A few Cutting shots

Trying to achieve that *Dale Miller* standard of excellence..

I'm still thinking that maybe I ought to be shooting for a deeper dof to get both the horse's head and the rider sharp. I'll try that at the next cutting... except that if I bump up the iso, won't I be getting too much noise in the shadows?? (about half of the day was high contrast... the other half was shooting into the sun)

early morning:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

here are some late day - shooting into the sun shots:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Nice shots. Most of the cutting shots I see from around here involve dark arenas. Great to see some with some light.

I love that there are so many people on this board taking pictures of horse sports!

Thanks. As another 'horse person', I always enjoy everyone's horse shots .. and the rodeo shots as well. .. but at the same time, I realized a long time ago that it's not everyone's cup of tea. (I think 'all things horse' is part of our genetic makeup.. LOL)

The 'downside' of the outside events is the inconsistancy of the light.. but I'm sort of learning to deal with that. With the green backwall at this events center (http://www.murietaequi​necomplex.com/) it seems to make the warm early morning light look even more yellow and over exposed... even though I've got my WB set to daylight.. and the horses & rider faces are correctly exposed, overall, the early shots seem too light. (to me anyway).

I dread the day that I'd have to shoot indoors with a flash. .. I know I could pull it off, but I don't want to have to do it. (maybe I have some sort of anti-flash fetish, I dunno)

I still need to tweek my technique some. It annoys me that sometimes the rider is sharp but the horse's faces are not. .. but I'm sort of hesitant to bump up the iso any more than I have to for fear of even more noise than I'm getting now. It seems like I get a lot of noise in the shadow areas when I add 'fill light' in Lightroom.

First of all, you give me way too much credit. I'm just a guy who is blessed to get to shoot a way of life I truley love. I like your shots,I wish I knew more about cutting because a good photograph does not allways mean a good shot. In the equine industry as in I assume other sports there are preferred shots, in cutting I do not know what they are. I like what I see, but a cutter may or may not. What settings did you shoot these at?

I hope it helps my shots that I use to show cutting horses. .. so.. from my perspective, the objective is to show the judge (and illustrate in photos) how well your horse works to hold the cow away from the herd. ... the stop/the turn/how he's watching the cow... all of these things are what you're looking for. ... of course, any of those dynamic contortions they go through are visually exciting. (oh gads.. I start getting a rush just thinking about it.. LMBO.. it IS addicting!) Everyone has their personal favorite movements to see .. (my personal favorite is the horse's weight over his hocks with his toes dancing while he's nose to nose with the cow) ... but as far as shooting goes, a tough cow and a sharp working horse offer more visual excitement.. as long as those actions are not a penalty. ... ideally, working in the center of the arena are the shots you want. (but not always possible)

.. anyway... if you ever need to shoot a cutting, read the NCHA rules... or email me and I'll help you out as much as I can. .. The rider's rein hand should be down.. and their eyes on the cow. They're pushing against the horn to keep their weight/pivot point in their pelvis. It's preferred that the horse stops on his rear instead of his front (he can't roll back when he stops on his front legs.. so that slows him down/puts him behind the cow .. and you don't want to be chasing the cow.. you want them pretty much shoulder to shoulder.. or your horse's head at the cow's neck) (there I go again.. talking like I'm back in the saddle!!)

Anyway, I'm using spot focus, lens wide open (55 - 200mm 5.4) iso 250 - 400 & shutter @ 1/1200 - 1/1600.

I'll be downloading saturday's shots tomorrow .. they'll be in the NCCHA folder by noon (I hope). My new site is www.ShootMyPix.com .. but I'm just getting it started.

You're very humble for the caliber of work you produce. .. I just thank you for showing the rest of us what consistantly good images look like!

By wide open I assume you are talking f2.8. I find if I'm shooting my 100-400 or my 70-200, if I can stay at a 5.6 I have less focus issues. When you concider how much depth we need to keep our entire subject in focus 5.6 will not allways cover it. I know this goes aginst most sports shooters but in the tie down roping alone your shooting a subject tha coming at you is over 30ft deep. As far as the high ISOs I shoot most of my stuff at 800 or higher.

That makes more sense. I'll try it at the next event. .. my debth of field requirements aren't as great as a calf roper.. but shoot, 10' would be better than what I've been doing now. I just get goosie about the noise associated with the higher ISOs. ..but I guess noise is more managable than a subject that's out of focus, huh.

Playm wrote in post #5519966
That makes more sense. I'll try it at the next event. .. my debth of field requirements aren't as great as a calf roper.. but shoot, 10' would be better than what I've been doing now. I just get goosie about the noise associated with the higher ISOs. ..but I guess noise is more managable than a subject that's out of focus, huh.

If you don't already know about it, you might do a search for "exposing to the right". It's a way of getting the best out of your camera when it comes to noise. If you were to try a search here on POTN you'd probably get some hits. I've been working with it quite a bit in the last 6 months and my shots (noise handling) have been improving. ISO 800 on my 20D is perfectly fine and I've eeeked out a little better performance even at ISO 1600 than I would have put much stock in before. I think the essence of the argument is something like there is 2x as much detail in the lit areas than the dark areas so expose to the right (shoot in RAW for this!) and then bump the exposure back down and you will have detail and less noise. I typically just back off of overexposing the subject. If some small white areas blow out on the histogram I let them as I have a sense of what I can recover later. To lose detail in the white area is easier to live with than losing it in the black area IMO.

Dale... I was wondering how that 100-400 L is working out for you. I see you're using it still, so it must be doing alright. I'm going to have one of them as a rental in my hands next week and if I like it well enough I'll buy one the week after. I've been researching that focal length and renting everything that interested me since last summer (for 1 to 5 weeks each when there was something to shoot) and I'm near the point of making a decision. I'm thinking the 100-400 may be the one if the IQ is workable at 400mm and the IS is worth having. I want to get the 300mm 2.8L IS later on next year, so the L zoom now would complement that one later I'm thinking. I plan to shoot a rodeo with the 100-400 next weekend and maybe a car race too that runs into some night panning shots. It should be a good test of the lens.

tkoutdoor;
Yes I'm still useing my 100-400 as my main lens, but its mainly a reach thing. The 100-400 gives me the range I need in most rodeo arenas, I just wish it was a twist lens. I did pull out an old favorite the other day, my 20-200 f4 . What a nice lite lens. Made my days work a snap. You know I just have not found an L lens I dont like, but I guess that could be normal for most who are in this forum.

You might want to look at the Sigma 100-300 f/4. I found I like it better than the Canon 100-400 for Rodeo if 300mm is long enough for you. The Sigma zoom is not push-pull and the IQ of the Sigma is as good as my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Remember, at the higher shutter speeds, the IS has little impact.

I dont know about that exact lens but other sigma Lenses I've had dont last. Everyone lasts just over a year. The dust and sand just eat them.

I do not think you could find a much more dusty area than a rodeo arena. I used my Sigma 100-300 f/4 all season and do not see any dust in the lens. By the end of the day, my camera and I are covered in dust. This is not a push-pull lens, so that may be the reason for no dust. The lens is not weather sealed like some of the Canon lenses but I have not experienced the issue with the Sigma and dust.

Yes thats all I shoot is rodeos. I didn't have a problem seeing dust. It just ate the gears out of the AF. Then I would take it in to be fixed an they would tell me buy another one its cheaper.

Well, it has lasted a season so I guess time will tell. I appreciate the response as it is something I did no even think about. I wish Canon would make a f/4 lens in the 100-300 range that is sealed. I tried the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with the 1.4X extender but was not happy with the IQ and I do not know if the 100-400 IS is sealed.