Should I photograph my models outside or inside?

Hey everyone, I’m new to photo showing and was wondering if judges like outdoor photos better then indoor photos?

Hi,

My personal preference is toward natural looking backgrounds as it feels more realistic, and that is what this hobby strives for. It takes a little more effort and thought to prepare these kinds of photos as opposed to studio setups and light boxes. If I were judging today, I would give preference toward the realistic backdrop if I was trying, to say, break a tie.

The challenge is choosing a backdrop that is neutral, or complementary to the model. Keep it simple so the model stands out. I have taken my models camping and I have taken them to local parks. I try keeping buildings or objects like trees, far into background or using them like frames. Sometimes, these things can't be avoided when working with the sun or the particular environment, but I minimize as much as possible. Be aware of the scale, so your horse doesn't look "too small" in the scene. Focus on the model and allow the background to blur in your outdoor photos. Overcast days are the ideal. On sunny days, keep the sun at your back and not behind the model and avoid harsh shadows. I do not use the flash setting on my camera for this reason. If I need to lighten the scene or even out the shadows, I will add other light sources or use reflectors. Simple reflectors include white and grey cardstock and aluminum foil glued to cardboard. Experiment with these as each offers a different effect.

calendar background

taken on a cloudy day

taken with full sun

Continued...

I use the same the principle for photo backdrops and indoor photography. Indoor photography is great during inclement weather. The important thing is to keep the model well-lit so all its details can be seen. Props that are to scale can add interest as long as the seen does not look "busy". The model should always be the focus. On the matter of footing, I have used dirt, sand, coffee grounds and tea leaves or a mixture of these. For smaller models I have use ground colored cardstock or moldable sand. Moldable stand works well for all scales and is helpful for models that don't stand well. It has been a long time since I last judged a show, but my first cull included models that were ill lit, had heavy shadows or were blurry.

Hope this helps.

Thanks so much for the tips

The preference is strictly up to the judge, there's no preference set in stone for all showing - so all depends who you show under. Some will have bias towards natural backgrounds, some - including me - will much prefer studio set-ups. Unless you do both and always research which certain judge prefers, it's better to just stick to what *you* prefer/is easier for you.

I have always been "team studio" if it comes to Halter/Workmanship showing - minimalistic, "controlled" background and good lighting allows all focus to go to the horse, nothing gets to hide, our eyes play less tricks on us. That's one of the things why I'm not going for natural backgrounds myself - lots of people forget that even if we don't want to judge the background, our eyes see the picture as a whole, we physically cannot separate one from the other.
It can be both advantage and disadvantage for the enterant, tho - for example, advantage would be choosing specific colors for background to make your horse appear more red or yellow, more saturated or more grey, without any editing. Disadvantage could be any pattern in the background, including trees, buildings etc - if it blends with the horse, you could be noted down a bit as it can distort the horse a bit (or a lot!)

But there are much more important things coming before the background itself, or even photo quality (which I don't understand this one, quite frankly) - I've seen many horses with blurry, grainy, overexposed pictures place high and win big. The main keys are model itself and good breed assignment. If you nail this down, then you can move on to adjusting the pictures - with most priority going to learning how to light them well, how to position and frame the photo, how to keep everything in good focus. When you get good with that, it will be also easier to decide which background you prefer to go with, what you're doing best and what you're struggling with, etc.

If you'd like help with the basics of lighting, framing etc, let me know and I'll be happy to break it down in more detali, as it's already getting long :)

Thanks for the tips

Just cruising through the forums, and I can't help but add on to this observation, however late:

"or even photo quality (which I don't understand this one, quite frankly) - I've seen many horses with blurry, grainy, overexposed pictures place high and win big"

I don't understand how photo quality can NOT matter, quite frankly. It doesn't matter how spot on a breed assignment might be, or how rare/flawless the model is, if the photo is blurry, grainy, over/under exposed, if I can't see it clearly, I will not place the entry, period. How can I tell if the model is a good representation of its breed, or gender, or color, or make, or workmanship, if I can barely even make it out?? I say this as both a photo shower and a photo show judge for 40+ years.

And equally frankly, if I see a judge repeatedly pinning very poor quality photos, I will make a note of it and not show under that judge again. I put forth my best effort with my show photos, and I'd rather enter shows where that effort is acknowledged - for every entrant.

Just my two bytes.

That's exactly what I meant by those words, maybe I didn't word that properly (english is not my native language).

I don't understand how low quality photos can place high either, when there are just as good breed entries with much better photos; and since last few bigger shows/series recently, I also started my own list of "judges I won't show under". Which I hoped would not have to happen, but here we are.

But it's also true that breed choice should be as important or even more important INITIALLY than the quality photo itself. You could have absolutely phenomenal photo, but totally miss with a breed choice, and thus not place. It's when the breed choice is believable and correct, then photo quality should be one of the most important things.

I have to admit, sometimes it is discouraging a lot. I spend 10+ hours each time on taking photos of my herd, just as much as I do on researching breeds and references. I make sure they are lit correctly, cropped and even, as true to life as possible. I put in all that effort. Not only time and skill, but also money. Only for some judges to ignore that work completely... without any reason really, which makes it even less understandable.

So far I've only heard about the money "fairness" issue (idk how to name it better). But taking good photos =/= having loads of money to spend. I've been updating my set-up for 5 years, each year getting some tiny new upgrade. This year when I take new photos in summer I will upgrade with third light source, so it lights the toplines well (finally!).

None of them, except a camera (which was also bought secondhand and at lowest range budget), cost me more than a Trad size NIB Breyer. Before that, I've used what I had at home - I used window roller shade as background for 3 years, I softened my lights with tissues, I propped my models higher for the camera with books while I sat on the floor. I spent my free time on learning new techniques and trying them out. Been there, done that. It's possible, even without the money.

So I don't get why sometimes it's obviously totally ignored. It's called a Photo Show for a reason, and this way basically sometimes people who put in additional effort, time and knowledge are being penalized rather than rewarded.

Same way I don't understand the overwhelming "don't go to Live Shows to place, go for friends!" narrative on FB groups. But that's a totally different topic...

To me, I'm fine with either a "natural" backdrop, whether on a setup or literally outside, or a blank/simple backdrop.

I don't want the photo to have errors. I will mark a photo down for:

*the horse is hard to see because he blends with the background

*the photo is blurry/dark/grainy -- makes it hard to see the horse

*the horse is not being photographed straight across -- usually this is that the camera is looking down on the horse too much -- or the horse is at more than a very slight 3/4ths angle

*the light makes the horse look yellowed (How do I know he's not really yellowed?)

*items in a natural photo are unnaturally large (giant blades of grass) or at an incorrect angle (horse is on footing but then the photo in the background is at a weird angle)

*very strong shadows that distort the horse's outline

*obvious dust or cat hair, etc.

I will not mark a photo down for my not loving the color or pattern of your backdrop as long as I can see the horse. It is model judging, not backdrop judging.

To me, I liken a really bad photo to walking your real horse into a halter ring ungroomed, having just rolled in the mud, with a halter that was hanging on the paddock gate. You better have the absolute best horse if you want to win with one like that.

For me, the ranking tends to look like this:

1. Good photo/good horse
2. Meh photo/good horse
3. Bad photo/good horse
4. Any photo/bad horse
5. Photo is so bad I can't judge the horse

But again, for me it's not about the type of photo or the color or type of backdrop, it's about whether there are errors in the photo presentation that take away from the horse.

It doesn't have to be expensive -- I use my phone camera and any neutral background can work.

Hi Endless, I figured you and I are equally puzzled by very poor quality photos that get repeatedly high placings. ;-) I agree as well that an excellently done photo can (and should) still fall flat if a breed assignment is way off target. And you're absolutely right: you do NOT need to spend a lot of money to take good photos.

Trapper John

I took this photo outdoors, on a recent family trip to Yosemite Valley. The "ground" is a square of felt, the scenery doo-dads are bits of local wood and moss, and the background is - well, Yosemite, LOL. The camera is my trusty traveler, an older model Canon Powershot, a basic pocket-size point-and-shoot. This little Scheich model recently won his first championship in a very competitive online photo show club. So no, you don't need expensive equipment, setups, OR models to put together a good model photo. Just some creativity, patience, and practice. Oh, and as Endless well explains, more practice. ;-)

Freemanstables, I enjoyed all your points - and number 5 in your ranking list made me laugh out loud!

p.s. Endless, if I was as proficient in a second language - ANY language - as you, I'd be absolutely thrilled! :-)