Saturday, April 19, 2014

Jonesing for Pretty Girls (A Follow-Up)

Click to Enlarge
Okay. So I went on Model Mayhem to look for a willing victim subject. I spotted a mature-ish woman, very pretty, who also happens to live in the same city I live in... not that it's a city, per se. It's the burbs. But they call it a city as in, "The City of..."

My intended subject, in her MM profile, says she's a published author, works in the motion picture industry, has very little modeling experience but quite a bit of interest in it. Modeling, that is. She sounds like a fairly interesting person. Also in her profile, she says she'd be interested in modeling for some "edgy" work. I get the feeling she's the artsy type which could make for some pretty decent photos if she allows her artsyness to translate into posing and emotional projection and all that good stuff.

I've never been too clear on what "edgy" means. I've had a number of clients who have asked me to shoot some edgy stuff for them but mostly I still shot what I usually shoot and they were quite pleased with the work. To me, "edgy" simply means a bit different or less-seen. You know, photos with a less-seen "edge" to them. But less-seen by who? The client? Me? I've pretty much seen it all, at least I think I have. Other than being a bit different or less-seen, "edgy" doesn't have any specific meaning to me.  It's a lot like that overused term, "outside the box."  There are boxes and there are BOXES. For the most part, in my opinion, a lot of photographers perceive "the box" as being smaller than it actually is.

Back to my potential model...

I sent her a short message asking if she'd be interested in shooting with me.  She messaged back (within a day) and said she would, but probably couldn't find the time till May. No problem. May is right around the corner. She also asked if we might meet for coffee or a beer or something to discuss what we might shoot. Sounds good to me. I've got more time on my hands these days than I know what to do with. And I'm always up for coffee. (Not so much beer.) I shot another brief message to her saying I'd be back in touch in a few weeks and we could figure out how to proceed.

It all sounds promising but then I've heard promising before. We'll see what happens come the first of May when I shoot her another message, this time with my phone number and asking for hers. Since she's older, who know? She might have the maturity (and courtesy) to actually follow-up on her original words. That would be nice. That would be different. In fact, that would be kind of "edgy" of her.

The pretty girl at the top is Jenna. It was one of those shoots where I was asked to photograph some "edgy" stuff. Personally, I don't think there's anything "edgy" about the image or any other image from the set I shot with Jenna but my client did not agree. My client thought it was just "edgy" enough for their needs... plus the check cleared so all was good.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Jonesing for Pretty Girls

Click to Enlarge
Jonesing: To have a strong need, desire, or craving for something.

That's what I've been doing lately: Jonesing for some pretty girl shooting. I haven't shot anything in a while and it's starting to get to me. Don't get me wrong, I've got many, many photo sets in my stored archives to mine for this blog and for other uses. But still, I jones.

I suppose I could log onto Model Mayhem or One Model Place and search out some models who might want to collaborate for some shoots but, like many other photographers, I've been flaked-on, pissed-off, or my inquiries ignored by too many "models" who claim they're interested in shooting but really aren't. Apparently, many of them are in love with the idea of calling themselves "models" but not so much with actually doing it, modeling that is.

I need a muse. Some model who truly loves getting in front of a camera with a skilled photographer at the controls to make some pictures. I've got tons of ideas for creative shoots. Many of them ideas that my clients never had me shooting because, well, because that's not what they needed for their pretty girl photos uses. I don't blame them. It's not their roles to be my art patrons, paying me to shoot whatever I want to shoot and how I want to it.  It's not personal. It's just business.

I'll probably still check out MM and OMP and have a look but, as pessimistic as it sounds, I'm confident I'll be disappointed. 

I forget the name of the pretty girl at the top and I'm too lazy to spend time looking for it. The gratuitous pretty girl pic is about 95% or more SOOC.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014


Click to Enlarge
You all know what the acronym SOOC represents, don't you? For those who might not be aware or are unsure, it stands for "Straight Out of the Camera."

If you've been reading this blog for while now or you're a reader of my eBooks, you have probably realized I don't do much post-processing on my photos. Often enough, except for removing a few blemishes or stray hairs, very slight luminosity or color adjustments, and resizing for the web, many of the photos I post here, or those I've utilized in my ebooks, or still others I've posted on photo forums are, for all intents and purposes, SOOC.

There are a few reasons for my SOOC or near-SOOC posting habits and none of them have to do with ego, bragging rights, or being some sort of photo elitist or an overly Old School photographer.  Here's some of those reasons:

1) I'm a big proponent of getting things right in the camera. When I say "things," I mean nearly everything, especially exposure, color balance, even framing and composition. As a result of many of my clients' preferences, I mostly shoot large fine JPGs. Doing so makes getting it right in the camera even more important. In fact, it makes it paramount.

2) I'm not a very good Photoshop guy. Not really. Yeah, I can perform all the basics and perform them quite well but, when it comes to more advanced techniques, I'm not "The Guy."  One reason for that is my clients all have art departments, re-touchers, or graphic artists who work them so, doing the post-work on my photos isn't part of my job. Instead, those are the people who process my photos, i.e., the photos they (my clients) select for use for various applications. (e.g., packaging art work, "slicks" and posters, advertising, magazine use, other print or web applications.) Since those people, the post-production people, have my clients' ears long after I've snapped the photos, it's most definitely in my best interests, continuing employment wise,  to get things right in the camera.

3) While I admire a fair amount of digitally enhanced or modified images, especially some of the composite work I see, over-processing photos, make that over-processing the people in those photos, often makes me cringe as a photographer.

I highly recommend all photographers strive for SOOC worthy photos. That doesn't mean I'm recommending against post-processing, I'm not. But much of what you do when post-processing your pics should be about making already good photos even better, and not about "saving" photos that don't qualify or pass muster for SOOC viewing. When you get it right in the camera, everything you might do in post becomes simpler and easier to accomplish.

The image at the top is, I think, a pretty good example of getting things right in the camera. It's SOOC except for a 50% resize applied to it. That's it. Nothing else. All I did was simply made it half as large as  it was coming out of my camera. If you want a better look, click it to enlarge it.

Saturday, April 05, 2014

One Light, Two Lights, Three Lights, Four

Click to Enlarge
How many lights are best for glamour photography? One light, two lights, three lights, four? There's no answer to that because all those numbers of lights can be equally effective depending on how they're used and, more importantly, how their uses help convey the story or emotional content of a given image.

Yes, glamour pics have emotional content. It might not always be as obvious as it is in other types of portrait work, or it might seem mostly the same throughout many of the images, but it's there, just the same, whether it's obvious or subtle.

Let's say I'm shooting with my typical, go-to, three-point lighting setup with my model in front of a white or very light-colored seamless background.  Sure, I'll have the model go through a range of emotions: upbeat emotions, downbeat emotions, and plenty in between. But later, when I'm looking through the images, I can't help but notice that my lighting, coupled with the background, generally lends itself better to the upbeat emotional content. That's because high-key images tend to work best with high-key, upbeat, emotional content while low-key images tend to work best with low-key, down-beat, emotions.

Those aren't ideas set in stone, of course.  But as a rule, leastwise as rules go, it's often the case.  Interestingly, the number of lights used in either scenario tends to have less impact underscoring the emotional content of the images than does the color or tone of the background. I can convey upbeat emotions in front of a white seamless as well with one light or four. Conversely, I can convey downbeat emotions as well with a single light as I can with a multiple-light setup with a black or dark colored seamless employed. We all can.

What's really going with that has everything to do with human perceptions and not so much the approach to the photography via lighting setups. That's not to say lighting doesn't still impact emotional perceptions of viewers, it does. But it might be secondary, probably is, to other elements of the image. Anyway, just another day of thinking out loud on my blog and recording and publishing it.

The emotionally up-beat image of the pretty young thing at the top was snapped with my go-to, three-point, lighting setup in front of a white seamless. I didn't light the seamless which is why it isn't white, at least start white. Personally, I think the white seamless contributes more to her emotional projection than does the lighting.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Are You Prouder of Your Gear Than Your Photos?

Click to Enlarge
I spent some quality(?) time on a few different photography pages on Facebook this morning. I won't mention which pages cuz I don't generally kiss and tell. Never have.

The more time I spend on some photography forum-style pages, the more it seems like, in spite of the obvious and an incredible amount of information to the contrary, many photographers still believe, to various extents, that great photography is a product of gear, more specifically, camera body and lens gear.

I won't argue there are times when better gear produces better images depending on the intent of the images you're shooting or who you're shooting them for-- it does, well, make that it can. Course, it also depends on one's definition of "better." For me, "better" means whatever gear produces images that meet my clients' expectations, my expectations, and that which makes my production work-flows simpler and more efficient.

I used to play golf. Golf is another endeavor where many of its practitioners, like many photographers, place an awful lot of faith, value, trust, and expectations in the gear they're using. Will an accomplished golfer still make his putts with just about any putter rather than an expensive Ping putter or another of that caliber? Do I really have to answer that? How about the brands of drivers or irons they're using? Again, you know the answer to that. Leastwise, my answer.

Great golfers play the game in enviable ways because they're great golfers, not because of the clubs in their bags or the brand of balls they're smacking around the course. And they became great golfers via learning, practice, and repetition. Not simply by upgrading their equipment or buying into the marketing bullshit of those who make and sell golf gear.  I learned as much or more about how to become a better photographer from playing golf -- which I continued to suck at doing -- than with my camera gear cuz I know how to extrapolate the obvious from one endeavor and apply it to another, even if that other is an almost completely unrelated activity. I'll bet most of you know how to do that too. At least I hope you can.The trick, of course, is to actually use that skill, that extrapolating skill, and learn from it.

Learning, practice, and repetition will do more for your photography than any camera, lens, light, modifier, or accessory will. Period. End of story. You can take that to the bank.

The pretty girl at the top is Kayla. I snapped it in a studio about 7 years ago. It's straight out of the camera except for resizing for the web and a few blemishes removed. I only removed the blemishes because, if Kayla were to see it without them removed -- not that they were that big a deal but, you know, Kayla being female and a model and all -- and I happened to run into her she'd probably be pissed and she'd let me know she was pissed in short order. BTW, for my British readers, the word "pissed," in this context, doesn't mean drunk. It means angry. I'm merely qualifying that in case you don't savvy American. I, by the way, do savvy English English having spent three years living on your lovely island in my youth. By "youth" I mean from 20 to 23 years of age.

Kayla's picture was snapped with my Canon 5D classic with a Canon 28-135 IS USM f/3.5-f/5.6 (Depending on the zoom amount.)  Not the most awesome lens in Canon's  consumer offerings but far from the worst.  It was lit with three sources: A 5' Photoflex Octo for my main set slightly camera right, a Chimera medium soft box on the left from a bit behind her, and a shoot-through umbrella, probably a 3-footer, boomed overhead-ish, camera-right and from behind. ISO 100, f/5.6, 125th, with the lens zoomed into 100mm for its focal distance.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Three Point Lighting

Click to Enlarge
 I wrote a guest blog for Dan Hostettler's Studio Prague Blog+ about Three Point Lighting. Heck. I even put together some lighting diagrams for it and that's something I almost never do for my own blog! It's my small way of maintaining and improving good foreign relations.

I touched on 3-Point or Triangular lighting in a recent blog update about my "go-to" glamour lighting setup here, on the Pretty Girl Shooter blog. For my friend Dan, I went into it in more depth. Again, foreign relations and that stuff.

If you have a few moments and would like to learn more about 3-Point lighting,  >CLICK HERE<  and, through the magic of the internet, you'll be instantly transported to the Czech Republic where you can read the blog post. I wrote it in English because I definitely don't speak or write Czech or whatever language they communicate with in that far off place.  Leastwise, it's far off from where I'm at in Southern California. So, enjoy the diagrams and more. You can also browse around Dan's web site after checking out the article I wrote. He's a terrific photographer specializing in shooting beautiful women wearing little to nothing.

By the way, Dan is a Swiss guy living in Prague so I don't know what all he speaks, although I do know he speaks most excellent English and I assume he's pretty good at speaking Swiss. Wait. Do Swiss people speak Swiss or do they speak German? Now I'm confused. (Like that's something new.)


Besides the diagrams, for your added enjoyment and educational development there's even a behind-the-scenes photo of a very pretty model surrounded by lights to underscore the text. Plus, there's another shot of an equally pretty model in all her naked beauty snapped with 3-Point lighting because I'm a sharing, caring, 3-Point lighting, kind of guy that way.

The photo at the top -- one that features 15 pretty young women who would soon all be naked, as well as two dwarves little people -- has nothing to do with 3-Point lighting. Don't ask why there are pool-side little people in the photo. I was sworn to secrecy. I'll only say it turned into a pretty wild pool party and those two little guys were exceptionally cool guys, both of them professional actors. It's a good example of one of those days when I really and truly love my job as a pretty girl shooter.