Ideal Show photography

[173north]

As someone who shows 2x per year in the lower level jumpers and ALWAYS buys a photo - what would make me buy more is flat shots and “candid” shots. Even with how little I show, I’m definitely hitting the “how many more photos over a 0.85m vertical do I need?” point. A great gallop photo or ingate candid would be so much more special.

I showed a few weeks ago and when the photos came out, about half the riders in my ring had a shot of them patting their horse or just smiling as they came back to the gate, and I was so bummed there wasn’t one of me! I actually texted my friends about it saying I wish more photographers took that “pat at the end of the round” photo, and that I bet they’d sell plenty of them - because even if you don’t like any of the photos of you jumping, you’re BOUND to like the photo of you patting your horse. If they’d had a cute shot of me cantering to the first fence or patting my horse, I’d probably have bought both that and a jumping photo.

I think fast turnaround helps, too - one big photographer in my area often takes weeks to upload photos. They are super organized and broken down into folders by ring, class, and exhibitor, but I’m happy to click through a trillion photos of my division and find myself if it means I get the photos faster. Most people just want something to upload to social quickly and remember the day by. And some of us are in divisions where the jumping photos aren’t always so impressive, so a bigger diversity of shots would be so nice.

[greysfordays]

I try to support local photographers as much as I can. Here in SoCal they’ve adopted more private client photography and I absolutely love the candids more than the single oxer shots. They can be expensive but you get a lot of photos. I keep a digital picture frame next to my work desk and honestly it is the thing that keeps me from quitting my job

I went to a West Palms show where the OP had images up that evening or early the next morning and you could buy 5 digital high res photos was $150. That felt really friendly pricing wise. And she caught a great candid of me about to go in. I had to buy the photo bc it’s such a contrast to the worried face I used to have going into the ring and a credit to trainer.

I think finding the balance price wise and getting those more candid shots is a great approach. It was a smaller show, so I’m sure it’s hard to make this all happen, but I really appreciated the quality.

[Peggy]

Part of the reason I shoot candids of barn mates is that everyone seems to appreciate them. People with tons of show photos often don’t have candids and those who don’t have many photos want all types.

@greysfordays A package like you describe is nice if you get a mix of photos. People don’t always want to spend $50 or more on a high-res digital of a single candid as their only show photo, but a mix of ring and candids is nice.

Nice balance and tonal range on that black and white image, BTW. I might crop a bit tighter, but the beauty of digital is that you can play around a bit more than that the OP can on a short turnaround.

Also noting that I was able to pull up the image on my phone by doing a long press and then selecting one of the resulting options and the photo was imbedded on the thread when I went back. Now off to see if I can view the cute kitten photos on the thread about neutering a cat that’s not yours.

[Foitin]

I just want to note that if I could change 1 thing, and it is a very easy thing, it would be to get clear information on WHO the photographer is at a given horse show. The last three horse shows I’ve attended I’ve had to google and search to even identify the photographer (I was not successful at all for one show). At the last horse show I attended, I think I know who the photographer is, but I have no idea how to access any photos in the event she took photos of my horse. A little basic advertising on the show website/FB/instagram would fix this. It is really frustrating as an exhibitor. I want to buy photos, I just don’t know from whom or how!

[skipollo]

I would buy bulk unedited photos (digital, not print) in a hot second.

The two A-rated shows I went to last summer (aka paid big bucks to be at) were a huge disappointment photo-wise. The first show, they had exactly one photo of me sitting on my horse at the in gate under a tree. You could barely even see us, and the photo quality was so poor. The second show, they didn’t even photograph my ring. I have more photos of me eventing than from H/J shows…and they had to shoot out on XC, TONS more ground to cover. Ridiculous IMO.

I honestly do not rely on show photographers to get anything decent. Even when I look at their photos of other riders, the quality is so sub-par especially considering the price. I bring my own camera and have my mother do photos because they’re better quality and I’ll actually, ya know, get photos

I would also gladly pay $$$ for photographers like Giana Terranova or Sara Shier. Their work is incredible, and I am willing to pay a lot for that quality of photo. Unfortunately there aren’t any of that caliber currently doing the shows in my area.

[Gardenhorse]

The local event photographer in our area seems to think quantity is more important than quality. There might be 40 photos from a cross country round, but it’s rare to actually get a well-framed photo with decent contrast at the right moment of the jump arc. I would buy more if the photos were better quality.

[Jo]

@RacetrackReject

I have done show photography and uploaded proofs to websites. The issue there is that people just steal what they want. There really isn’t a way to make a digital image impervious to theft, even with huge watermarks that say “if watermark is visible, image has been stolen”. I see those posted on FB all of the time with the stolen watermark visible. People have no shame.

I see this ALL THE TIME and it makes me insane. There’s one state-wide BNT who does this CONSTANTLY. Like. Just stop. It makes you look bad. I have been known to report these people to the photographer, since their name is literally plastered all over the picture, but most don’t seem to care or take any sort of action.

[atl_hunter]

One of the things I loved about showing at WEC is that Andrew Ryback’s photography team takes all kinds of gorgeous photos. I have beautiful photos of my horse in both the dressage and hunter rings - the hunter photos to your point aren’t just the “over the oxer” photo. He has a special rate that includes all the photos for the week. He’s my personal favorite and it’s so nice to have a variety of photos from which to choose for a reasonable bulk rate that includes commercial use.

[OnDeck]

Yes! Some of my favorite shots that I mentioned are Andrew Ryback

[Montanas_Girl]

I’m usually showing alone these days, so, if I want photos/videos, I need to either hand my phone off to someone friendly at the in-gate or rely on the official photographer. I’m very appreciative of the challenges facing photographers these days and happy to pay for decent-quality digital images. The problem I run into is that at most of the Arabian shows, the official photographers still use VERY outdated pricing models that rely on purchasing prints only or prints + digital rights. I’ve not found one yet who offers just digital options. I only have so much wall space in my house, so that is reserved for the really spectacular photos and/or significant moments.

I won’t even go into the big-name photographer at my filly’s first show who staged our win photos (only pictures he took of us) against the white/concrete indoor arena wall. Problem? My filly is a very light palomino, so you literally couldn’t even SEE her in the photo. It was her first show, I had no support person, and I desperately wanted a photo to commemorate that moment. But I wasn’t about to pay $80 for a 5"x7" print PLUS $25 for a digital copy of a photo in which my horse wasn’t even visible!

[AffirmedHope]

James Parker Leslie is the only photographer that I know of that has modernized his business. He seems to do pretty well with his book clients, which I believe includes candid and show shots and also a photography session. His photos are stunning and he never seems to have a shortage of clients. If I showed on the circuit and had disposable income I would absolutely pay for his services.

It might be worth it to see if you could get a few clients like that on your circuit and come up with a package priced for your clientele. The age of buying one photo for $30 is ending and photographers are going to have to adapt.

[RacetrackReject]

Other photographers that do WEF (or if you see them at any events near you) besides Rybeck and Parker are Gianna and Sara (mentioned above), and Katie Karssen aka Boss Mare Media (love!!), Evelyn Szczepanek, Nicole Schultz, and Laila Klinsmann. Just in case you try the first two and they are all booked, the others are great options as well. I, personally, have Gianna and Katie as my favorites, but they are all excellent. Gianna and Katie’s photos for private clients are just more my style.

I don’t really care about selling prints for events for everyone. My private clients usually order prints through me even though they get digitals with a print release because I print through a professional lab and ensure color is correct and use different types of quality paper/metals.

I prefer to sell digitals because it’s quicker and easier, but you have a lot less control of what clients do after they have them in hand. This is a sticking point for some photographers. People will slap instagram filters on and do weird editing and then your name is attached to something that doesn’t represent what you do. Most contracts have a clause that says you cannot do this, but no one reads it. lol People will also print through cheap labs and the color will be off, etc. A lot of photographers just cannot let control go for that reason and that is why they stick with prints ordered through them instead of moving to more digitals.

[Peggy]

@RacetrackReject

A lot of photographers just cannot let control go for that reason and that is why they stick with prints ordered through them instead of moving to more digitals.

I have wondered about that. I know it would bother me to some extent. I will confess to changing a crop or two, never losing the photographer’s signature in the process. I do most printing at a pro lab, in part to suppoert my local camera store, but they do not have the plaques I love so I get those from Costco which does a decent job.

[mmeqcenter]

@RacetrackReject

People will slap instagram filters on and do weird editing and then your name is attached to something that doesn’t represent what you do.

This is also an interesting point of discussion.

IMO, if I’m paying for the image, there shouldn’t be any watermark or photographer name left on it. I have several photographer friends who agree, and they remove any markings when someone buys the photos. Therefore, no, any Instagram filters would not be on photos your name is attached to. However, I do know that other photographers have very strong feelings about leaving a watermark or signature on the photos even after purchase.

[trubandloki]

@mmeqcenter

IMO, if I’m paying for the image, there shouldn’t be any watermark or photographer name left on it.

Any professional photos I have bought have had a signature on it, like most artwork does.

A signature is different than a watermark.

[mmeqcenter]

Yes, I know a signature is different than a watermark. Like I said, my photographer friends remove any markings from photos once they’re purchased, and the few I’ve purchased also had any markings removed.

[vxf111]

I like the phorographer’s signature. I consider a professional photo to be an artwork and in my opinion that identification adds to the value.

[greysfordays]

@vxf111

I like the phorographer’s signature. I consider a professional photo to be an artwork and in my opinion that identification adds to the value.

This is what I feel as well. I also tag them specifically to highlight their work if it’s on social media. Literally credit where credit is due.

[RacetrackReject]

When you buy a digital file, you are generally paying for only print rights and limited digital rights, and these images cost much less than say a digital image file for a portrait session that requires much more intense scrutiny and editing so this is why they are watermarked. Limited rights usually state that you cannot edit the image and that it cannot be used in publications without permission, but this varies. For example, if you buy a low res image, those are generally bound to only be used for social media by contract.

You do not own the image when you buy a print or digital file copy. In order to own the image itself and be able to use it for anything you wish, you would need to purchase full rights (copyright), at which point the image would cease to belong to the photographer. That would also cost you considerably more money than most anyone is going to pay for a show image.

I will just add this in because this conversation usually follows when I say that the focus of an image does not own the photograph. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place legally, so someone can take a photo of you and it still belongs solely to them. Think about what paparazzi do, same concept.

When I final edit portrait images for a client for printing, I remove the watermarks, usually. There are a few exceptions.

When digital images are sold, you generally are never going to make another cent off of them because the client can print all they want but then on the other side, clients also generally want to pay less for digital images so, in that way, they are not a moneymaker. That’s another reason for leaving the watermark on, so that people will know whose work it is and can find you if they need something shot.

[Tha_Ridge]

Agreed to both you and vxf!