Eddie Adams: Pretty Girl Shooter

Most people remember Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer, Eddie Adams, because of the most famous photograph he ever snapped. It depicts South Vietnam's chief of police (at the time) carrying out a summary execution of a Viet Cong prisoner on the streets of Saigon during the Tet Offensive.

The image is so powerful it is credited as being one of two photographs from that war which turned the tide of American opinion, ultimately resulting in the withdrawal of US forces from Viet Nam. The second photo, snapped by another Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer, Nick Ut, shows a naked, terror-stricken girl running, along with some other children, from the fire, smoke, and horror of a napalm bombing.

"Saigon Execution" certainly isn't the only memorable photo Eddie Adams ever snapped during his long and notable career. Adams himself wasn't too impressed with the execution photo nor was he particularly proud of it.

While most people remember Adams mostly as a war photographer and, later, a celebrity photographer, he was also, I'm proud to say, a pretty girl shooter!

Adams was one of the most published photographers of our time. His work was seen on the covers of Life, Time, Vogue, Parade and many more magazines. It was also seen on the cover, and within the inside pages, of Penthouse Magazine. In the documentary film, "An Unlikely Weapon: The Eddie Adams Story," Adams tells how he went from taking pictures for the Associated Press, then for Time magazine, and then to shooting women for Penthouse. "...it was just another challenge, so I did that." Adams nonchalantly explains.

In a clip from the film, one featuring Adams shooting a Penthouse model on a beach, he's asked some questions about his photographer/model interactive techniques. First, he talks about his methods for getting the model to try and "turn me on." But don't think Adams is being a perv or the stereotypical GWC! He's cleverly and artfully applying some basic psychology in order to get the shots he needs. Anyone who thinks shooting pretty girls, or any other portrait subject for that matter, is just about cameras and lights and exposure and that stuff, is mistaken. Psychology, in many ways, is as potent a tool for getting the shots than anything you might know about the technical side of photography. If you've read my e-book, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography," you're likely aware of know how much I believe in the power of other approaches to the work, including psychology and more, rather than relying nearly solely on technology and technical craft for getting the results I'm hoping to capture.

Adams continues by stressing his rule of never touching his models: not her her hand, her shoulder, her hair, or in any way he tells the interviewer. "It will frighten the girl," Adams explains. "It will tighten her up and the pictures just won't be the same."

Hard to argue with a photographer of Adams' caliber. And I couldn't agree with him more. Anything a photographer might do, through words or actions, that may create some level of mistrust or a sense of inhibition in the mind of the model, will likely be counter-productive and will usually be a negative force when it comes to the resulting images.

Rest in Peace, Eddie Adams. The world is a better place because you were once in it.

The pretty girl at the top is another of Aurora. (Also featured in my last update.) This time, it's one I snapped in my friend's studio.

Photographic Numbers

Three of my favorite numbers are 7, 8, 9. Why? Because they're the uniform numbers of my three, all-time, greatest baseball heroes: Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, and Roger Maris, respectively.

Numbers often play notable, sometimes superstitious roles in people's lives and for various reasons-- you know, like "Lucky 7" and "Unlucky 13" or trying to be "#1" and things that "come in 3s."

Numbers are also a big part of our photography pursuits. All kinds of numbers! Some of them we recount to describe a variety of things, some of them we simply like or prefer for personal reasons.

As an example, I like/prefer the number 100. In fact, I place a fair amount of belief in the number 100 because it's my preferred ISO for shooting pretty girls. Sure, other numbers might produce equally good results. (Or results that are nearly indistinguishable from one ISO number to the next... until the number gets a little too high, of course.) Still, I like ISO 100 and I generally stick to it whenever I can. Obviously, I sometimes choose other ISO numbers for various reasons but my preference, the ISO number I like shooting with best, remains 100.

The number 8 is also a much favored number of mine, as in ƒ/8. I'm also fond of the number 125 for shutter speeds, especially when I'm shooting with strobes.

I used to be quite fond of the numbers 24 and 36 because of their associations with the numbers of exposures contained in rolls of film. But, since I don't shoot film these days and haven't for a while, the numbers 24 and 36 have been relegated more to nostalgic and sentimental fondness than anything else.

Two ascending numbers, 85 and 135, are very cool numbers and faves of mine. They happen to be focal lengths I'm somewhat enamored with, especially for shooting models and other portrait subjects. I suppose I should also include the number 50 in that ascension of numbers I just mentioned. There's plenty of times the number 50 can be a reliable work-horse of a focal-length number, for shooting portraiture or lots of other things.

As photographers, we often mention numbers when talking about many aspects of our work, be it ISO, exposure, focal lengths, and more. Often, our talk is of an objective and technical nature. Other times, it's of a decidedly subjective nature. I've already used numbers both ways in this update, objectively and subjectively. Mostly, in fact, at the same time.

Camera model numbers come up in photo discussions often enough. Sometimes within the context of positive words, other times in not so positive ways. I, for instance, shoot with a Canon camera... a Canon 5D. I really like my Canon 5D! So, I suppose I might include the number 5 amongst my favored numbers. Leastwise, till I purchase another camera, one that I end up liking as much or more than my 5D and one which may end up having different nomenclature which doesn't include the number 5. Or, maybe it will?

Course, the best number of all is the number 1, for photography and in many other ways. As a shooter, the number 1 represents that one shot I might snap amongst a much larger number of shots. It's the one shot, make that *the* one shot, the money shot, the one that trumps the rest of them. Like you, I'm always hoping to snap that 1 (one) shot that rules them all. Sometimes, I know when I've snapped it. Other times, it seems elusive or doesn't always scream out at me. During those times, I end up trying this or that, all the while convincing myself that one shot, *the* shot, is only 1 shot away.

The bad girl at the top is Aurora. As far as favorite numbers go -- besides those which would be used to describe her figure, that is -- I snapped it with my camera set to ISO 100. The aperture wasn't a whole number for this one. Instead, it was 5.6. The shutter speed was 125 and the focal length was that old, reliable, 50mm. Instead of the number 5, which describes my Canon camera, this particular photo was snapped with the number 20, i.e., a Canon 20D, which is my backup number, I mean camera.

Rock Star Pretty Girl Shooters

Nick, of Nick Prokopuk Photography, sent me this image of himself wearing his Pretty Girl Shooter t-shirt alongside a very cute model. Thanks Nick! Along with his wife, Krista, Nick is one-half of a dynamic-duo, husband-and-wife photography business specializing in boudoir, glamour, and boudoir maternity photography. Sounds like a great family team!

By the way, for those of you who might be thinking Nick's model appears to be on the overly short side, be advised Nick tops out at six-feet-eight! That makes Nick a giant amongst photographers! If Nick were wearing heels like his model is wearing, he'd be over seven-feet tall! (And look pretty funny in them too.) Hey Nick! Must sometimes be a little tough getting those low angles, huh?

Just the other day, another photographer sent me a message: "Received my t-shirt today. Feel like a rock star in it!" Yeah baby! Pretty girl shooter rock stars!

BTW, PGS tees have gone international: I've already shipped to places like South Africa, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Romania! If you're interested in purchasing one and you live outside the US, shoot me an email to prettygirlshooter@hotmail.com and I'll figure out what the shipping costs will be to your location.

And hey! If anyone else has a photo of themselves wearing their Pretty Girl Shooter t-shirt, especially one with a hot model in the shot, I'd love to see it!

If you live in the US and don't yet have a PGS tee and you're interested in getting your hands on one, click the banner ad in the right-hand column and it will take you to a page where you can order your own, pretty girl shooting, "rock star" t-shirt!

Inside Glamour Photography

A few days ago, a friend pointed me to a fairly new-ish blog called Inside Glamour Photography. I checked it out and liked what I read and saw. It's authored by a dude named Michael Charles. Michael is a former fashion shooter turned glamour pro. He's LA-based and his work has been featured in hundreds of pretty girl magazines world-wide. He's also written an e-book, Skin: The Complete Guide to Glamour and Nude Photography, but more on that in a bit.

After perusing Michael's blog, I wrote to him and offered some criticism, not that he asked for any but, you know, I'm a fairly opinionated guy-- one who, I feel obliged to add, rarely refrains from sharing those opinions. (Which isn't always my most endearing trait.) That aside, I told Michael I truly enjoyed reading his blog with its personalized, easy-reading, writing style. I also mentioned I had a small beef with it and him. (If you could call it a beef.) I wanted to read more! I wanted him to share more and offer up even more of his insights about this thing many of us do, this pretty girl shooting thing.

Michael wrote me back explaining he's fairly new to blogging and has been a bit unsure about how much "personality" to include in his posts. As for sharing my un-asked-for opinion, well, he didn't say, "Hey Jimmy! GFY!" I mostly appreciate it when the recipients of my criticisms don't go off on me with a GFY or other choice and unkindly words. Unless, of course, that's the response I'm hoping for.

Instead, Michael said he appreciated my encouragement about putting as much of himself into the updates as he was putting in terms of the content itself. I was glad to hear that. Personality is a great thing! Especially writing personality. Even more especially if you're a blogger. Unless, I suppose, you're an annoying, obnoxious, or arrogant sort of person and, if that's the case, you're letting the negative aspects of your personality routinely bleed onto your blog. If that's you, I'd suggest simply sticking to the ideas and the info and leaving your personality "issues" out of your blog. Course, if you have an annoying, obnoxious, or arrogant style and it's amusing and entertaining, then I say go for it! (Sheesh! I've wandered off-topic here. Probably another less-than-endearing trait of mine.)

Anyway, one of Michael's posts, one that put a grin on my face with its title, is called, "What Can You Learn From a Naked and Annoyed 19 Year Old?" I knew right away that post was gonna contain some stuff I could identify with. I've shot many, many naked 19-year-olds and, no doubt, annoying a few of them in the process. Perhaps more than a few? Well, with some of them, I'll probably never know, women being women and men being men all.

Michael was also good enough to let me have a look at his e-book, Skin: The Complete Guide to Glamour and Nude Photography. I haven't finished reading it word-for-word yet but I have gone through it from cover-to-cover and, while doing so, I quickly recognized it contains plenty of great, practical, advice, plus more than a little experiential insight helpful to anyone shooting glamour and nude photography. In fact, I noticed there's more than a little in it I kind of wish I also wrote about in my Guerrilla Glamour e-book... not that my Guerrilla Glamour book is overly lacking in content, advice, and insight born of years of experience... and certainly NOT that I'm being defensive or envious or anything. I'm just saying. The truth is, there are so many aspects to shooting women for this genre, stuff that often transcends photography, covering all of it is a near impossibility.

I'll probably do a more revealing review of Michael's "Skin" e-book in the not-too-distant future. The gratuitous eye-candy at the top, BTW, calls herself Riley. Is it just me or does her face seem to have a "Playboy model from the 80s" kind of look to it?

Location Shooting vs. Studio Shooting

Generally, I prefer shooting in a studio. Why? Well, d'uh. Because, from a lighting perspective, I can control almost everything. I'm not sure if that qualifies me as an all-around, Type A Personality, control freak -- I'm not, BTW. Not even close -- but, when it comes to lighting for photography, especially when shooting models, I am something of a control freak bordering on anal retentive.

When shooting on locations, however, especially in daylight or where daylight impacts an interior space, I'm often confronted with lighting situations that are more difficult to control. Obviously, it's that pesky sunlight that keeps screwing with my desires to be an equally anal-retentive lighting control freak when I'm shooting at many locations instead of in a studio.

If you follow photo blogs or participate on forums or commune with other photographers on social media, you might remember how overcoming daylight became all the rage last year or so. Suddenly, many photographers were producing images using strobes in daylight and overcoming the sun from an exposure perspective. Doing this became very popular when Pocket Wizard came out with triggering devices that could exceed a camera's maximum sync speed. Many of the images which resulted were quite dramatic looking.

While I've shot an image or two where I've trumped daylight with my strobes, I prefer to work with daylight, rather than fight against it or engage in techniques designed to beat it at its own game.

Since most of my work involves shooting glamour models, I'm almost always striving to make my models pop from the backgrounds or out of the environments I'm shooting them in. There are a variety ways to accomplish this: lighting, exposure, lens selection (i.e., focal distance), choice of background or environment, and more. Course, when the model is beautiful, sexy, and not wearing much, she's also contributing much in terms of popping herself from the background. I mean, nearly regardless of the lighting, exposure, etc., a gorgeous, mostly unclad model is going to self-pop to a fair degree. Especially when the images' viewers are heterosexual males.

There are many ways to work with available sunlight rather than feeling like it's working against you. And you can do so regardless of whether the sunlight is direct, indirect, or merely providing ambient light. You can work with it either by using artificial light, the sunlight itself via reflectors, scrims, flags, or a combination of both. Sometimes, the choice of how to proceed seems obvious and things like efficiency kicks in to help you realize that obvious choice. Other times, it truly is a matter of choice. That is, you can choose from a variety of ways to work with the light by adding to what's available or subtracting from it. For those instances, your creative vision, coupled with things like time and efficiency and available gear generally become the decision-makers.

In the image of Faye at the top, we were shooting in a second-story warehouse-like studio. There was a big bank of windows on one side and, given the time of day and the weather conditions, the sunlight was pouring through it. Certainly, I could have shot away from it. But I was drawn to the shadows created by the windows. I thought they looked cool, especially the way they were being thrown onto the nearly white carpeting. So, I decided to shoot in that spot.

I was working as part of the crew for a video production so, besides myself and my lighting gear, there was a gaffer and his lighting guys present. They, of course, also had their lighting gear, including some HMIs. (Hydrargyrum Medium-arc Iodide lamps.) I asked the gaffer if I could use one of his HMIs for two reasons: 1) They throw a lot of light and could easily go nose-to-nose with the daylight coming through the windows and 2) The light they produce is daylight color temperature. BTW, HMIs are very expensive. I don't own any. But when I have opportunities to throw one or two into my lighting mix, and it makes sense to do so, I'll ask whoever is in charge of them if I can use them.

Here's a behind-the-scenes shot below. I noticed the gaffer was chatting with the model while I was doing whatever I was doing so I snapped a quick one. You can see the HMI in the upper right, the windows to the left, and a couple of reflectors, one of them called a "shiny board" and sitting on the set behind the gaffer. Throughout the set with Faye, and besides employing the HMI, I was using one or both of the reflectors for fill. The HMI was equipped with a Fresnel lens which gave the images a decidedly film noir-ish feel.

Expelled from Facebook

A couple of weeks ago, I awoke and, as usual, soon found myself sitting in front of my computer, sipping coffee, checking my email, perusing the news, scanning my Twitter feed, and logging onto Facebook. Well, what I should say is attempting to log onto Facebook.

What I soon discovered was that Facebook had, without warning, disabled my account sometime during the night. "WTF???" I thought... and not by way of an acronym.

Yes. The powerful Facebook gods had disabled my account!

Much the way other gods generally operate, the Facebook gods do not feel obliged to reveal their divine reasons for doing things like kicking my account to the curb. All they felt inclined to reveal was that my account was disabled due to a "serious violation" of Facebook's TOS (Terms of Service) which, being the mortal sort of FB user I am, I apparently had committed, intentionally or unintentionally.

It seems there are TOS violations which are less serious and those which are seriously serious. What constitutes one or the other I have no clue. Nor, it seems, do the FB gods believe they have an obligation to reveal. I suppose that's because they're the Facebook gods and the rest of us are merely the product they're selling to their financial supporters. Sheepherders don't tell their sheep when they'll be sheared or whether they'll be offered up as lamb chops or culled from the flock for one reason or another. They just do those things, without warning or explanation. I suppose Facebook has a similar point-of-view.

It wasn't the first time I had experienced the wrath of the Facebook gods. But when they previously hurled lightning bolts at me, it was in the form of, as an example, not allowing me to upload photos for a few days. This time it was different. This time it was serious. This time they had 86'd my account altogether and cast me into some sort of Facebook purgatory to atone for sins I'm unaware I committed because I'm unaware of what they might be. BTW, yes, I have read Facebook's TOS and no, I don't believe I have publicly violated them.

Beyond being cast out of Facebook for some mysterious mortal sins which elude my ability to understand and which the FB gods do not deign to reveal, they also will not affirm whether my expulsion from Facebook paradise is permanent or temporary. It's been a few weeks now. I'm leaning towards permanent.

Assuming I did violate FB's TOS -- which I neither believe I have nor understand how I have -- and further assuming my violation was a serious capital offense rather than a cyber misdemeanor, it seems to me that, as a minimum, Facebook could (make that should) let me know whether my banishment is temporary or permanent. But, like other gods, the FB gods do whatever the fuck they want and feel no heavenly compulsion to explain their reasons for doing anything. You see, like most gods, the Facebook gods are sociopaths: They do what pleases them and have no conscience regarding what they decide to do.

If you were one of my 500 or so Facebook friends, or one of the over 2300 people who had clicked "Like" on my FB Pretty Girl Shooter photography page, and you were wondering where I had disappeared to, Facebook wise, well now you know. I'm sitting here atoning for my Facebook sins, whatever they might be and for however long that might be... perhaps forever.

The gratuitious eye candy at the top is adult industry performer, Sunny Lane.