# Equine and High Speed Photography



## glittertherapy (May 15, 2016)

Hi everyone! I am new to the forum, and I was hoping you would be able to help me out.

This year will be the first full season that my small company will be operating, and I have just purchased a new Canon EOS 70D. It came with two lenses: the 3.5-5.6f 18-55 mm IS STM and the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS STM. 

Mostly I will be shooting equine sports photos and pet portraits.

I have SO much more to learn as far as settings and post-processing - so any tips or tricks that you have would be greatly appreciated.

I am going to attach a few photos that I have taken recently, and a couple examples that show my editing capabilities.

Some of my photos are turning out grainy and blurry, and some are clear, but I'm not sure what makes the difference. Do I just need a "faster" lens? I've heard that for equine sports in particular, a 2.8f 70-200mm lens is the ideal, but those lenses are more than a bit outside of my price range at the moment. I would really like for my photos to be crisp and clean. I also would like to be able to capture photos with a high bokeh (I can't seem to do this at all right now). 

I'm also having trouble keeping both the horse and fence in focus as they are jumping over it, any idea how I might improve on that?

Our FB page: TwoShoes Photography

ANY advice is appreciated!!!





 

 








[/URL][/IMG] 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## glittertherapy (May 15, 2016)

More photos:

Edited version of photo #1:




This one seems so much more blurry :| and not as sharp



 

Whereas this photo was taken on the first day and is MUCH more crisp. I still struggled getting the jump in focus as well as the horse, but at least the horse is clear.


----------



## tirediron (May 15, 2016)

I'm not sure what you mean by "high bokeh"; shallow depth of field perhaps?  The 70-200 f2.8 is probably the single most useful lens you could have in your kit for this sort of work, and if you don't have one now, you should make the acquisition of one your first choice.  You can probably save a bit of coin by buying a used version of the previous generation, or even a third-party Tamron/Sigma/Tokina version.


----------



## glittertherapy (May 15, 2016)

Sorry, I probably don't know what I mean by high bokeh either haha - I just mean I would love the backgrounds in my photos to be that blurred and soft look, even when shooting action shots! 

Have you used the Tamron version of that type of lens? Buying that lens was going to be my top priority! Hoping I can sell enough photos in order to purchase it.

Thank you for the response!


----------



## tirediron (May 15, 2016)

What you're describing is shallow depth of field achieved by using a longer focal length and larger aperture.  I've not used any version other than the Nikon, but it is considered a "professional" lens, so it will be a good lens.


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2016)

A few thoughts:

A) I'm concerned that you'd start a company whilst at the same time asking what are some very basic and elementary questions. Concerned because it might mean that you're unable to deliver the product you advertise to them which might well result in disagreements or conflicts. The last thing you want is to start a company and earn a bad reputation. A good reputation is hard to get but so easily lost.

B) You appear to have some solid editing skills; composition and general photography - although part of that might also be helped by shooting in good light. You have what I would consider a very solid foundation to build from.

I would thus advise possibly holding back on being a company and working and instead consider a few months of strict structured learning. With your current level I would guess you could pick up much of what you need pretty quickly - you can then start afresh from a stronger and more confident position.


1) Grainy - this is generally the result of two factors.
a) High ISO - a higher ISO value will increase the noise/grainyness of the photo*. This is unavoidable, but likewise there will be many times where you have to raise the ISO to get the shot you want in the light you're working in
b) Underexposure - if you underexpose a photo and then brighten it up in editing you will get more noise. Importantly if you underexpose and brighten you will get more noise than if you'd have raised the ISO at the time of shooting and exposed correctly and thus not had to brighten in editing.

As such whilst raising the ISO increase noise; if you need to raise it then do so.
Note noise is the opposite of sharpness when it comes to editing. You will want to invest time into learning effective noise removal/reduction coupled with sharpening methods. There's a lot of material out there on this so take some shots at high ISO and make some noisey shots to work with and practice on. Note much of the noise will vanish in web display or printing; but effective editing can make a vast difference**

2) Blurry - part of this is experience; although from mine I can say that 1/640sec is the slowest shutterspeed you can have for something like showjumping. At that speed you should get a sharp shot with most areas of detail and motion being sharp. 1/500sec and you'll start to see hooves and hair (mane/tail) blurring and any slower and you really will see blurring a lot more.
Any faster than 1/640sec is ideal; though of course you need the light for that.

3) Shallow depth of field is certainly the result of the aperture; but also distances come into play as well. In general though many horse events are hard to shoot because the background is often very close to the horse and rider. This means careful choosing of your shooting location - editing as you've done in shot 1 - and sometimes you just have to accept it.

4) Depth of field of horse and rider - in practical terms f2 is the widest I'd ever go with horse and rider in terms of aperture. Anywider and the thin depth of field will be very challenging to work with; especially with two focal points of interest (horse and rider). f2.8 to f5.6 is a practical working range for horses and riders. Often f2.8 when in low or challenging light conditions; you can sometimes find that the shoulder of the horse is better to aim for - easier to keep the focus tracking and somewhat in the middle between horse head and rider head - but depends a little on the angle you're shooting at and on the horse.

5) Ideally you want 100mm or longer for most equine photography; otherwise if you get too close for a portrait with a shorter focal length you can run the risk of perspective distortion where the closer parts are enlarged over those further away (you can see these in the extreme on those post/birthday cards with animals looking at the viewer with VAST noses all blown up compared to the rest of their head). Of course this assumes a portrait where the horse fills most of the frame; the further back you are the more you can get away with short focal length lenses - but in general 100mm or longer (and for most showjumping or similar you want to give them distance ot move anyway and not be crowding them).

6) A 70-200mm f2.8 can be a major workhorse [pun intended ] of this genre of photography. Able to work in portraits and posed shots as well as in the showring. Expensive, but honestly very well worth saving up for and purchasing. Canon has their own version in the MII which is very highly priced; whilst if you look second hand you might find older versions a bit cheaper.

7) If you plan to shoot showjumping in an indoor arena - or dressage or anything for that matter get ready for a big challenge. To prepare yourself
a) Shoot in an arena (obviously)
b) Set your camera to its high ISO setting (check the manual for how to enable "high" ISO setting that unlocks another stops worth of ISO) and get some shots
c) Practice with those shots with regard to noise removal.

I have been in cases where I've been at 1/500sec - f2.8 - ISO 125000 and still been underexposing. slowest sharp(ish) shutterspeed; widest aperture; highest ISO.

Remember most events won't let you use flash with horses and flash for such a large close-up animal and rider is not a simple matter of one on-camera flash anyway. So you've got to work with the light that the day gives you


Finally with regard to your second photo try to avoid bum-shots. When the horse and rider move away from you at a jump generally avoid it - most people dislike that angle and it would only serve purpose in showing someone their method whilst riding. Otherwise its generally not something people want to see [and yes I've seen loads of bum-jump shots on peoples online portfolios - doens't mean they sell any of them)

*technically digital has "noise" whilst film has "grain" the appearance of both is different enough that they are different things and thus different terms. Although most today will know what you mean with grainy in a digital shot.


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2016)

As an additional thought - having had a quick glance through your facebook - you've got some pretty good understanding of the timing of shots to get the feet off the ground. Ideally  try to aim for getting the back legs off the ground; if they are planted on the ground during a jump it looks odd; mostly because a horse puts a huge amount of energy into their back legs for a jump, but when that moment is frozen in a camera shot it lacks any sense of motion - the horse almost looking like they are leaning on a desk with their front body rather than projecting themselves up into the air. Sand on the ground bieng kicked up can sometimes mask this though (as the sand kicks up and thus gives a sense of motion).


Landing shots are also tricky; I must admit I do like some in general; but its one of those cases where right angle nad right pose and timing are critical. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't its not as sure as the early part of the jump where horse and rider are on the up


----------



## tirediron (May 16, 2016)

On my first reading, I totally missed the "small company line" - that really does make your post a horse of an entirely different colour (pun also fully intended!  ).  I spent a little time looking through your facebook page, and to be honest, while you do have a couple of really, really nice shots (at least on screen), the vast majority of your work seems to lack refinement.  Many images have exposure issues, off-level horizons, awkward crops, etc.  I agree with Overread that you definitely have an eye for the moment, but your execution isn't quite there yet. 

The majority of the issues are easily solved simply by shooting a little more loosely and paying closer attention in post.  The stand-out area however is your lack of exposure control, due, I'm assuming to shooting only with ambient light.  While I understand that the event work is a 'take what you're given' scenario, exposure-wise, almost all of your portraits would be improved by the addition of some supplemental lighting.  Even a simple single reflector can be an invaluable tool. 

I too recommend a little more time in practice before hanging your shingle out there.


----------



## Designer (May 16, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> Some of my photos are turning out grainy and blurry, and some are clear, but I'm not sure what makes the difference. Do I just need a "faster" lens? I've heard that for equine sports in particular, a 2.8f 70-200mm lens is the ideal, but those lenses are more than a bit outside of my price range at the moment. I would really like for my photos to be crisp and clean. I also would like to be able to capture photos with a high bokeh (I can't seem to do this at all right now).
> 
> I'm also having trouble keeping both the horse and fence in focus as they are jumping over it, any idea how I might improve on that?


Please do us a favor and post smaller files.  The large version will come in handy if someone asks for it, but meanwhile, the huge files make loading the page and scrolling awkwardly slow.

Now to your questions:

I recommend that you do some independent study of exposure.  You can get a lot online for free, so I will link one preferred site:

camrbridge in color

Next, the answer is; yes, as tirediron has written, get a better lens and then learn how to use it.

If your depth of field (DOF) is thin, your camera cannot get everything sharp all at once because the front of the horse is closer to the camera than the rear of the horse.  Study DOF.

So now; if you want the horse and rider to be all sharp, you need a somewhat deeper DOF, but to get the background blurry, your DOF will pretty much have to stop at the rear of the horse leaving distant objects outside of the DOF.  This is going to require some learning what all affects the DOF, how to manipulate it, and some "in the field" calculations before taking the photo.  BTW: I have downloaded an application on my mobile that will do the calculations for me providing I enter the variables fairly closely.


----------



## gsgary (May 16, 2016)

To get horse and rider in focus you have to use minimum F5.6 for amateurs shooting pro riders you can get away with F4 because their heads are much nearer the horses head

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## dennybeall (May 16, 2016)

Some good advice so far. Also keep in mind that it's easier to get the horse in focus if they are coming directly towards or away from you. The closer to that the easier to stop the action.
Also there are times in the movement when the speed of the animals extremities, be it horse or dog, is slightly less such as at the very apex of a jump


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2016)

dennybeall said:


> Some good advice so far. Also keep in mind that it's easier to get the horse in focus if they are coming directly towards or away from you.



I'd disagree and say the opposite. A subject coming toward or away from the camera is making significant chances in distance from camera to subject the whole time. This means that the camera has to constantly resample the scene to focus. It puts the most strain on the AF. 

In contrast a subject moving sideways to the camera is moving back/forward much less in comparison and thus is easier to focus upon.


----------



## tirediron (May 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > Some good advice so far. Also keep in mind that it's easier to get the horse in focus if they are coming directly towards or away from you.
> ...


I'd say it depends on what focus mode you're using and how fast the horse is moving.  If you're using continuous-servo AF then the camera should track the horse coming straight at you very easily since the apparent movement is zero.  On the other hand a horse crossing will be more easily focused on with single-servo AF, but, at higher speeds may add the complexity of panning.


----------



## chuasam (May 16, 2016)

If you're just selling to the riders they have generally lower expectations. Don't worry about post processing for now. Work more on your timing with the strides. Also slightly tilted horizons look odd. 
The 70-200 f2.8 is generally considered the bare minimum lens. 
Having to retouch the fences for all your images will get tiresome quickly. If you want to eliminate the fences, crawl on your belly and shoot from lower. 
Don't worry so much about grain and don't be afraid to push to iso 1600 and up.


----------



## gsgary (May 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > Some good advice so far. Also keep in mind that it's easier to get the horse in focus if they are coming directly towards or away from you.
> ...


I never used auto focus on horse jumping

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## glittertherapy (May 16, 2016)

Wow, everyone! Thank you very much for your feedback! You've given me a lot to think about and will definitely be playing with these various settings when I practice.

I understand your concern with me starting a business, but where I live there are very, very limited horse show photographers, and so we are trying to fill a place in the market that is needed. While most of what we do is just for the riders/horse owners, one of our photos did end up on a Greenhawk catalogue, with my mare and I on it. We don't charge very much at all ($8/one standard edited photo or $30/5 photos for example, at the moment), because we 100% understand our limitations and that we aren't at that next level yet - but people have been buying our photos as we are going along and our main goal is to learn, grow and get better and better. And with so many suggestions, I really think that will help! What we really wanted to do before we invested more into equipment etc. was that there was a need for us in the market - and so starting up was our way of testing the waters and seeing what took.

I should also add that we just do this on the side, neither one of us has any formal training in either photography or Photoshop, and much of what we have learned has been by feel, research and trial and error. We still have day jobs (unfortunately) so this is our sort of weekend/evening endeavour to supply the people in our area with photos of themselves and their animals.

I really, really would love to learn, and you all have offered so much advice it's overwhelming and delightful.


----------



## glittertherapy (May 16, 2016)

I wish that the fences at this clinic had been large enough to get all of the horse's four feet off of the ground! It's so tough when the fences are small - by the time all the legs have left the ground, the front legs seem to be unfolding. Part of that is each horses' style of jumping too - my mare for example has to be jumping a very wide fence or something quite tall to get all 4 of her legs off the ground and still be snappy and square in front. 

Currently what I do as far as focusing is keep the horse in focus on the way to the fence, count strides and then try to time it so the horse is directly over top or when its knees are the prettiest. Now, I've read that some people prefer to keep the fence in focus, and then snap the photo as the horse comes into frame, however, when I've tried this with my older camera, this results in a clean looking fence, but an out-of-focus horse. Which way do you prefer to shoot horses in motion? 

I also tend to shoot in AV mode, but would shooting in TV be better in outdoor settings? Or is it really just preference at that point? I have played around with it, but that last series of photos on our FB was my first opportunity to practice catching action shots outside since I bought my new camera.

If anyone wants to point out awkward photos from our Facebook or ones that have exposure issues - I am all ears (or eyes)! How can I improve that for the future? Is it a post processing thing or something that I should be adjusting in the camera itself?


----------



## tirediron (May 16, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> ..I also tend to shoot in AV mode, but would shooting in TV be better in outdoor settings? Or is it really just preference at that point? I have played around with it, but that last series of photos on our FB was my first opportunity to practice catching action shots outside since I bought my new camera.


  It's really about what's appropriate for the situation.  If a shallow DoF is the most important thing, I'll likely shoot in Aperture Priority (Av), if I want a certain shutter-speed for a given amount of movement or whatever, than Shutter Priority (Tv) might be the best way to go.



glittertherapy said:


> ..If anyone wants to point out awkward photos from our Facebook or ones that have exposure issues - I am all ears (or eyes)! How can I improve that for the future? Is it a post processing thing or something that I should be adjusting in the camera itself?


Better yet, post 2-3 of your images in a thread and we can provide detailed critique for them.  Picking random images from facebook is time-consuming and not very productive.


----------



## glittertherapy (May 16, 2016)

tirediron said:


> glittertherapy said:
> 
> 
> > ..I also tend to shoot in AV mode, but would shooting in TV be better in outdoor settings? Or is it really just preference at that point? I have played around with it, but that last series of photos on our FB was my first opportunity to practice catching action shots outside since I bought my new camera.
> ...



Deal. Separate from this thread, or is here acceptable given the previous content?


----------



## gsgary (May 16, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> I wish that the fences at this clinic had been large enough to get all of the horse's four feet off of the ground! It's so tough when the fences are small - by the time all the legs have left the ground, the front legs seem to be unfolding. Part of that is each horses' style of jumping too - my mare for example has to be jumping a very wide fence or something quite tall to get all 4 of her legs off the ground and still be snappy and square in front.
> 
> Currently what I do as far as focusing is keep the horse in focus on the way to the fence, count strides and then try to time it so the horse is directly over top or when its knees are the prettiest. Now, I've read that some people prefer to keep the fence in focus, and then snap the photo as the horse comes into frame, however, when I've tried this with my older camera, this results in a clean looking fence, but an out-of-focus horse. Which way do you prefer to shoot horses in motion?
> 
> ...


AV mode is best for horses, here's one of mine UK showjumping legend Michael Whittiker shot at F4
Sports Portfolio - Gary Clarke

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2016)

Glitter post it up in another thread so we don't get too confused on ourselves.


----------



## Designer (May 16, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> Now, I've read that some people prefer to keep the fence in focus, and then snap the photo as the horse comes into frame, however, when I've tried this with my older camera, this results in a clean looking fence, but an out-of-focus horse. Which way do you prefer to shoot horses in motion?


Here again is the issue of your depth of field coming into play.  The speed at which your lens can focus could be another factor.  

So if your camera can track subjects, then that is the mode for your autofocus.  Aim at the horse's head or the rider's head.  Keep the focus area right on the spot you want in good focus as they approach the jump.  

Probably the reason some photographers will pre-focus on the fence rail is because their camera is sluggish at focusing and doesn't have subject tracking.  If you have to resort to that prefocus strategy, make sure your DOF is deep enough to keep the horse's head in reasonable focus, as it will be some distance closer than the rail when the horse is clearing the rail.  

A faster lens (aperture, not focusing) will give you the ability to blur the background. 

The shutter speed for a moving subject should be at least 1/500 second or faster.  If you are still getting some motion blur at 1/500, change the shutter speed to 1/1000 second.  This is where having a fairly wide (f/2.8) maximum aperture will help.  Don't try shooting everything at 2.8 however, because the DOF will be very thin, and you may not get the entire horse and rider in reasonable focus.  Get the DOF calculator and learn what makes the DOF thick or thin to calculate the DOF when taking photos.  

Good luck with the new business.  You're not charging enough, BTW.  What do they get for $8?  Are you giving them the electronic files?  You're going to need to start making more money along with learning photography.


----------



## glittertherapy (May 16, 2016)

Designer said:


> glittertherapy said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I've read that some people prefer to keep the fence in focus, and then snap the photo as the horse comes into frame, however, when I've tried this with my older camera, this results in a clean looking fence, but an out-of-focus horse. Which way do you prefer to shoot horses in motion?
> ...




Thank you! The above is extremely helpful.

Yes, I agree. I have been told we aren't charging enough currently - but at the moment our only other real competition charges about that, and we have been trying to establish ourselves and get our name out there, hoping to increase our prices as the photo quality and brand grows a bit. What do you think would be better to charge? For that price you are correct, they get the digital file that has standard colour corrections/enhancements. Anything more than that is extra, such as taking out the background or objects in a busy background.

I will make a new thread for critique! Thanks everyone!


----------



## glittertherapy (May 16, 2016)

gsgary said:


> glittertherapy said:
> 
> 
> > I wish that the fences at this clinic had been large enough to get all of the horse's four feet off of the ground! It's so tough when the fences are small - by the time all the legs have left the ground, the front legs seem to be unfolding. Part of that is each horses' style of jumping too - my mare for example has to be jumping a very wide fence or something quite tall to get all 4 of her legs off the ground and still be snappy and square in front.
> ...


 
Drooooooool. What lens/camera combination do you use?


----------



## gsgary (May 16, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > glittertherapy said:
> ...


I don't any more but that  was Canon 1D + 300 f2. 8 L , I shoot 100% film only now

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2016)

Charge low whilst you build your business up - Here's the thing if you build a business charging X amount you will get known to produce a product at X amount. Your advertising; word of mouth and reputation will all be in that price bracket.
You'll build yourself a market.

If you then decide to increase your prices you'll hit a wall because the market you build at X amount won't be the market that pays more. They came to you for that lower price and taking your price up means you've got to shift markets. You essentially have to start over again. 


Instead you want to work out your costs of doing business and your income requirements and base your price off that whilst also looking at the competition and what they charge (if you're charging way over or way under you might be doing something wrong; or targeting a different market). 

One way you can do this is to charge less by having a higher price but doing a special discount. Your advertising is still your higher price, but for earlybirds now they are getting a discount.


This highlights one reason why learning and earning is not a good approach - ideally you want to learn without earning or at least without running it as a business. Then once you've got base skills and got yourself a working method you can charge the decent costs and produce your quality product.


----------



## gsgary (May 17, 2016)

Another thing to think about is horses cost a lot to keep (I know because we have one) most people would rather spend money on their horse's and clothing I used to shoot and print on site I did ok but most looked at the photos loved them but didn't buy

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (May 17, 2016)

glittertherapy said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > glittertherapy said:
> ...


my GF charges any where from $40 per image to as low as $25 (if bought in bulk with all the early bird discounts)
or a day rate of about €900 plus travel plus hotel and food allowance . She specialises more in Dressage rather than Show Jumping or Eventing.
So what I do know comes from her yammering on about work.

To reiterate, forget about the technicals, any half decent photographer can do that. Learn that later. Figure out what makes you unique. What story you want to tell with your images. Understand the light. Know what time you're shooting and where the sun will be. Know the angles to shoot from to get the shot. Understand timing, and the poses. When this hock matches that hock and how to make your subject look good rather than Shrek on a Donkey. blah blah horse this horse that (that's how it sounds like in my ears anyway)

As for gear, it's usually a D810 with a 300mm f/2.8 VRII, second D810 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, D700 with a 24-70mm f/2.8 triggered remotely with pocket wizards.


----------



## StefaninLA (Jun 1, 2016)

I just started to learn what I think you are going for, Is this the look you are going for?


----------



## chuasam (Jun 6, 2016)

StefaninLA said:


> I just started to learn what I think you are going for, Is this the look you are going for?View attachment 122635


I would love to see a horse on a motorbike.


----------



## StefaninLA (Jun 7, 2016)

Hehe You never seen that before?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

No only pony's ride motorbikes...  Horses ride Harley Road Kings!


----------

