Sorta haha funny, but kinda ironic funny. On a whippet board I post to occasionally, Someone was looking to find out what camera I used. By the time I visited the thread have morphed into how outrageously priced show photographs are.

I just had to chuckle as my camera is certainly not the sports camera of choice and I have many pros I hang out with look at me like I am a moron. Which is fine, I may be

But, when it comes down to it, what the pros are being paid for is talent and knowledge. Just because you buy the best camera that money can afford, doesn't mean you are going to get good shots. Most of the really nice photos I post I do some post processing to them to get that really sharp finished look. They don't look BAD out of the camera, but I wouldn't call them great either.

There is ALOT of time and expense involved in this. It isn't just snap the photo and send it to Walgreens. I haven't started charging yet as I don't feel that I can give consistent results. I am just at that point where I get good results by luck.

I just thought that you all would enjoy that bit of musing for the day

Oh, I can see that:) Both the complaining about prices and the camera snobs. The two ends of the spectrum. I am always reluctant to discuss hardware anywhere but on a photography forum for that reason. And even on the forums, it is a topic I still try to avoid:)

But out of curiosity, what is considered outrageous pricing?

I don't think any figures were thrown out, but from what I have seen, around $20-$30 for a show picture

Jim Garvie would have alot more knowledge in this area than I. it is a totally different world!

Wow, that's sad people are complainning about that. The amount of money they waste getting the dogs into the shows, and they are going to have heartburn over $30. I am sure they will be content with their camera phone results:)

I think the idea was put in the first poster's head because her friend who scans her win photos "studied" photography in college. So, that makes her an expert on pricing I supposed

One thing I have learned. Copyright is a serious thing to those of depend on those images for a living, LOL. It seems that people often do not mind copying an image at all and do not even think of it as stealing.

People complain about the on-going cost of photographers, and there are a lot of do it yourself types. The truth is that a photographer is providing a service. They are worth what you are willing to pay for it and what they are willing to charge. The other truth is that we are paid to get 'the shot.'

Sometimes brides come in my place and want to haggle with me on my prices. They do not realize that these prices are fixed things. I do not go into their workplace and ask them to work for less each week. They also do not realize what goes into producing a photograph, between advertising, time spent booking, etc. In short, yes, prices look out of whack when you look at it in the moment, but are often quite low if you realize the amount of behind the scnenes work that goes into finalizing the sale.

James

I wrote a long reply basically explaining how much more difficult show photography is than it looks. Joe Blow out of camera class couldn't walk into a dog show and get shots that were saleable. I, Personally, would not try and do win shots. I know I would screw it up.

I just said people are paying for the photographers time, expertise and that it is kinda like breeding dogs, you don't make nearly what it looks like.

Oh, and I didn't mention the copyright issue as people already know and I am in a feisty mood ready to snap at people. Some overly righteous person told me that my friend was violent and abhorrent for cropping her danes ears.

Now, this is a person who has done dog rescue for many years. Who sees feral kittens on the side of the interstate and takes 3 days catching and trapping them so they don't die.

No doubt that ear cropping is not pleasant. But I have seen alot of things that are TRULY violent and abhorrent and my friend is not one of those people. So, I am trying to hold my tongue as to not sound like a psycho(and I did reply to the person who said that)

No one replied to me

Interesting thread since I'm in the process of investigating the use of my "proofs" in full-color ads without my permission and without payment.

First item: yes there are equipment snobs out there. Folks come up to me at shows and comment that my XT is the same camera their friend uses. Uh huh. But their friend doesn't know how to pose their dog, how to light it properly, how to color-balance in PhotoShop or how to create a great print. What folks are paying me for is the image and they would pay me the same if I were taking them with a pinhole camera.

I charge $25 for an 8X10. And the number of folks who try to rip me off for that $25 is amazing! I've actually had people stand behind me at my photo set-up and ask if they could shoot over my shoulder. When I've said "no", they were insulted. Talk about folks that don't get it.

So, over time I've evolved my process so that I don't put finished signs in the images I shoot on location. Everything is inserted afterwards in PhotoShop. That tends to cut down on the "shoot over the shoulder" folks but not all the idiots out there. I shot the Miami shows in December and a lovely Scottie took two Group 1s. They used a "professional" photographer/designer for their ad in the Canine Chronicle and she scanned the proofs (hand-written signs) and used them in the ad. When I questioned the publisher why he ran the ad without my copyright line, he told me he couldn't police ad creation/submission.

The fact is that my copyright says I own the image and I own all rights to the image. I sell prints for $25. If you want to use the image in advertising, you need to ask for my written permission and, if I grant it, I send the publication a file directly. Any other use of the print is strictly forbidden by copyright law.

The publications need to understand that use of an image is contingent on my copyright being visible either on the sign or, if they cut it out of the image they use, in a seperate by-line. It is amazing to me that the publications don't understand that requirement and that nobody else has attempted to enforce it.

So there you have the basic elements of show photography: anybody with a digital camera (or cell phone) is a photographer; the image has no perceived value; if you can steal it, by all means do; if you run it in an ad, scan the proof and by all means don't give the photographer credit.

It's a good thing I love the dogs .

Jim

Jim, do you send out the proofs in the mail? Or do you proof them on your website.

I know my friends say they get them by mail and then pay for them. As dishonest as people can be, I could imagine that many just don't return payment.

So, if I go to the Franklin, Tn show, is the OP gonna come kick my butt if I bring in my camera? Nobody paid me any attention at the Knoxville show. I think it was too crowded to bother