Yesterday, I spent about 5 hours editing a few images I had taken at a recent dog show. The shots were good but needed a fair amount of PP to get them where I felt they were worth the money I charge for an image that can either be displayed or used in advertising.

In the middle of my muddling, the mail came and in it was the print of Rowdy's AOM from the Louisville Cluster. Let me state from the start that this is an outstanding image from one of the top Dog Show Photographers in the country. Here it is.



In comparison, I'm also posting a shot I took of Rowdy at the ARC National last April. Here it is.



The point of this post is not to say that my image is better than the one from Louisville. The ARC formal is a very good image with outstanding reproduction potential.

The shot from Louisville is an outstanding image with very poor reproduction potential. It is too contrasty; has too much shadow; and, frankly, it's a tad soft.

The photographer that took that photo, Booth, shoots Hasselblad 2 1/4 film cameras with on-camera flash for both in-ring and podium setups. I shoot on-camera flash in the rings and studio lights on the podium. The difference is clear in the shadows you get from both approaches. Mine are soft and theirs are hard.

Plus, I work a minimum of 1/2 an hour on every image I produce to final print to make sure it is as good as it can be. Booth shoots film so what they get from the lab is what exhibitors get. There is no post-production.

We both charge the same for our prints. Mine are out within a week; theirs took 3 weeks.

As I said, this is one of the best -- if not THE best -- images ever captured of Rowdy. I did help with the setup and told them to shoot him like a Dobe. I was baiting him. But the bottom line is that Booth is an outstanding photographer. But with their prints, what they give you is what you get. There are no files to go back to and retouch. If you want to make it better, you scan it and work on it yourself.

This old-school vs. new-school approach makes me wonder whether people really know the difference or really care. Booth is booked every weekend of the year. I am not. Clearly, they have both the photographic skills and the marketing skills to get the work. But, frankly, my final images are of a far better quality.

Does it matter? Maybe grinding out the prints and simplifying the shooting environment is the right answer. I'm simply not sure any more.

Jim