years old and, shall we say, a bit set in
her ways? Her latest trick is to do a flying lead change as soon as a relax
my inside leg at the canter. Not that she's uncomfortable on either lead, she
just likes to bug me. How adorable!
In the future I would like to buy a horse. My dream horse is a 15 hand
buckskin (I think, based on the colour explanations everybody kindly gave me)
mare, probably quarterhorse or the like. I'd want a Western-bred and -trained
horse because they seem so much better trained... Then I'd learn to ride her
sidesaddle and we'd be incredibly good at dressage and all that. Of course,
before I even look for her I have to find that elusive $45,000 a year
shift-work job so my husband won't be able to say I'm wasting time and money
he could lay a claim to...
Also, my favourite colour may or may not be teal.
I think that's probably enough of an introduction. I'm looking forward to
reading all your valuable insights.
--
Alice Thaon d'Arnoldi
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jazanot
>>Also, my favourite colour may or may not be teal.<<
Sure you say that now, but I bet you wear red with a smile! Good intro and
fine skills riding so far it seems, so jump right into the foray and add
anything you want.
That dream horse may be around the corner, you never know; be careful what you
wish for, you may get it. (Or AT least keep your fingers an toes crossed all
the time for the horse of your dreams!)
Welcome,
~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
,;;;,
,;( )_, )~\|
;; / | |\
' ; \; \
ฐคบฐบค.,ธ ธ,.คบฐบคฐคบฐบค.,ธ ธ,.คบ
(remove: .aka.JAZ to reply)
TaylorMade
Welcome to the group! Did you ever think of being a writer?? lol great
sense of humor! I too am a chocoholic.
all the best
Nori
TrinityApp
Just wondering about your address name. I used to show dogs for
TaylorMade kennels. I had bichons and Lhasas from the TaylorMade lines and
showing enjoyed them. Just wondered where you got the name.
--
Tracy Meisenbach
www.trinityapp.com
Trinity Appaloosa Farm
Home of Colida Flyin Star
Ni Silla co-chomann comhla-ri each le a-beul
TaylorMade wrote in message ...
The Blue Rose
>Well, I was reading the tips for new users and I see it is still considered
>polite to introduce oneself, so here I go.
>
>Hmm... My name is Alice and I'm a chocoholic. No wait, wrong group. I'm 23, I
>have a B.Sc. in Astrophysics, and I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
>However, I grew up in France
I have a rose friend who lives in Mass who could be your twin! If you
are a chocoholic check out the Dessert recipes on my website (address
in sig)
ObHorsey: does anyone have any tips on horse photography? I want to
get some nice photos of my boy when he is looking pretty for the next
show but some trial efforts we have done are not as good as I was
hoping for (sun too bright and casting shadows etc)
Stacey
Stacey Hill (note 2 spambusters in my address if replying by e-mail)
"A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument"
Check out my Gardening and Rose website at
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/9544/index.html
greydun
sta...@xtra.spambuster.co.nz.removethistoreply (The Blue Rose) wrote:
>ObHorsey: does anyone have any tips on horse photography? I want to
>get some nice photos of my boy when he is looking pretty for the next
>show but some trial efforts we have done are not as good as I was
>hoping for (sun too bright and casting shadows etc)
>
>Stacey
>
If you are looking for the classic standing pose, try this:
It helps to have a friend with an attention getting device (food,
rattler, something your guy will be interested in) standing like so:
horse facing left
attention getter
you
sun behind you
You need level ground, and the horse should be led into a naturally
balanced pose. Picking up feet & placing them never seems to help.
Just have the person leading go around in large circles & stop at the
spot, or try to place a hand on his chest to put his weight evenly on
4 legs (they will often stop with a forward lean).
Look at the shadow on the ground. Is it where you want it? Is the
horse's conformation helped by the sun's direction? Try from different
angles before you start shooting, but keep the sun behind you
somewhere.
When he's parallel to you, body straight, have your 3rd person get him
to turn his face (not the whole neck) to get a nice view of his head.
He may not stay interested long, so be ready with the camera settings.
Now *target the point on his girth where your knee would be* and
crouch down until this is level with your camera. You should be dead
even with the girth, and if he moves, you follow to keep that angle.
This way you don't distort his front or rear, and you won't make him
look short.
You may wish a periodic stop & regroup, see if his legs are not
splayed or crossed, and re walk into the pose again if so. Bracket
your shots (a few exposures + and - what the meter says) and you
should have it.
I hope this helps!
Patricia Powers
P. Powers Grey Dun Studio
www.greydun.com
The Blue Rose
*snip*
> If you are looking for the classic standing pose, try this:
>
>It helps to have a friend with an attention getting device (food,
>rattler, something your guy will be interested in) standing like so:
*snip excellent advice*
Thankyou very much for that info. Sounds very good and I am looking
forward to trying it out. My beloved is the photographer of moving
objects in the family but doenst have any idea about how to get nice
horse photos. You can see what we have come up with so far on my
website (address in sig) but now I am really keen!
Stacey - only 3 weeks to the show
Muse
>novemb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>ObHorsey: does anyone have any tips on horse photography? I want to
>get some nice photos of my boy when he is looking pretty for the next
>show but some trial efforts we have done are not as good as I was
>hoping for (sun too bright and casting shadows etc)
Okay... first tip, ensure you're using a decent camera (obvious... but still
some use such horrors as disposable cameras and poloroids). Second, don't
even think of manually posing your horse! Patience is indeed a virtue here,
and you just need to spend time waiting for the right moment. Third, ensure
the sun is behind you; you'll get better highlights, and color. Fourth, try
to avoid using flash; at this time of year it's often needed, but if you
have a decent SLR (single lens reflex) camera you should be able to change
the apperture and shutter speed sessions to something that works. Erm...
that last bit means nothing to most, sorry! I've just done a course in
photography! *grin*
I've had most experience photographing horses at pasture. I use Photoshop
and a scanner to do image manipulation, and find horses the perfect subject!
I've got a couple images I've done; Wraith and Eclectic Grace spring to
mind. If anyone's interested I can FTP some up onto the web?
Russ, aka Muse,
---------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail : mu...@msd.net
Jorene Downs
novemb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76tsqm$oad$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Well, I was reading the tips for new users and I see it is still
considered
>polite to introduce oneself, so here I go.
>
>Hmm... My name is Alice and I'm a chocoholic. No wait, wrong group.
I'm 23, I
>have a B.Sc. in Astrophysics, and I live in Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada.
horsemanship and
>horse vocabulary. As a result, I generally don't understand half
the
>technical terms in a horse discussion (particularly tack, horse
body parts
For horse & color genetics, you might try the following books:
*Equine Color Genetics* (1996)
by D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD (Virginia Tech)
ISBN 0-8138-2905-4
(I was able to order this through a bookstore chain.)
*Horse Genetics* (1996)
by Anne T. Bowling (UC Davis)
ISBN 0-85199-101-7
(I ordered this through the Oxford University Press:
1-800-451-7556)
For horse anatomy, refer to:
http://frost.ca.uky.edu/agripedia/asc106/horsanat.htm
Welcome to rec.eq!
- - - - -
Jorene
just moseyin' down the trail
from the CEOates Ranch in California ... ;)
http://www.CEOates.com
meet other rec.eq posters on the Rogue's Gallery:
http://www.psnw.com/~jcdowns/RecEq/RecEq.html
tim hrabia
coming from. I have taught a number of my friends to shoot theirs as
well. It dosen't really matter what kind of camera you have or what type
of film you use but if you don't know exactly what you are doing I think
you will find your best results will be with the 400 speed type as it
seems to work well as a general purpose film for most. So first find
yourself a nice background such as a nice stand of trees. The more
uncluttered the better. Position the horse so that you are looking into
the sun and you will notice a nice rim of light outlining your horse.
Next turn the flash on on your camera. It dosen't matter what type of
camera you are using or weather it is a SLR or a point and shoot. Turn
on that flash!!! The next thing you do is back up at least 10 feet from
the horse and not more than 15 feet. The reason for this is because if
you are closed than ten feet the flash will give you washed out color and
if you are farther away than 15 feet the flash won't carry far enough and
your image will be dark. It will take you a couple of trys to get the
procedure down pat but the results will be well worth the while. As well
when you use the flash it will put "catch lights" in your horses eyes
which will add life to the photo. Give it a shot and I'd love to here
how it turned out for you or for anyone else who wants to try it. When
you consider the amount of time and money that goes into our horses it is
worth the expense of a few frames of film to learn how to take great
shots of them. If you have a problem with doing this maybe I can
help. Take care and good luck.
Grace
Jazanot
>> As well
when you use the flash it will put "catch lights" in your horses eyes
which will add life to the photo.<<
Why do we want *red eye* on the horse? What exactly do you mean by this? I
would grant you an alive look is "good", but the life in the photo is the
essense of the moment, no?
Take a can of stones, beans or such and rattle them for some animation. I
throw a piece of paper sometimes and get them to look up, animation comes from
the head directly looking at the camera.
Take rolls of film too, not two or three pics; after 20 or more shots you will
get a few really good ones.
Regards,
Muse
>Tim writes:
>
>>> As well
>when you use the flash it will put "catch lights" in your horses eyes
>which will add life to the photo.<<
>
>Why do we want *red eye* on the horse? What exactly do you mean by this?
I
>would grant you an alive look is "good", but the life in the photo is the
>essense of the moment, no?
Agreed... red eye is a bane on modern flashes. A seperate flash unit, or at
least one a good few inches from the lens, will minimise this though. It's
caused by light reflecting straight off th retina, I read somewhere... can't
be too sure.
>Take a can of stones, beans or such and rattle them for some animation. I
>throw a piece of paper sometimes and get them to look up, animation comes
from
>the head directly looking at the camera.
Well there's occasionally a certain wistfullness and intellect to the horse
looking slightly at an angle. Though on the whole you'll want the horse
looking at the camera. (Most seem REAL interested in cameras! Almost had a
£300 lens trampled once... never put anything expensive down)
>Take rolls of film too, not two or three pics; after 20 or more shots you
will
>get a few really good ones.
That's got to be the best advice so far... I was looking for three photos to
get enlarged to 12 x 10 last week... I looked through probably 200
negatives, and wound up with two mediocre shots, one I'd call 'good'.
Equine photography has got to be one of the most expensive I can think of,
especially when you're using 400 ASA film as advised!
tim hrabia
You are absolutley correct. We definatley do not want red eyes in our pics of our
horses, humans or other. Although for other purposes than our family photo albums
it sure can be interesting. Now where do I start...I suggested 400 speed film
because it is a multi-purpose film and I figured that if someone has to ask it is
the best film for them to use because they will probably take a few of the horses,
a few of the kids, maybe a couple of mom or grandma indoors and so on. I also
suggested this film because it is more light sensitive than say 50 or 100 speed
film and although once again 50 or 100 speed film may have a slightly finer grain
you are probably not going to notice this in any print smaller than a 16 x 20
unless you use a loop. No one to date has come into my house and used a loop on
any print hanging on the wall. Besides if you are going to get a print larger
than a 16 x 20 you would want to have it shot on a medium format camera once again
because of the grain problem. I haven't gotten anything bigger than this done
because although we have a fairly large house a framed, mounted and matted print
takes up a large amount of wall space. Personaly I have had no problem getting a
16x20 enlargement of a horse or any other subject off of this film I speak only
for myself but then again I do all my own work right from shooting to the
processing and the enlargements. And you would also be correct in stating that
the best way to get a good shot of your horse is to take lots of pics. I would
never dispute this. I say take a few shots, see how they turn out, learn and
correct the mistakes, go try again. when you get a technique that works well, use
it, but at the same time don't be afraid to try something new or different because
you can read all the books you want on photography and it will aid you in the
field but nothing substitues for experience. The same as riding a horse, the more
you do it the better you get, hopefully.
The reason I have suggested placing the horse where you look into the sun and
the same goes for humans is that when the subject looks into the sun their eyes
get this squinty look. True, their face is nice and bright but they have squinty
eyes and as far as I am concerned it ruins the photo. Much better for the
photographer to squint. Also when you place the subject with the sun behind them
the sun gives a nice golden glow, sort of a hallo effect (its called a rim lite)
all around the subject which seperates the subject from the background wether it
be trees or, an open field. It is for this reason that you must use a flash.
Your cameras meter will be reading all the light behind the subject regardless of
where you have focused unless your camera comes equiped with a spot meter and in
this case I am assuming that hers probably dosen't because once again she has to
ask. And please don't mistake me here, it is terrific that she did ask but I have
responded based on the way she asked which lead me to believe she hasn't got a lot
of photography experience. I am in no way shape or for picking on her for this.
Anyway once the camera reads all that extra light the aperature on the camera will
shut down or the shutter will spead up or in the case of a point and shoot type of
camera you will just get a very badly overexposed photograph. This is not
flattering to any subject. Also you must back up with any camera at least 10'
from the subject if you are using a flash because if you don't the flash will be
too much and make your subject washed out and if you go more than 15' the flash
will not be powerfull enough and your photo will be dark. Now of course there are
exceptions to this rule as well and of cousre it depends heavily upon wether or
not you have a flash whos power can be adjusted. I am assuming that because she
is asking she dosen't. I am sorry and no offence was intended in the advise I
have given and sometimes I don't explain every little detail of what I am saying
to someone unless they ask for it specifically because this type of talk bores
most people to death and they loose interest real quick. I generally have found
if someone asks and I respond I do it very simply and they try and usually get
positive results, then they start to ask and we can take it from there.
Oh yes one other little thing before I go..I'm not Tim but his wife Grace and
I appologise because I am not computer literate enough to get this thing to leave
my name instead of his. Sorry about that and he has said he will get that fixed
for me one of these days but is very busy at work now. Take care and hope to talk
with you all soon. Grace
Jazanot wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
> >> As well
> when you use the flash it will put "catch lights" in your horses eyes
> which will add life to the photo.<<
>
> Why do we want *red eye* on the horse? What exactly do you mean by this? I
> would grant you an alive look is "good", but the life in the photo is the
> essense of the moment, no?
>
> Take a can of stones, beans or such and rattle them for some animation. I
> throw a piece of paper sometimes and get them to look up, animation comes from
> the head directly looking at the camera.
>
> Take rolls of film too, not two or three pics; after 20 or more shots you will
> get a few really good ones.
>
> Regards,
> ~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
> ,;;;,
> ,;( )_, )~\|
> ;; / | |\
> ' ; \; \
> °¤º°º¤.,¸ ¸,.¤º°º¤°¤º°º¤.,¸ ¸,.¤º
> (remove: .aka.JAZ to reply)
Jazanot
Well, being a Photography minor in college, I have to say I only do this for my
own self indulgence and just wanted to ask about the *red eye* mentioned in the
previous post. BTW. it is the result of the light reflecting off the retina,
just as if you had a dog or cat in your high beams at night on the road (they
have more reflective retinas too, as horses do, but the horse eye is so large
the image can be downright eerie if caught by the flash).
Point and shot cameras? Ahh, why bother? I know, I know, that's what
everyone has so the least amount of bother for them to use. Some good tips for
those point and shoots are:
Stand only ten feet away and fill the camera frame.
Outdoors, shoot only in the sun with the sun to your back.
Level ground.
Have the horse stand slightly at an angle, with the head forward.
Hold the horse with a lead line or the bridle, horses standing alone tend to
walk off just as you click the shutter.
Use Kodak film. Fuji is junk, and cheaper film is always green in tone.
In the barn never works, the light is all wrong for a point and shoot and the
pictures even with a flash will be dark. The flash on a point and shoot is not
strong enough for in barn situations.
Well, I hope we all helped some great budding photographers out there!
~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
,;;;,
,;( )_, )~\|
;; / | |\
' ; \; \
Jorene Downs
Jazanot wrote in message <19990112110146...@ng09.aol.com>...
>
>Well, being a Photography minor in college [...]
>Point and shot cameras? Ahh, why bother? I know, I know, that's
what
>everyone has so the least amount of bother for them to use. Some good
tips for
>those point and shoots are:
>
>Stand only ten feet away and fill the camera frame.
>Outdoors, shoot only in the sun with the sun to your back.
>Level ground.
>Have the horse stand slightly at an angle, with the head forward.
>Hold the horse with a lead line or the bridle, horses standing alone
tend to
>walk off just as you click the shutter.
[...]
Based on no photography education <g> and lots of "someone's gotta do
it!" time behind the camera with a nice point and shoot and a herd of
horses, I'll add a few thoughts to Jaz' list ...
- Avoid a location with anything distracting in the foreground or
background.
- Dark horses tend to have definition disappear on a dark background,
etc., so look for a flattering backdrop color for the photo.
- The closest part of the horse will be emphasized in the photo, and
sometimes you can make a horse appear better/worse than reality with a
different camera angle. I choose my camera angle and horse position
according to my best guess regarding what will flatter that horse. My
most typical shot is standing at a slight angle about even with the back
of the barrel, which tends to draw attention to a nice hip ... but from
too far back can shrink the neck and back length.
- Beware the horse pose that makes that horse look like he stands
narrow in the front / back, or otherwise emphasizes a conformation fault
from that camera angle.
- If you're taking a pix of a growing youngster whose hip / withers
is out of balance in a growth spurt, you can cheat just a bit using a
slightly sloped site to give the illusion of a more even top line.
- If the horse's top line isn't much to brag about, consider taking
the photo with a saddle and bridle on the horse.
- Pay attention to where the shadows fall. That handler's shadow may
be included and be distracting. And the shadows on the horse's body may
be flattering or look downright strange. ;)
- Prepare with a clean, clipped, groomed horse unless you're
intentionally doing a "pasture" look. And select quality equipment for
the halter / bridle / whatever tack you might use. That ratty, faded old
halter and mismatched and frayed lead rope will be a distraction. ;)
My best suggestion is to peruse the various horse mags and see what kind
of horse poses and camera angles appeal to you *and* you think will
flatter your horse, then try and recreate that pose and angle.
Jazanot
Fabulous, You just gave the list of how to make your horse look “GOOD”! I was
thinking “point and shoot” and get out with a photo of a horse not the tree
next to him and exposed nearly well. LOL good going, now everyone can have a
great conformation/sell that horse shot with your list.
Thanks for the additional tips, save them people.
Jorene listed:
>>>- Avoid a location with anything distracting in the foreground or
background.
- Dark horses tend to have definition disappear on a dark background,
etc., so look for a flattering backdrop color for the photo.
- The closest part of the horse will be emphasized in the photo, and
sometimes you can make a horse appear better/worse than reality with a
different camera angle. I choose my camera angle and horse position
according to my best guess regarding what will flatter that horse. My
most typical shot is standing at a slight angle about even with the back
of the barrel, which tends to draw attention to a nice hip ... but from
too far back can shrink the neck and back length.
- Beware the horse pose that makes that horse look like he stands
narrow in the front / back, or otherwise emphasizes a conformation fault
from that camera angle.
- If you're taking a pix of a growing youngster whose hip / withers
is out of balance in a growth spurt, you can cheat just a bit using a
slightly sloped site to give the illusion of a more even top line.
- If the horse's top line isn't much to brag about, consider taking
the photo with a saddle and bridle on the horse.
- Pay attention to where the sbe flattering or look downright strange. ;)
- Prepare with a clean, clipped, groomed horse unless you're
intentionally doing a "pasture" look. And select quality equipment for
the halter / bridle / whatever tack you might use. That ratty, faded old
halter and mismatched and frayed lead rope will be a distraction. ;)<<<
~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
,;;;,
,;( )_, )~\|
;; / | |\
' ; \; \
C. Little
> >Take rolls of film too, not two or three pics; after 20 or more shots you
> will
> >get a few really good ones.
>
> That's got to be the best advice so far... I was looking for three photos to
> get enlarged to 12 x 10 last week... I looked through probably 200
> negatives, and wound up with two mediocre shots, one I'd call 'good'.
> Equine photography has got to be one of the most expensive I can think of,
> especially when you're using 400 ASA film as advised!
>
> Russ, aka Muse,
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail : mu...@msd.net
If you have a choice in lense do not use a 55 mm, it will be more likely to
distort the proportions of your horse's body. I prefer 105.
Get on your knees...just kidding... but flank level will also show your horse
better, rather than looking like he has little stubby legs and a big ole head.
Cheryl
Meghan Noecker
<che...@darrington.net> wrote:
>Muse wrote:
>
>> >Take rolls of film too, not two or three pics; after 20 or more shots you
>> will
>> >get a few really good ones.
It takes a lot of photos. Especially if the horse is moving. you can
have a perfect trot, but only some fo the photos look great while
others look awkward or stupid even though the horse was moving great.
If the horse is moving, and you have a motor drive, let it do its job.
Then you can pick from the photos to get the stride you want.
Also, try to get the ears up and forward. you can make noises, shake a
little can of grain, or show the horse a mirror. These items tend to
get their attention.
>> especially when you're using 400 ASA film as advised!
If you're lighting is good, go with slower film. It gives you a finer
grain so enlargements look sharper. I would however, recommend that
you skip 200 speed altogether. 400 actually has the same grain as 200
but gets you by in lower light. 100 or slower is best, but you gotta
have good lighting.
If you are photographing a person with the horse, watch the shadows on
the face, especially if they are wearing a hat and/or it's noon or
early afternoon on a bright day. For these occasions, you'll want to
use flash to get rid of the shadows.
> If you have a choice in lense do not use a 55 mm, it will be more likely to
>distort the proportions of your horse's body. I prefer 105.
>
105 is considered more of a portrait lens because it does so well. If
you're in a field with some more distance, an 80-200 works nice as
well. I save the 50mm lens for when I'm indoors in low light as they
tend to give wider apeartures than most longer lenses.
>Get on your knees...just kidding... but flank level will also show your horse
>better, rather than looking like he has little stubby legs and a big ole head.
>
Very true. If I'm out in the field with the horses, I sit on my knees.
The angle isn't that much different so it isn't obvious when looking
at the photos, but it gives the horse a slightly more impressive look.
It also helps to get rid of annoying backgrounds because you can at
least get rid of most of the ground.
Which leads to the worst problem in equine photography. Aweful
backgrounds. A standard fence or solid color background isn't too bad,
but watch for trees that appear to come out of the horse's head or
body as well as cruddy looking fields, buildings, etc. Try to get rid
of any background that looks distracting as it takes the eye away from
the horse.
This is the toughest thing to do and sometimes impossible, especially
at shows where you don't get to pick the background. If you have a
camera that allows you to change settings, use a wide aperature so
that you can blur the background. Also, if the horse is moving, pick
the best spot, prefocus, and shoot the horse as it goes through that
spot.
Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Ron Miller
<che...@darrington.net> wrote:
<...>
>
> If you have a choice in lense do not use a 55 mm, it will be more likely to
>distort the proportions of your horse's body. I prefer 105.
>
>Get on your knees...just kidding... but flank level will also show your horse
>better, rather than looking like he has little stubby legs and a big ole head.
>
>Cheryl
>
The 105 is an excellent choice for closer-in work. I use a
120mm lens when I take pictures at shows and such, where I
can't climb inside the arena. Also, the 120mm lens helps
keep me away from closer, more skittish horses, when I'm
taking pictures near a crowd. The 55mm lens is useless for
horse pictures, but can be used for closer-in
rider-in-the-saddle pictures (but cut-off horses head and
feet).
Keep the sun to your back, or over your shoulder to capture
more dramatic shadows. Lowering yourself has the effect of
making the horse look larger. Raising yourself has the
opposite effect. A small rider on a large horse looks
ridiculous when viewed from the ground. Likewise, a larger
rider on a smallish horse looks like one is riding their dog
when photographed from above.
I've found it very useful to first select the
background/angle for the picture, then wait for the horses
to come into view. That way, you don't have all of that
distracting crap in the picture. Sometimes, though, the
choice isn't yours.
Overcast days make most pictures difficult, especially the
subtleties of muscles under colorful coats. Too, less light
means a slower shutter speed, which makes steady (hand-held)
pictures difficult with a larger lense. Often you think the
picture is out of focus, but the camera should be
stabilized. If you must hand-hold your camera with a
stronger lens (>105mm), use faster film or lower F-stop to
increase shutter speed and reduce blurring caused by jittery
hands.
My biggest problem is the dust. Herds of horses kick up all
of that fine dust, which contaminates the camera mechanisms,
lens, and reduces the contrast in the picture. Note that
most professional photographer horse pictures are taken in a
pasture! They don't want to risk their upmteen $K Nikkon
and lens with all of that dust. So I use a cheap Pentax.
Ron Miller
NOTE: OFFICIAL Assistant Horse Photographer and Flunkie
Kristen Schulz
haven't done a lot of equine photography but here is another tip which might
be useful. When photographing a posed horse or a horse being ridden/worked,
the professionals often tilt the camera slighly toward the direction the
horse is travelling in, to make the front end of the horse seem
higher/larger and the hindquarters not so huge. (Perhaps this is a
Saddlebred only thing, the Quarter horse people might like to tilt the
camera the opposite way! :) ). All show ring proofs look this way and
professional shots of horses in magazines are either shot this way or with
the horse standing on a slight uphill with the front of the horse slightly
higher. Not sure what sort of horse you are photographing but if it's an
Arab, Morgan, Walker, SB or similar "head high butt low" breed you may want
to try this method.
--
Kristen Schulz
Gaitway Farm
Princeton, MA
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/flats/6440
Remove the "spamspameggsandspam." to reply
C. Little
> Very true. If I'm out in the field with the horses, I sit on my knees.
> The angle isn't that much different so it isn't obvious when looking
> at the photos, but it gives the horse a slightly more impressive look.
> It also helps to get rid of annoying backgrounds because you can at
> least get rid of most of the ground.
>
> Which leads to the worst problem in equine photography. Aweful
> backgrounds. A standard fence or solid color background isn't too bad,
> but watch for trees that appear to come out of the horse's head or
> body as well as cruddy looking fields, buildings, etc. Try to get rid
> of any background that looks distracting as it takes the eye away from
> the horse.
>
> This is the toughest thing to do and sometimes impossible, especially
> at shows where you don't get to pick the background. If you have a
> camera that allows you to change settings, use a wide aperature so
> that you can blur the background. Also, if the horse is moving, pick
> the best spot, prefocus, and shoot the horse as it goes through that
> spot.
>
> Meghan
> Friesians in the Northwest
> www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Heheheh. The stories can go on and on... Nothing like trying to shoot a dark
horse in front of a white fence... And do you reeeeallly want that '72 plymouth in
the background of your shot? <G> Funniest one I've dealt with though was the rather
heavyset lady who came and stood right in front of me while I was shooting one of
her horses. Bent down. (Yes I was tempted to shoot and include the view LOL) She
just wanted to see what I was seeing....
Cheryl
Jorene Downs
Jazanot wrote
>Jorene!
>
>Fabulous, You just gave the list of how to make your horse look “GOOD”!
My horse photography experience is strictly "learn by doing" - I was
hoping that people who *really* know what they're doing would include a
few tips that I could add to my collection! ;)
My great downfall is the action shots. I've reached the point where I
can usually find a decent posed pix in a dozen or so shots if the horse
isn't fidgety. Maybe not a pix to rave over, but respectable enough that
it gets the point across. But I can blow an entire roll on action shots
and still not have anything worth keeping! <sigh> Typically the frame is
just before - or just after - the Good Stuff. My trigger finger hasn't
figured out quite when to depress that button. And I'm guilty of too
much hunting background, and sometimes find myself moving the camera ...
leading the target. Something like jumping is easier because I can hold
on that fence, waiting for the horse. I'm awed by people who can take
good pix of a horse after a cow ... far more unpredictable movement!
I'm finally getting close to investing in video editing software. Since
the greater majority of my still pix are destined for web or flier use,
I'll be able to pluck out a specific frame of an action shot from that
video. And additional capabilities of the software will allow me to
create a copy for the VCR, edited to include still shots, text, etc.,
which will be quite convenient for putting together better quality horse
FS or stallion videos.
C. Little
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:04:49 -0800, "C. Little"
> <che...@darrington.net> wrote:
>
> <...>
> >
> > If you have a choice in lense do not use a 55 mm, it will be more likely to
> >distort the proportions of your horse's body. I prefer 105.
> >
> >Get on your knees...just kidding... but flank level will also show your horse
> >better, rather than looking like he has little stubby legs and a big ole head.
> >
> >Cheryl
> >
> <snippage>
> Keep the sun to your back, or over your shoulder to capture
> more dramatic shadows.
> My biggest problem is the dust. Herds of horses kick up all
> of that fine dust, which contaminates the camera mechanisms,
> lens, and reduces the contrast in the picture. Note that
> most professional photographer horse pictures are taken in a
> pasture! They don't want to risk their upmteen $K Nikkon
> and lens with all of that dust. So I use a cheap Pentax.
>
I really don't understand what you're talking about, Ron. What the heck is dust?
And you want sunlight where? What is (checking spelling again) 'sunlight'?
Cheryl
listening to the rocks rolling downriver in the great PacNW
Ron Miller
<che...@darrington.net> wrote:
>Ron Miller wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> My biggest problem is the dust. Herds of horses kick up all
>> of that fine dust, which contaminates the camera mechanisms,
>> lens, and reduces the contrast in the picture. Note that
>> most professional photographer horse pictures are taken in a
>> pasture! They don't want to risk their upmteen $K Nikkon
>> and lens with all of that dust. So I use a cheap Pentax.
>>
>
>I really don't understand what you're talking about, Ron. What the heck is dust?
Look under your bed or refrigerator. What isn't crawling
under its own power is dust.
>And you want sunlight where?
Behind my back. Besides having the feature of illuminating
the picture subject, it also turns my tight nekkid buttocks
a delectable shade of golden bronze. You need sunlight for
that.
>What is (checking spelling again) 'sunlight'?
Try this experiment (without flashlights):
Walk outside.
Does your face and feet hurt?
If (hurt=YES) Then
There is no sunlight AND
You've walked into your mailbox.
Else
There is sunlight AND
You've safely navigated your property.
Endif
Repeat experiment at 12 hour intervals to ensure
that a complete set of data is obtained.
>Cheryl
>listening to the rocks rolling downriver in the great PacNW
whaddapisser.
Ron Miller
NOTE: Official Assistant Meteorologist and Horse Flunkie
Meghan Noecker
>>What is (checking spelling again) 'sunlight'?
>
>Try this experiment (without flashlights):
>
> Walk outside.
> Does your face and feet hurt?
> If (hurt=YES) Then
> There is no sunlight AND
> You've walked into your mailbox.
> Else
> There is sunlight AND
> You've safely navigated your property.
> Endif
>
>Repeat experiment at 12 hour intervals to ensure
>that a complete set of data is obtained.
>
>>Cheryl
>>listening to the rocks rolling downriver in the great PacNW
>
If she's near me, it's been a LOT of rain lately, though it's actually
dry and partially sunny right now. Yesterday, I walked out into the
yard and discovered a lake . Normally the ground isn't saturated
enough to do this as our property is at the edge of hill. It usually
drains pretty well.
And where's all this snow they kept telling us would come. I've got 4
farms lined up to do photos of their friesians (solid black horses) in
the snow. I've got one week's vacation that I haven't scheduled so
that I can go do these farms, but NO SNOW! Not even in Canada where 2
of the farms are :( What a bummer.
Jorene Downs
Meghan Noecker wrote ...
>If you're lighting is good, go with slower film. It gives you a finer
>grain so enlargements look sharper. I would however, recommend that
>you skip 200 speed altogether. 400 actually has the same grain as 200
>but gets you by in lower light. 100 or slower is best, but you gotta
>have good lighting.
What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
C. Little
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 05:49:17 -0800, "C. Little"
> <che...@darrington.net> wrote:
>
> >Ron Miller wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >> My biggest problem is the dust. Herds of horses kick up all
> >> of that fine dust, which contaminates the camera mechanisms,
> >> lens, and reduces the contrast in the picture. Note that
> >> most professional photographer horse pictures are taken in a
> >> pasture! They don't want to risk their upmteen $K Nikkon
> >> and lens with all of that dust. So I use a cheap Pentax.
> >>
> >
> >I really don't understand what you're talking about, Ron. What the heck is dust?
>
> Look under your bed or refrigerator. What isn't crawling
> under its own power is dust.
Ahem. Not without armament am I going there... And no one was talking about
*indoors*. Besides. I'd have to *bend over* to look *under*, and I'm not going there.
Not happening. No way.
> >And you want sunlight where?
>
> Behind my back. Besides having the feature of illuminating
> the picture subject, it also turns my tight nekkid buttocks
> a delectable shade of golden bronze. You need sunlight for
> that.
Golden bronze. Gooooolden broooonze. Hmmm. I think I've seen that somewhere... Oh
yeah! Pictures in magazines, that's where I've seen that color! Closest I've seen
that color around here is that reddish stuff on my truck... but it's liberally mixed
with brown mud and green moss. As a matter of fact, everything's mixed with moss. See
a pattern yet?? Let's put it this way: If you're lost, and looking for north, you're
in deep doo doo. Moss grows on *all* sides of the tree here...
> >What is (checking spelling again) 'sunlight'?
>
> Try this experiment (without flashlights):
>
> Walk outside.
> Does your face and feet hurt?
> If (hurt=YES) Then
> There is no sunlight AND
> You've walked into your mailbox.
> Else
> There is sunlight AND
> You've safely navigated your property.
> Endif
>
> Repeat experiment at 12 hour intervals to ensure
> that a complete set of data is obtained.
Light. Oh yeah. we have that. We just don't have one of those yellow ball things
hanging in the sky. At least not most of the time. It happens sometimes, but since it
doesn't scare the obhorseys we haven't messed with it too much...
Cheryl
C. Little
> If she's near me, it's been a LOT of rain lately, though it's actually
> dry and partially sunny right now. Yesterday, I walked out into the
> yard and discovered a lake . Normally the ground isn't saturated
> enough to do this as our property is at the edge of hill. It usually
> drains pretty well.
>
> And where's all this snow they kept telling us would come. I've got 4
> farms lined up to do photos of their friesians (solid black horses) in
> the snow. I've got one week's vacation that I haven't scheduled so
> that I can go do these farms, but NO SNOW! Not even in Canada where 2
> of the farms are :( What a bummer.
>
> Meghan
> Friesians in the Northwest
> www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
HA! Alot of rain?? There's some old guy with a beard that's been going
door to door up here asking about seeing a unicorn and babbling about God
sealing the doors shut or something of that nature...
You're hired to take pictures of Freezin' Friesians? Hmmmm. Sounds fun,
but if we get snow I'll know who to come after...
Cheryl
Lorie
>What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
>
For indoor events and late afternoon/early evening outdoor activities, ASA
800 or faster will help you get better photos (particularly action shots)
without having to use a flash -- which can be very distracting or even spook
a horse. I have some great photos I shot at an indoor tennis match using
Kodak Gold 1600. The grain is very tight even when enlarged to 16 X 20.
And the TMax 3200 (b&w) was even better --- and could be *pushed* to even
higher speeds (I think I was shooting it at 6400).
Lorie
*********************************************
Crossrail-by-Mail has a new home ---
You can now find us at:
www.tackandapparel.com/
Meghan Noecker
<Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>
>Meghan Noecker wrote ...
>>If you're lighting is good, go with slower film. It gives you a finer
>>grain so enlargements look sharper. I would however, recommend that
>>you skip 200 speed altogether. 400 actually has the same grain as 200
>>but gets you by in lower light. 100 or slower is best, but you gotta
>>have good lighting.
>
>
>What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
>
>- - - - -
I used it last year with nice results. It will enlarge to 8x10 okay,
but it still isn't as sharp as 100 speed.
I try to save the 400 or 800 for when I'm shooting indoors or on
cloudy/rainy days. If I can get 1/500 shutter speed with the slower
speed, I'll do the slower speed.
Meghan Noecker
<che...@darrington.net> wrote:
>Golden bronze. Gooooolden broooonze. Hmmm. I think I've seen that somewhere... Oh
>yeah! Pictures in magazines, that's where I've seen that color! Closest I've seen
>that color around here is that reddish stuff on my truck... but it's liberally mixed
>with brown mud and green moss. As a matter of fact, everything's mixed with moss. See
>a pattern yet?? Let's put it this way: If you're lost, and looking for north, you're
>in deep doo doo. Moss grows on *all* sides of the tree here...
Funny you should mention that. I was out in the yard the other day
waiting for my dog to do her thing, and I realized the tree had moss
all the way around and and at least 5 feet up the trunck. I thought
about that ule for finding north and thought, what's the point? Are
you supposed to look for the side with the longest section of moss?
The rule never said it didn't work in some areas.
Ben Turner
>
>What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
>
If it's not going to sit around for a while (in camera or
elsewhere) you might consider Kodak's Professional Ektapress films.
Unlike some professional films, this series does not require
refrigeration and is developed with the "standard" C-41 process.
However, it does not have the shelf life of standard consumer films,
hence the initial caveat. Also, Kodak does suggest requesting visual
inspection at security checkpoints (like airports) since these films
are more sensitive to radiation exposure.
My current general purpose film is the Ektapress Multispeed
(PJM), nominally rated ASA/ISO 640 but having a very usable range (all
on the same roll) of ASA/ISO 100-800 (Kodak says you can have the
processing modified to get ASA/ISO 1600, but I haven't tried). I've
been pleased with their EKTAPRESS Plus 1600 (PJC) but haven't used it
for horses.
Pictures of our horses taken with PJM have received compliments
from barn cronies and relatives and have satisfied my own demands
regarding grain, sharpness, color rendition and color saturation
saturation in the prints and latitude in exposure conditions (YMMV).
Depending on your sources, it's probably a little more expensive than
consumer films, but that is not such a big deal when factoring in all
costs of photography.
Best,
Ben Turner
btu...@ida.org
(p&m)
Jorene Downs
vG was down looking at an appendix QH mare for sale that Shari was
showing for the client. I used Terry's Polaroid camera. (When he asked
me to act as handler while he took a pix, I remembered the Polaroid pix
he'd taken of another horse he'd looked at ... and promptly volunteered
my services *behind* the camera! <wg>) While you can't rave about photo
quality compared to other camera options, the pix was quite decent. And
Terry looked at the pix and decided that mare has a pretty nice hip!
<g> So those of you who have been contributing on the photography
thread ... the comments were under discussion today! And yes, I stood
even with the back of her barrel to get a slight angle so her nice hip
was flattered by the photo. ;)
BTW - the mare's barn name is Skates, and she sure knows how to scoot
after a cow. If Terry ends up buying her, I can see rec.eq having a
*wonderful* time with that name ... LOL!
- - - - -
C. Little
Even nature is PC in the PacNW... no rules, only suggestions... except when it comes to
rain.
Cheryl
Muse
>"Jorene Downs" <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
>>
>>What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
--- >8 SNIP 8< ---
There's a lot of talk here about film; but don't forget that photography is
about a lot more than this! I've never used faster than 200 ASA film; if
you're careful with composition and you know what you're trying to do, how
to do it, and you have a decent camera you can get away with 100 ASA film in
the majority of instances. (Not only does this proveide better grain, but
the colors are far better on the slower films, IIRC).
If you are taking 'action shots' and feel you need a lightning fast film,
think of this. If you can pan the camera with the subject, you'll of course
still get motion blur of the background and legs; but where used properly
this accentuates movement and adds dynamicism to the shot. Indoor action
shots I can understand being a problem I suppose...
But then there's the fact that there's a lot to go wrong and to keep an eye
on beyond your film speed!
Lois Y.
In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
Is this a valid exuse? Or does it sound like it did to me: she wasn't
anticipating where the exposure SHOULD be made and was "swinging" the
camera when she took the shot? There wasn't much natural light at the
indoor arena, and she had no external lighting system.
Lois
Ben Turner wrote:
>
> "Jorene Downs" <Jor...@CEOates.com> wrote:
> >
> >What about the 800 speed film for horse photography? Pros & cons?
> >
>
Lorie
>Ben,
>
>In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
>equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
>ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
>the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
>and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
>it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
>up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
>
>Is this a valid exuse?
Poor film speed selection is a valid *excuse*. However at $25 per roll, she
should've been a professional (or at the very least a really serious
amateur) who would know better than to bring the wrong speed film --- or
only one speed of film on a day that offered questionable lighting
conditions.
Meghan Noecker
>If you are taking 'action shots' and feel you need a lightning fast film,
>think of this. If you can pan the camera with the subject, you'll of course
>still get motion blur of the background and legs; but where used properly
>this accentuates movement and adds dynamicism to the shot. Indoor action
>shots I can understand being a problem I suppose...
>
The blur on the legs can be unnaceptable, especially with trotting
horses. I had some great shots that were sharp except the legs. They
don't sell as that is not what the breeder really wants.
I had one shot that was an awesome action shot, but the legs were
blurry. The repsonse from the owner of the horse? "My kingdom for a
clear shot of this." (She has a great piece of property, too!) She
also mentioned that the breed association would have used that shot in
the advertising campaign if the shot had been sharp. Panning did not
help me in this case, and I will not do it again at a judging where
the horses trot. It works fine for cantering though.
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>Ben,
>
>In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
>equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
>ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
>the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
>and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
>it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
>up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
>
>Is this a valid exuse? Or does it sound like it did to me: she wasn't
>anticipating where the exposure SHOULD be made and was "swinging" the
>camera when she took the shot? There wasn't much natural light at the
>indoor arena, and she had no external lighting system.
>
>Lois
>
>
When I go to events, I will happily give my card, but I don't take
money until after the person sees the photos. If they tell me they
want photos, then I will certainly aim at them more than I normally
would.
As to the excuse, it is only an excuse. Yes, there are times where I
would have had better shots if I had faster film, but that was my
fault. I should have had faster film.
When I go to events now, I take enough film that I can do the whole
event in slow film or the whole event in fast film, whichever is
appropriate when I get there.
I would also rather risk a dim photo than a blurry photo, so I tend to
stick with my fast shutter speed first. If that means too little
light, then I either don't shoot at all, or I take a few and expect
them to be on the edge.
I have certainly made several mistakes in the past couple years, and I
have been embarrassed with the results sometimes. A couple years ago,
I didn't have fast enough film with me, so I used slower speed film
and pushed it to the faster speed. Should have worked, but the lab
didn't read the instructions. Once they are developed, that's it. And
since I used slide film instead of print film, they were ruined. I
still had several rolls that were okay, but I really felt hokey trying
to explain why I got some horses and not all of them.
I also had a camera break down last summer at a farm call, so I lost
two horses. The first roll didn't advance, so I figured I had messed
up with loading the film. the 2nd roll went fine, the 3rd roll did it
again. Turned out, the motor drive was missing the connection and thus
acting like it advanced, but I couldn't tell it wasn't going. Since I
carry a backup camera, I swtitched and the rest of the day went great.
Things will go wrong, sometimes not the fault of the photographer, but
usually it is. My film would never have been ruined by the lab if I
had just had the right kind to begin with.
A decent photographer will know when they are at the edge of their
limits. If the lighting is bad, and they don't have the right film or
a fast enough lens, etc; they will know that. They will also know if
they have a fast enough shutter speed, and whether they can hand-hold
or need a tripod.
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>Lois Y. wrote in message <36A3E87C...@neosoft.com>...
>>Ben,
>>
>>In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
>>equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
>>ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
>>the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
>>and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
>>it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
>>up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
>>
>>Is this a valid exuse?
>
>Poor film speed selection is a valid *excuse*. However at $25 per roll, she
>should've been a professional (or at the very least a really serious
>amateur) who would know better than to bring the wrong speed film --- or
>only one speed of film on a day that offered questionable lighting
>conditions.
>
Gee - in my case, everyday is questionable :-) I live in Seattle, so
you never know if you're gonna get rain, clouds, or that golden globe
that sometimes appears. I hope for sun and prepare for rain.
Jazanot
>>
>>In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
>>equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
>>ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
>>the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
>>and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
>>it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
>>up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
>>
>>Is this a valid exuse?
Valid? No. But I understand the photographer's problem. She showed up to the
*event* with 200 film and the whole thing was inside, which made the film way
too slow for the indoor lighting. (If the event was outside she is just plan
**inept**.) To make up some difference she opened up her shutter the whole way
and took the pics at about a 30th[shutter speed] or less of a second and got
blurry shots. (Action shots have to be taken at minimum 250 and hopefully at
1000 for stop action.) In all honesty she should have told you these are *iffy*
and not charged you from the get go, or at least just handed you the roll of
film and told you to go ahead and have them developed if you felt like it. A
bigger lens too would have helped getting closer for the action shots.
>Poor film speed selection is a valid *excuse*. However at $25 per roll, she
>should've been a professional (or at the very least a really serious
>amateur) who would know better than to bring the wrong speed film --- or
>only one speed of film on a day that offered questionable lighting
>conditions.
Yep. Sometimes you get smart and bring everything! Nine times outta ten if
you do not know the situation though you fall short. She should have been more
prepared, maybe all her other photo assignments had been outside and she
assumed this one was; bad mistake, but it was a mistake.
Now to those action shots that are blurry for people. 800 film is too grainy
for big enlargements and portrait shots, but 400 ought to be fine. (Pushing it
can be done at the scene if you are in trouble, but you have to remember to
twist the balls off the photo shop guys to make SURE they push it in the dark
room........<<G>>.) Have a lens of at least a 85 m., and some good daylight
or indoor lighting to get a fast shutter speed. Nothing good is going to stop
action at less than 250 a second, and the lens should be at about F5 or 8, you
open it up lower and blur can happen with a slight variation of depth of field.
Pick the spot first! Get that in focus and let the horse travel into your
focused field. If you pan, you have variations to deal with. Great panners
really like those blurred legs, it gives you visions of speed and grace. Hey,
if you want the freeze in life shot you have to go with 1000 of a sec. at F5.6
or 8, maybe even 11 for all around sharpness. We are talking a good 35 m. SLR
camera here with no *auto* ASA readers or auto focusing.
Photography has latitudes, many good photographers have "feel" as much as a
good rider has "feel" in a saddle. Also the more you do the more it becomes
rote, and no big deal. Go get some action shots now, guys!
Regards,
~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
,;;;,
,;( )_, )~\|
;; / | |\
' ; \; \
ฐคบฐบค.,ธ ธ,.คบฐบคฐคบฐบค.,ธ ธ,.คบ
(remove: .aka.JAZ to reply)
Lois Y.
Jazanot wrote:
>
> >Lois Y. wrote:
> >>
> >>In my first schooling dressage show, a woman came up to me with camera
> >>equipment up the ying-yang. She offered her services photographing my
> >>ride at $25/roll. Of course that sounded reasonable to me. Then I got
> >>the photos. The only one not a complete blur was the halt-salute at X,
> >>and the final one was still not in focus. I called her up & she blamed
> >>it on the film speed, but eventually refunded my $$ anyhoo. Didn't make
> >>up for the documentation of my first 66% score, though.
> >>
> >>Is this a valid exuse?
>
> Valid? No. But I understand the photographer's problem. She showed up to the
> *event* with 200 film and the whole thing was inside, which made the film way
> too slow for the indoor lighting. (If the event was outside she is just plan
> **inept**.) To make up some difference she opened up her shutter the whole way
> and took the pics at about a 30th[shutter speed] or less of a second and got
> blurry shots. (Action shots have to be taken at minimum 250 and hopefully at
> 1000 for stop action.) In all honesty she should have told you these are *iffy*
> and not charged you from the get go, or at least just handed you the roll of
> film and told you to go ahead and have them developed if you felt like it. A
> bigger lens too would have helped getting closer for the action shots.
>
>
The facility where this event was held is a fairly prominent one here in
Houston, and it was announced well in advance which arenas would be
used. All which were announced are indoors. It was Houston in
"winter". I use the quotations since I grew up in Ohio and don't ever
consider what happens here in Dec-Feb winter. A blustery spring, but
not winter. I lived in Seattle for 3 1/2 years too, and I find I kinda
like its weather. OK, so I'm a CPA and MUST live indoors Jan-April 15,
so I appreciate not having an excuse to go outside. Here in Houston
that Jan-April 15th could be the only bearable time!! Especially last
year & this one. It was over 80 again. Sounds nice, but not if you
know 90+ is just around the corner!!
I want some winter. Could someone wish some this way?
Lois Y.
Afeadie
that photographer felt that way. I photograph mostly dressage and driving so
there's not so much "action" as would be with cutting.
Had a real learning experience about depth of field trying to get pix on very,
very overcast day with f at minimum of 3.5...
Had 7 rolls with only parts of subject in focus - took basic photography class
after that. Class cost less than losing so many pix!
I do tell people up front, if they ask me to get pix, that I'm not too
experienced and the pix may not come out as well as hoped.
Anne E
Meghan Noecker
I take people's name and phone number and give them my card. I don't
take money in advance unless they are purchasing specific prints that
they have seen.
As to discouraging, my first real attempt at a horse show was also my
first time seeing friesians. I had an old camera with a broken light
meter, and I didn't have a clue. I ruined 9 rolls of film. Most
weren't even printed, they were too dark. Dark horses, dark dirt, dark
arena. It was horrible. Shortly after, I was invited to a farm for
fun.I took my camera and while most were boring shots, I got one
really good one. From then, I was hooked on photography. I bought a
camera that works, and I found some photo newsgroups.
I've always loved animals and even when I was 10 years old, I liked to
take pictures of animals, but it's only been in the last few years
that my interests have come together like this. For me, it took a
horrible failure and an awesome success. I still have some bad days.
I've had 3 camera problems on importnt days, but I learned from the
time I didn't have a spare; and that kept the other two times form
being total failures. In fact, both of those turned out to be great
even with the camera problems.
Jazanot
>>I want some winter. Could someone wish some this way? <<
Oh, I'm a wishing for your!!!
Wanna come to NE and freeze your ass off? LOL. Honestly, this winter has been
wet, but not very cold so far. Crossing knees, fingers and toes for the rest
to be the same, but you know February.....anything can and does usually happen.
(Those horrendous blizzards!)
Going riding in the indoor myself this afternoon, which flooded last week from
the rain that pelted down on top of the frozen ground which could not absorb
anymore water. Gee, that heat in Texas don't sound so bad afterall. :) See
we all have problems!
Winnie Lind
jaz...@aol.com.aka.JAZ (Jazanot) wrote:
> Lois writes:
>
> >>I want some winter. Could someone wish some this way? <<
>
> Oh, I'm a wishing for your!!!
>
> Wanna come to NE and freeze your ass off? LOL. Honestly, this winter
has been
> wet, but not very cold so far. Crossing knees, fingers and toes for the rest
> to be the same, but you know February.....anything can and does usually
happen.
> (Those horrendous blizzards!)
>
> Going riding in the indoor myself this afternoon, which flooded last week from
> the rain that pelted down on top of the frozen ground which could not absorb
> anymore water. Gee, that heat in Texas don't sound so bad afterall. :) See
> we all have problems!
>
> Regards,
> ~Jaz, J.A. Zanot
We were able to ride on the trails here in SE Mass today. We even had a
few short stretches where we could trot. Some of the trails were still ice
covered but we were able to avoid them. It was much better then just
circling in the indoor again. The horses were very happy and more than
willing to trot. Actually they seemed so pleased that they probably would
have really liked cantering or even galloping through the woods. Neither
the footing nor myself was quite up to that so they had to make do with a
little trotting. After I put Russian away I went down and enjoyed watching
a lesson in the outdoor practice area. What a treat! Take these days when
we can!
Winnie
The Blue Rose
thread. I just happened to ask a casual question on the end of a
thread and this was the result. I am hoping for much better and nicer
photos of my boy as a result, tho beloved is less than impressed about
being given instructions on horse photography. He considers himself
fairly expert LOL
I personally have no photography training at all but once I started
growing nice flowers in my garden I wanted to record them for
posterity and so my love affair with the camera began. We recently
got a new macro lens for me which is real exciting and just started
using that. For those who are interested you can see examples of my
work on my webpage (address in sig) the Rose section is where the new
macro photos are.
Stacey - there are photos of my gelding and his parents in there too
Stacey Hill (note 2 spambusters in my address if replying by e-mail)
"A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument"
Check out my Gardening and Rose website at
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/9544/index.html
Afeadie
was glad I don't have motor drive, cause I can really click and wind fast.
I usually am taking pix for my use only, so don't have to worry too much about
satisfying others. When I started, I used the auto setting when photographing
driving horses - mostly dark horses, dark harness, dark vehicles against
trees... That didn't produce very good snaps!
I too had the light meter go out, but for some reason was able to guesstimate
the settings to have most pix turn out and that was a real surprise! I usually
carry a separate meter now.
Anne E
MTSUAmiee
camera and all sorts of gadgets to go along with it. Horses have proven to be
the hardest subjects to photograph. With horses you just have to experiment a
lot. Never take a picture straight on though...always use a slight angle,
otherwise the horse will end up looking like a mule!!!!
Amy Buitrago-Bennett
Department of Criminal Justice
Middle Tennessee State University
Class of 2000