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

Jim - I agree with you. The Booth photo is way too contrasty and too "flashy". Not that I think Booth takes bad photos, it's just I have some very very good shots from Booth and some -- shall we say -- not so good shots.

But, I think the answer to the question as to why Booth is booked every weekend and you are not (or myself, for that matter) is not Booth's photographic skills and marketing. It is simply that if Booth (or any other photographer for that matter) did the show this year, they will do it next year and the year after that and the year after that because it is easier/simplier for the club to keep status quo. The marketing would have to come from your end and be very convincing. I know there has always been the rumor out there that the photographer kicks back to the club. But I have a very close friend who is high up in her local kennel club here in the midwest and I asked her about that. She told me that, at least for her kennel club, they did not pay the photographer any fee and the photographer did not pay anything to the club.

I really don't have a lot of interest in being the OP for all breed shows, but I would like to do some specialty shows.

I hate to say this, but, I have yet to get a win photo of Dot where she isn't blown out. Granted, I tend to wear black and she is white, but, for GOD'S SAKE, expose for her.

McGuire's blown white isn't nearly as bad as he is mostly brindle and it doesn't detract. I do think that exposure is pretty darn important.

I will quit complaining now! Gotta put the computer in the car and make my way to Perry!

Julie,
believe me, the Show Photographers kick back to the clubs big time. I just lost some shows to Meyer and one of the Club's Board members confirmed it was not because of image quality or delivery time. That contract was bought plain and simple.

And Meyer (as well as most of the other established show photographers) tend to be in bed with the Superintendents. When we shot our first show 5 years ago, the Super (MBF) managed to schedule the ring times so that we were shooting the BIS after dark in an outdoor venue. Try to focus with on-camera flash and no other lighting! That was a joy .

I've commented before about how the real marketplace works vs. what goes on in AKC shows. It's a very political environment both inside and outside of the rings. Quality, pricing and delivery are seldom considered by the Clubs. Just who are our "friends" and how much will they contribute to our bottom line.

On the other hand, there are good photographers out there that deserve to get the gigs they get. I have no major issues with Booth or with John Ashbey or some of the others. But, frankly, some are simply not very good photographers and offer an inferior product. As an exhibitor, I have a problem with that. Guess I'll have to start my own Breed Club so I can pick my photographers .

I'm with you -- just give me my fair share of the Specialties and I'll be happy. You don't make much money but at least you don't have to kill yourself running from ring to ring.

Jim

"Let me state from the start that this is an outstanding image from one of the top Dog Show Photographers in the country."

Jim, I learned many years ago: "I must be happy with the quality of my work; regardless of the expectations of my clients". I do not agree the Louisville shot is an outstanding image, it may very well be from one of the top Dog Show Photographers but the image is amateur, at best. You sited all the reasons in your dialog. Your image, on the other hand, is well lite and has good detail.

It is in your best interest to do your photography to your high standards and take the opportunity to educate your clients and future clients.

John,
thanks for your comment and your perspective. Just let me elaborate why the Rowdy shot is so good -- in my opinion. It has nothing to do with the technical quality of the image. It has to do with Rowdy. In that photo, if I were to color the chin black, nobody would question me if I said it was a photo of one of the top dogs in the Country.

In that photo, Rowdy is over his front; his topline from the whithers to the tail is like a board; his rear is pulled out fully and the hocks are perpendicular to the podium. Not many 10-year-old dogs can be shot well from the side and none look that good from that angle.

Now, do I wish the photo was better quality? Yes. I would not have sent that out. But when the photographer is shooting film, what can they do? They can't eliminate the shadows like I can. They can't sharpen the dog or lighten the blacks like I can. They can't turn an ordinary capture into an extraordinary image. Like I can.

Thanks, John. I'll maintain my standards and hope somebody else appreciates them as much as you .

Jim

Jim

I agree Rowdy looks awesome, despite the average job done by the photographer.

Even in the film days, we had techniques to make better photos, we bounced flash, used umbrellas, used reflector cards, etc. Anyone shooting with a Hassey should be able to get sharp results.

Jim, I think people appreciate your work, they may not be able to say why they like your work better but I am sure they have an internal feeling for the better quality.

I've had many photos taken by Booth.....All I can say is that your photo is beautiful......I wish you worked the shows in my area.
The worst photo I had every received of one of my dogs was his Westminster Best of Breed photo..... somehow he must of laid down on a dirty floor and his entire side facing the photographer was dirt and white dog hair (not very nice on a rottie!) The handler missed it but you would of thought the photographer would of said something!
Connie

Connie,
they grind them out at Westminster and I doubt the photographer even saw it. No excuse -- he should have -- but there's a lot going on at that show as you know.

On the other hand, if you have the print, you can clean it up in PS. And it will take far less time than it took to get the print in the first place.

Thanks for the compliment. I believe I can light Rotties well. I've been practicing on mine for over 10 years so I should have figured it out by now . But, as you know, image quality is not the determining factor when it comes to getting shows.

Cheers,

Jim