PRETTY GIRL SHOOTER

Choose the Right Camera... Or Not.

2012-02-09T13:42:00.000-08:00

A few nights ago, I watched a documentary film called, Visual Acoustics. The film chronicles a remarkable and gifted man: Julius Shulman.

Shulman was an architectural photographer. Arguably, he was the most notable architectural photographer ever. Certainly, he was the most influential. One of his photos, Case Study House #22, is an incredible example of mid-twentieth-century modernism in architecture. The image, even without the architecture tag, is iconic in the history of photography. I highly recommend watching this terrific documentary.

In the film, while speaking with a group of high school students interested in photography, Shulman tells them the camera is the least important part of photography. What he meant, of course, was not so much directed at cameras in general -- cameras certainly are important if you want to make photographs -- rather, his words are in the context of what kind or type of camera a photographer might use.

Obviously, different types of cameras are better suited for different genres of photography. In architectural photography, for instance, many shooters use large format view cameras. On glamour sets, you're most likely going to see a 35mm SLR employed or, occasionally, a medium format camera being used. I've yet to witness anyone shooting glamour with a view camera although there's probably more than a few people shooting buildings and other architectural stuff with a 35mm SLR.

I'm often amused at how much attention gets paid to the types and brands of cameras photographers use. For some reason, the impact many photographs may exude often seems to be secondary in terms of many photographers' interests or comments regarding the images. Instead, a whole lot of photographers seem more interested in the equipment used rather than the creativity applied or the aesthetic value of the photos. I don't get that. A photo is good, not good, or something in between regardless of what camera was used to capture it. Same goes for lenses, other gear, or the post-processing applied.

If you're trying to up your game as a photographer, I suggest you pay more attention to things beyond gear and equipment. The right gear will certainly help you realize your visions. Gear is also fun to talk about. But your gear simply represents tools. And while tools are important, with the old saying about using the right tool for the job being an axiom for good reasons, tools alone aren't going to guarantee your visions are captured to any great effect. In fact, relying on tools alone will nearly guarantee your visions aren't effectively captured... unless you get lucky and it just happens by some fortunate set of circumstances. Personally, I'd rather not count on luck to capture a decent photo.

The pretty girl at the top caught in a reflective pose is Devin. I snapped it with my Canon 5D for those who are mostly interested in that stuff.

Static and Dynamic Styles

2012-02-07T12:30:00.000-08:00

A photographer's personal style may become noticeable rather quickly or take quite a while to become evident. An identifiable personal style doesn't often begin showing up in a photographer's work until that photographer starts pursuing photography with some seriousness.

For some, their style is purposely and creatively conceived. I suppose you could call those shooters photographers with a "premeditated style." For others, possibly the majority of shooters, style evolves on its own, often influenced by the work of other photographers. It's not, of course, simply one or the other. Whether a photographer's style is by design or purely evolutionary are matters of degree.

For the most part, leastwise in terms of my glamour photography, I'd say I fall into the first category: I believe I have a personal style that is mostly by design and, to a lesser degree, evolutionary. I should mention that the by design part of the development of my personal style wasn't something I came up with purely on my own. As I got more and more into shooting glamour, I designed my style around elements that potential clients were looking for, style-wise.

There are many elements which contribute to a photographer's personal style: Things like lighting, composition, environment, attitudes and emotions (coming from the subjects) and more. These are all identifiable elements of what might be considered a photographer's personal style.

Often, there are 3rd party elements or outside contributors or factors influencing a shooter's style. Take me, for instance. The development of my glamour photography style was certainly influenced, to a large degree, by my clients. My clients' expectations, style-wise, contributed in big ways to the development of my glam-shooting style. After all, they're the people who pay me to shoot and they have expectations, style-wise, for the pictures they hire me to shoot. I don't experiment with new styles, not in major ways, when I'm shooting on their dimes. Doing so is reserved for my personal work, not my paid work.

In a perfect world, the paid artist or craftsman might be free to pursue whatever sorts of newly conceived stylistic approaches they might imagine. In our imperfect world, however, it doesn't often work that way. Clients are employers, albeit temporary employers. As a rule, they are not patrons of the arts willing underwrite a photographer's creative whims. They may not verbalize it that way but they mostly hire photographers for their static style, not some dynamic style that may be wildly different from one shoot to the next. Sure, I suppose there are still a few folks who offer financial patronage and carte blanche artistic freedom to those they patronize. Unfortunately, I've never met one of those people and don't expect I ever will.

What all of this means is this: Once a photographer, leastwise one who shoots for pay, establishes a style -- something that becomes a big part of why clients hire them to shoot -- those clients expect results which are similar to what they've already seen of the photographer's work. I'm not saying they always want the exact same, although more than a few of them do, but they want work that looks similar to the photographer's work they've already viewed.

It's been my experience that, even when a client tells you they want vague and difficult to define things like "creative" and "edgy" -- in other words, they seem to be saying they want you to deviate, in big ways, from your established style -- they don't really want too creative or too edgy. They don't want images that are truly different from what you've shot before. You see, what they want is what they've already seen but just a bit different, perhaps with a different twist. You give them truly creative and edgy (like they may have asked for) and you're risking not getting paid or not being hired again by that client. Course, if you manage to shoot way outside your normal style and still hit home runs with more than a few of the images, that's another story. I suppose that sometimes happens. More often than not, it doesn't.

The pretty girl at the top is Nikki.

I Dream the Body Lomo

2012-02-05T15:01:00.000-08:00

Lately, for not completely understood reasons, I've been daydreaming quite frequently about lomo, as in lomography. My thoughts are likely rooted in or related to the current Instagram craze. Instagram's app, as you probably know, has image processing capabilities which can render a decidedly low-fi, analog, lomo-like look to images captured with an iPhone.

I have an iPhone, albeit one from two gens ago: an iPhone 3gs to be exact. I've even installed the Instagram app on it but, for some reason, it just doesn't cut it with me. I have nothing against shooting stuff with mobile phones per se, I'm just not much into it, be it iPhoneography or with an Android device or any other cell phone. Yeah, I guess from that perspective I'm a photography elitist who mostly uses his cell phone as (Gasp!) a telephone.

I decided to start looking at some lomo cameras with a mind towards purchasing one. One which could deliver, via film, the lomo look I quite admire.

First, I began looking at the Russian cameras which started it all, lomography-wise. Then, I proceeded to Holgas and Dianas and a few other cameras of the lomo ilk. But, the more I looked, the more I became unsure of what I wanted. For the most part, these cameras are quite inexpensive, especially compared to today's digital SLRs, so it became more a matter of which one from the overall field of lomo-cams. I also wasn't sure if I wanted to go the 120 or 135 route regarding film size. Decisions, decisions...

Since my lomo plans did not include utilization of a wet darkroom beyond film developing, and I'd have that done at a lab rather than the way I did it back in the day in my own darkroom, the negatives or chromes will end up being digitized and processed with digital applications. (I have a dedicated film scanner and it's kind of low-end which will probably add even more value, for me, to the low-fi-ness of the images. That's what I'm thinking, at least.)

I was just about to click the "Buy Now" button on a Holga 135 offered for sale on Ebay when I noticed, right below the listing, another product-- This one was a Holga lens adapted to Canon's EF mount.

"Hmmm...." I thought. "Maybe that's the way I should go?"

Instead of going back to having film processed, I could start my new lomo adventure digitally. All I'll need to do is slap that Holga lens on my 5d and begin snapping away. It won't deliver the exact same look as shooting film with, say, a Holga, Diana, or some old lomo camera made back in the USSR, but it will be in close proximity to them, probably closer than shooting with my Canon lenses and then processing the images to mimic the lomo look. Besides, if I decide I really like the results but think it's still missing something, something even more film-like in appearance, I can always purchase a lomo film camera later on.

So, that's what I've done. I've purchased a plastic Holga lens for my Canon dSLR. It may or may not satisfy my dreams of the body lomo: It is just a lens, after all, and not a complete system, i.e., camera body and lens. And while, in some ways, it might seem limiting -- the lens's aperture is fixed at f/8 plus it's a 60mm prime lens -- that's okay! That's likely a huge part of the fun shooting with this lens or with many lomographic film cameras... not to mention creatively challenging.

I should receive my Holga lens in a week or so. After shooting some stuff with it, I'll post a few pics.

The pretty girl at the top is Missy from a couple of years ago.

Eddie Adams: Pretty Girl Shooter

2012-02-03T12:29:00.000-08:00

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. 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

2012-01-31T12:04:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-30T11:51:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-29T11:32:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-27T11:35:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-26T11:33:00.000-08:00

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.

Glamour Story-Telling

2012-01-22T14:37:00.000-08:00

I wrote quite a bit about story-telling via photo portraiture in my e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography. Some of you might wonder how story-telling is a significant component of much of my portrait work, that work mostly being comprised of glamour photography and all, but I can assure you it is.

Generally, story-telling in portraiture isn't the same sort of story-telling often seen in the efforts of photo-journalists and editorial photographers. There are many ways to tell (what's called) a story in photography. Some of them aren't simply about visually depicting linear stores or using things like environment, wardrobe, props, and more to tell some sort of story. A great number of stories, leastwise in portrait photography and regardless of what type of portrait photography you're shooting, tell emotional stories. Make that, they reveal emotions which then generate stories in the minds of viewers.

The often-seen exception to using emotions as a primary story-telling vehicle in portraiture is seen (or not seen) in many environmental portraits. Environmental portraiture regularly uses many of the same story-telling devices that photo-journalists and editorial photographers use. I'm not saying emotions are ignored in environmental portraiture, but they generally seem to take a back seat to other methods of telling a story with a single photograph.

In most genres of portraiture, emotional stories rule! The better those emotions come across, the better (in general) the portraits are. It's a notion which also includes glamour portraits. Often, the emotional stories conveyed are subtle. Sometimes, very subtle. Generally, emotional subtlety makes portraits, glamour or otherwise, even more powerful and memorable.

When I consider the glamour portraits I've shot which have garnered the best responses from clients and viewers alike, they haven't been photos which truly shine because of my use of lighting techniques (pun intended) or via post-processing applications. They haven't been photos of the most beautiful and alluring women with the best bodies or most revealed bodies. They've been photos where the emotional aspects, usually contained in a subtle expression and/or in the subject's eyes, resonated with viewers.

I love citing Leonardo da Vinci's portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, more commonly known as the Mona Lisa, as an example of one of the world's most famous uses of subtle, emotional, story-telling in portraiture. If I could figure out exactly why this portrait has stirred the wonder and curiosity of so many generations of people, I think I could become one of the most successful portrait shooters on the planet. Whatever that thing is that makes the Mona Lisa what it is, it's both subtle and powerful. A couple of other portraits I can think of, portraits that come close (although they're both more recent images than da Vinci's Mona Lisa) are the world-famous photos of Che Guevara, titled Guerrillero Heroico and snapped by Cuban photographer Alberto Korda in 1960, and Yousuf Karsh's iconic photo of a defiant Winston Churchill during WW2.

While da Vinci's painting of a well-to-do, 16th Century, Florentine woman, or a hastily-snapped, candid photo of a Marxist revolutionary, or a staged and formal portrait of a world leader might seem to have little to do with glamour photography, there's much to learn by studying images like these and many others with similar emotional components. The power of emotion and the stories those emotions convey, whether the stories are real or they are concocted and imagined by those viewing the images, and how to achieve making emotions an important aspect of your people shooting repertoire, will, in general, do as much if not more to better your portrait photography than most anything you might learn about lighting, posing, exposure, or post-production.

The gratuitous, half-naked, pretty girl at the top is Jayme. I've shot Jayme two or three times and, every time I did, I could always count on her to creatively project attitude and emotion, often of a type less seen in glamour shots.

Become a Photo Myth Buster

2012-01-21T16:39:00.000-08:00

I'm often amazed at some of the myths more than a few photographers continue to believe or subscribe to. Like most myths, today's photography myths grew out of various degrees of truth.

Let me begin by citing one of the biggest myths of all: Great photographs are a product of the best (most expensive) gear.

In earlier photographic times, better gear probably was responsible for producing many more great photos than cheaper, less reliable, and poorly manufactured gear did. That, of course, depends on your definition of what constitutes great photography. The truth which spawned the myth is still true to some extent, again depending on your definition of great photography.

Let's take another myth, this one contained in a phrase I still often see on the covers of photography magazines and in other media: "Secrets of the Pros." It's a phrase I see used as a headliner for articles and advertisements which claim things like, "Secrets of the Pros Revealed!"

Again, this myth once contained some truth. Perhaps quite a bit of truth. Mostly, because it was so much more difficult for budding photographers to access and learn about all those so-called secrets. Today, with the web providing such easy access to all kinds of learning media, whatever techniques once held close to the vest by professional photographers are just a quick and easy Google search away. There might once have been secrets, but they've all been revealed for some time now.

Here's another myth: Talented and experienced photographers who go pro have a better chance at success. Again, there might have been a bit more truth in that statement years ago but, these days, talent and experience have so much less to do with being successful, as a pro, than things like business acumen, marketing savvy, and simple luck. Photographers who suck at photography can still be financially successful via photography. Those who can't dazzle others with photographic brilliance can always baffle (and by so doing impress) others with their bullshit. The notion, "terrific photographers have a better chance at success," is better made into steer excrement by the fact that so many non-photographers don't have a clue what constitutes good photography. Perhaps more so today than ever. That can be a good thing for some and not so good for others, depending on your level of skill and/or your ability to spin your photographic know-how or the perceived quality of your photography, whether it's actually good or not so good.

There are still more myths subscribed to by quite a few photographers. Generally, photographers who believe the myths don't know much about photography. Leastwise, not as much as they think they might know. And it's that ignorance that many manufacturers of photographic equipment and other purveyors of all things photography prey on.

Here's my advice: Become a photo myth buster. How do you do that? By learning as much as you can about photography. You see, the more you learn the more aware you are and the more you'll be able to easily identify the myths and the bullshit you're constantly being bombarded with. That alone is a great reason to increase your knowledge and skills. Doing so might not make you a fantastic photographer but it might, if nothing else, save you time, effort, and money.

The pretty girl at the top is Penthouse Pet, Shawna Lenee.

iAuthor, uCanKissMyAss

2012-01-20T10:24:00.000-08:00

As a photographer and an e-book author, I'm very interested in protecting my intellectual property rights. I'll bet more than a few of you are also interested in protecting your work.

Two pieces of legislation, SOPA and PIPA, were introduced in the House and the Senate (respectively) which, if enacted into law, would give the government the unprecedented (and, IMO, unconstitutional) ability to attempt to act as some sort of global copyright police for huge corporations. The big losers if these bills became laws, of course, would be American internet users. Fortunately, outrage by internet sites and users alike caused these two pieces of legislation to do down in flames.

None of that, of course, means that corporations can't try to extend their rights in ways which are, in a nutshell, mind bogglingly greedy and evil. Case in point: Apple's iAuthor.

I'm not an award-winning technology writer. But a guy who is one recently reviewed the license agreement Apple has come up with for their iAuthor software and the words, "mind bogglingly greedy and evil," are his, not mine. (Although I 100% agree with his words.) To get a fix on what Apple claims are it's rights for using their software, CLICK HERE.

My mother would say Apple is "nervy" with their license agreement for this software. That's a nice way of saying they've over-stepped what most anyone (except them, it seems) would consider reasonable and appropriate.

The pretty girl at the top is Nautica. Yikes! I shot this about 5 years ago. Time flies!

Why No iPhone Shoots for Me?

2012-01-18T13:42:00.000-08:00

In spite of the video I posted above, assuming you took the time to watch it, or the fact that iPhonography is growing more popular by the day (and the quality of iPhone images getting better with each new iPhone release) my Canon 5D, or any other dSLR I might use or acquire, is in no danger of being replaced by my iPhone... or an iPad or most any other small, point-n-shoot, device. Why? One word: Perception.

Technically, many of the images I'm hired to produce could be snapped with an iPhone and pass muster in terms of quality, especially for work headed direct to the web. But winning over the confidence of my clients, that is, altering their perceptions about paying me to shoot with my cell phone versus paying me to shoot with (what they consider) high-end, state-of-the-art, expensive, and customary gear, are world's apart.

If I suddenly decided to shoot with my iPhone, the scenario might go something like this: I show up on a set. The model is in makeup. I put up a white seamless and some lighting. Obviously, continuous lighting because I'm going to shoot with my iPhone. The model, now out of makeup, shows up on the seamless. I direct her where to stand and how I'd like her to begin posing. I pull out my iPhone. The model slumps and moves off her mark. "What are you doing?" I ask. The model explains she thought I was taking a phone call and I wasn't yet ready to shoot. "I'm shooting with my iPhone." I explain. The model looks at me strangely, as if she's saying, "Dude! Are you for real?" She then retakes her mark and assumes a pose.

My model continues posing, obviously accepting that I am for real. (Either that or she's catering to my idiosyncrasies which, I'll admit, I have a few. Maybe more than a few.) But that doesn't really matter to my model. She's getting paid (and paid well) and that's what really matters to her. If I want to shoot with my phone or an Instamatic or a pin hole camera, she could care less. Besides, I'll just tell her I'm being artsy. (Not that she'll automatically care about that either... pardon my hard-earned cynicism.)

After a bit of iPhone glamour shooting, my client walks in. "Jimmy! Haven't you started shooting her yet? We have a schedule, bro. Get off the phone."

"I'm not on the phone, I'm shooting," I explain. "I'm shooting with my iPhone. It's the latest thing. The pictures look great!"

My client stares at me for a moment, dumbfounded. Finally, he speaks. "I'm paying you your rate to shoot with your cell phone?"

"Yeah. Cool, right? Lots of pros are shooting with their iPhones."

"Not on my productions," my client tells me before never hiring me again.

The moral of this fictional tale is one I'm confident most of you can figure out.

Be Prepared!

2012-01-12T15:06:00.000-08:00

While I might not seem like the sort of guy who fits the profile of a Boy Scout, when I was a kid I was a Boy Scout. Prior to being a Boy Scout, I was a Cub Scout. Although I didn't stay with scouting long enough to become an Eagle Scout, a few of scouting's most enduring notions have stuck with me throughout my life. One in particular, "Be Prepared," is one I always try to apply to my photography.

For me, being prepared means I try to envision as many of the things that can go wrong on a shoot or that might negatively impact the results of my work and then proceed in ways which prepare me to deal with them. As a rule, those "things" are Murphy's Law things. Since, from experience, I'm painfully aware of how often Murphy's Law rears its ugly head on production shoots, I always do my best to be prepared to deal with their likely eventualities.

If Murphy's Law is anything, it's not only near-certain it's creative. It often seems to come up with new and inventive ways to try and screw me out of the prize. (The prize being the shot or shots I'm hoping to capture.) Murphy's Law, as you probably are aware, loves to blindside it's victims. It's a stealthy, ninja-like, villainous law. I'm totally aware that my general state of preparedness doesn't mean I'll be able to deal with all of Murphy's Law's eventualities. It simply means I have many of them, perhaps the most common of them, covered. It also means I'm always on the look-out for Murphy's Law to be sneaking up on me.

I could probably write a book based on all the ways Murphy's Law has screwed me or tried to screw me in the past. Many of you could probably do the same. But I do try to be a positive and proactive sort of guy. As such, I've tried to learn from Murphy's Law, that is, learn its ways and it's tactics. One thing I've learned is this: In spite of Murphy's Law's ability to be creative and inventive, there is another law or rule, the 80/20 Rule, a.k.a. Pareto's Principle, which also applies to many things. Even to Murphy's Law.

Pareto's Principle (or the 80/20 Rule) says that 20% of something is generally responsible for 80% of the results. That's good news! That means the same 20% of possible Murphy's Law events will occur 80% of the time.

I don't always have an in-place, nearly fool-proof, plan or solution to deal with all the effects of Murphy's Law. But I do have standard, on-going plans to deal with many of them. For instance, the way Murphy's Law often screws with me (and many other photographers) is via the models themselves, that is, models who flake. I can't always be prepared with a ready solution for the flake factor but at least I recognize that it's one of Murphy's Law's favorite ways to mess me up and I'm always prepared, make that aware, it may happen. That awareness doesn't always mean I'll be able to replace the model in a moment's notice but, if there's any way to prepare for it, I'm going to have that way available to me.

Another common Murphy's Law shoot-killer is gear; gear that suddenly messes up. These attacks on my productions are more easily prepared for because, for the most part, I almost always have back-up gear with me which can fill-in when Murphy's Law decides to toss me an equipment-related curve ball. The gear I'll end up using if my primary gear breaks or malfunctions may not be my preferred equipment to use on any given production, but it will allow me to continue my shoot and get through it. That means, of course, I not only need to have that back-up gear along with me, I need to know how to use it, i.e., to use it as effectively as the gear I most often or am most accustomed to using.

Besides models and gear, there are other Murphy's Law mishaps which can effect a production shoot. The most difficult ones, much like the models themselves, revolve around people. Murphy's Law loves to use people to screw with a shoot because people and their potential for being a negative contribution (is "negative contribution" a contradiction in terms?) are more difficult to be prepared for.

Still, I've found that recognizing the fact that many of the ways Murphy's Law screws with me will, 80% of the time, be in the same or similar ways, has helped me realize that I, make that all of us, can better prepare ourselves for their probable attempts to negatively impact our shoots.

The pretty girl at the top getting ready to pop into the shower is Alexis.

T-Shirt Has Magical Powers!

2012-01-09T09:35:00.000-08:00

Photographer Dan L. posted this photo on Facebook today. It was snapped at a model shoot which took place in Illinois this past weekend. Dan says the t-shirt has magical powers! He didn't specify the exact powers it has but, judging from the photo, I'd say it has something to do with hot models and the t-shirt's effects on them.

If you're interested in owning your own Pretty Girl Shooter t-shirt, simply click on the banner in the right-hand column. It'll cost you $15 (USD) plus $4 shipping and handling to have you magical t-shirt magically shipped to you.

Challenge Your Models to Mimic

2012-01-08T12:45:00.001-08:00

I work with quite a few new(ish) and inexperienced models. While most of them aren't particularly camera shy, they don't have much of an idea what they're doing in front of a camera. It's not like many of them went to modeling school.

While my mouth usually remains running when models are in front of my camera, I don't like having every other word or so being a direction. While, in some ways, models are much like meat-puppets (and I mean that in the nicest if brutally honest way) the best models, like actors, pull it from within. Just like acting comes natural to some people, so does modeling. Unfortunately, those people are few and far between.

Directing a model's physical presentation to the camera is the easy part: Move this, twist that, point your belly button over here, make your shoulders go back, drop your face, turn your head, arch your back, make your knees touch and all that kind of stuff.

Getting poses and expressions to come from within is another matter. One of the ways I do that is to ask models to mimic what they've seen or experienced. For instance, I sometimes ask new models if they've ever watched the TV show "America's Next Top Model." As it turns out, many of them have seen the show. I then briefly talk about how dumb and stupid some of the poses are the wannabee models in the show engage in. More so since, on the TV show, we see them do it in motion rather than just in still images. My newbie models usually giggle and agree. Then, I ask them to mimic some of those dumb and stupid poses and expressions they've seen.

Most of the time, the models find this a fun exercise. Since they're often new(ish) to modeling, they rarely over-exaggerate the posing and expressions they're mimicking. Instead, what most them exhibit is not too over-the-top even though I might have asked them to go over-the-top with it. They're new to modeling, remember? As such, they're often a bit inhibited in how they present themselves and how they might appear even if they're not particularly inhibited about being in front of a camera in their birthday suits. That might sound like something of a paradox but that's how they are. Go figure.

Often enough, I hear models saying things like, "I feel stupid doing that." In response, I quickly tell them that, quite often with modeling, the stupider it feels the better it looks. Since I've already gone out of my way (in one way or another) to convince them I know what I'm doing as a photographer, most of them tend to accept those words at face value.

There's all kinds of things you can ask models to mimic. Use your imagination. Most anything you come up with calls on what the model has seen, what she knows, or what she's experienced. Because of that, the mimicking, while not always being sincere and/or serious, comes from somewhere within, even if it's a simple memory or "call-back." Things that come from within, even when their little more than a mimic of something they've seen, come off more "real" than many new models imagine. Especially since those mimicked poses and expressions are being captured in such tiny slices of time. I mean, the finished pictures' viewers aren't aware the model might have busted up laughing moments after what appears to be a serious or sensuous (mimicked) pose or expression was snapped.

Just some stuff to think about and try when you're working with models who have very little experience and might not be delivering what you hope to capture.

The gratuitous pretty girl at the top is Dani, snapped a few years ago.

Nikon Announces D4

2012-01-06T11:31:00.001-08:00

My initial response: Yawn. (In fairness, I had just woken up when I read about Nikon's announcement.)

My next response: Yeah. Ok. (As I sipped my much needed and beloved first cup of coffee.)

My third response: Do you or I really need this camera or, for that matter, any other new and ultra-sophisticated, cutting-edge-technology camera the Big Two comes out with?

I think I'll focus on my third response for this blog update. I mean, what can I say about yawning or being underwhelmed?

First, let me state that without having tried this camera out -- and I likely never will as I'm a Canon guy -- the Nikon D4 is probably an incredible piece of technology. Let me follow that statement by reminding everyone that great photos are not generally the products of incredible technologies. Great photographs are most often the products of incredible photographers. There are exceptions to those two observations but not too many of them.

Having said that, there are some shooters who will benefit from the bells-and-whistles Nikon has packed into this camera. Personally, I consider most of the new cameras released in the past few years as almost being niche cameras, that is, their capabilities are best utilized by photographers shooting specific genres or needing specific capabilities or multi-capabilities. If you're a sports photographer, for instance, cameras with big buffers capable of capturing images as fast or faster than a machine gun spits bullets might be perfect for you. If you're a photographer who needs the integrated ability to capture video and still photos with the same device, many of the newer cameras might be perfect for you.

I shoot with a Canon 5D. A lot of people call it the 5D classic. Excuse me but a 50-year-old Leica is a classic camera, not a 5-year-old digital SLR. That observation aside, the 5D's technology is a couple of generations old. That doesn't make it classic, it simply makes it a little behind the times: The high-tech times. But that's ok! I bought the camera because it was, in my opinion, the first Canon 35mm dSLR with a full-frame sensor offered at an affordable price. Sure, Canon's next iteration of the 5D, the 5D Mk II, had capabilities I thought were cool, but they weren't necessary or required for the genre I generally shoot... and that's the biggest reason why I haven't bought the Mk II. Besides, there was so much other stuff to spend my money on which would definitely be a bigger help in producing the kinds of images I want to shoot-- things like glass and lights and grip.

If I had plenty of eff-you money, I might buy the latest-and-greatest in camera bodies just to be cool or to show-off or whatever. But I don't. Instead, like a good Guerrilla Glamour photographer, I'm always looking to get the most bang for my bucks and only in terms of arming myself with the gear I need, not what I might impulsively desire or what manufacturers' marketeers claim I need.

In spite of how it sounds, my intent is not to trash-talk this new Nikon camera or any other new camera which gets released. I'm only saying that, whenever you consider buying the latest and greatest in camera bodies, think about whether doing so will really make a difference to your photography or whether there's other things you could be purchasing or doing with your money (and time) which will make more of an impact on the results you're hoping to achieve.

I used to play golf. When I was into the game, I noticed that certain putters, while not being the latest in putter design technology, were much lauded and coveted by some golfers. Putters like early Karsten Pings. Are they good putters? Yep. Are they classic? They are. Expensive? Yeah, that too. Do they make much of a difference in terms of most golfers' games? Not generally. But they sure look impressive sitting in someone's golf bag!

If you're into impressing some or possibly many photographers, the new Nikon D4 might be just the ticket. If you're into impressing even more photographers, snapping better photos, regardless of what camera you use, is an even more reliable ticket.

The pretty girl at the top is Kita, shot on a white cyclorama. Here's a BTS shot below.

Kodak: Thanks for the Memories!

2012-01-05T13:54:00.000-08:00

As many of you are probably aware, Kodak as been struggling for quite some time. Now, it appears Kodak is going to file for bankruptcy protection. No other company in the history of the planet is responsible for providing so many people with so many much-loved keepsakes of treasured moments and memories than Kodak. For that, and for so much more, we have much to thank George Eastman and his legacy for.

Last year, we saw the demise of Kodachrome. This year, we're seeing (what may amount to) the demise of Kodak itself. If it goes down that way, it's the end of an era, and not just from the perspective of photography.

There are few photographers who haven't, in many ways, been touched and influenced by Kodak whether they realize it or not. Even if the first camera you ever picked up was digital, be advised the first digital camera was created by Eastman Kodak engineer Steven Sasson back in 1975.

If you started out your love affair with photography shooting film, I don't need to explain how Kodak has been a part of your journey. Sure, there's other companies who make film for still cameras. I've personally shot many hundreds of rolls of Fujichrome. But I've also shot even more rolls of Kodak film stock, especially their Plus-X B&W film which, back in the day, I processed in my own, converted-shed, darkroom situated in the back yard of my home. (Mostly head shots and commercial portfolio work for aspiring actors.) The first camera I ever shot, a Yashica Penta J back in the early 60s, I loaded with Kodak film.

Kodak won't entirely go away. It's not dissolving completely. But the mighty force in photography it once was is history. Kodak represents 131 years of photographic history! Its probable bankruptcy and possible demise is sad for photographers and many others.

The pretty girl at the top is yet another whose name I can't recall. My inability to recall so many models' names never ceases to amaze me, more so since the chick at the top is one I shot less than a month ago. Oh well. Getting old sucks. What'd'ya gonna do?

A New Computer!

2012-01-02T11:10:00.000-08:00

Yay! I bought a new computer!

For the past few years, I've been doing everything, computer-wise, on my laptop: processing photos, authoring this blog, writing e-books, Facebooking, emailing, watching movies on Netflix, and wasting countless hours surfing the net. I have other computers: A couple of older desktop PCs (which aren't even hooked-up these days) and a decent Mac desktop system which is dedicated to Final Cut Pro video editing. (Not that I've done much video editing in the past few years, tho that's likely going to change in 2012 for a number of reasons.) Trust me when I tell you my laptop is nothing to brag about.

My laptop is a bare-bones, nothing special, Toshiba. Recently, I had to replace the keyboard on it as I wore it out. It's also dirty and stained from spilling too many things on it. It's about 3 or 4 years old and, recently, the DVD drive quit working altogether. Lately, it's been acting very twitchy in more than a few ways.

If you've been a reader of this blog or have read either of my first two e-books, Guerrilla Glamour or Guerrilla Headshots, you know I'm all about making things as simple as possible. As you might guess, that notion extends to computers and how I use them. Another way of looking at my simplicity beliefs is to say I'm something of a minimalist. So, when I set out in search of a new computer, minimalism was also a factor in making a choice... as was money. (As in spending the minimal possible but still getting a computer that meets my needs, as minimalist as they might be.)

My daughter and son-in-law recently purchased an HP Touchsmart. It's a pretty cool computer, although the touch screen aspect of it doesn't seem overly useful to me. It turns out they rarely take advantage of their new computer's touch screen capabilities. I know I'd take advantage of technology like that even less. But I really like its all-in-one design! That is, the monitor and the computer being married into one chassis. Plus, it has a nice big monitor! While size doesn't always matter, it does, IMO, when it comes to monitor size.

I decided an all-in-one would be just right for me. It meets my criteria for simplicity and minimalist design and, more importantly, there are brands and models which meet my personal-use needs near perfectly.

The first thing I did was research quite a few brands, always with price in mind. While HP seems to be the undisputed leader in touch-screen technologies for all-in-one computers, I didn't want a touch screen monitor. Finally, after reading many reviews and product descriptions, I began focusing on the Lenovos and Gateway Acer brands in my search. Once I got to that point, it became, for the most part, a matter of price. (For you Mac folks: Yes, I would love a Mac. But Macs, at this time, don't meet my budget considerations.)

I wanted something with a high-resolution and good-sized monitor, i.e., in the 23" or 24" range. I also wanted a fairly large hard drive (even though I make much use of external hard drives), a fast enough processor (although not game-playing fast), and a minimal amount of RAM; at least 4GB expandable.

After a week of searching online, I found a factory refurbished Gateway Acer all-in-one (a model with pretty good reviews and an attractive price tag) plus a further 20% off that price tag (sale priced for three days only) and free shipping. I bought it immediately.

My Acer all-in-one, which arrives tomorrow, is the non-touch-screen model. That, in itself, saves about $100 or so. It has a 23" HD screen, a dual-core processor, 4GB of RAM (expandable), and a 750GB internal hard drive. It comes with a (non-Blu-Ray) DVD RW drive, wireless keyboard and mouse, Wi-Fi card, TV tuner, a factory warranty, and more. All for about $400. It also has a very small foot-print which I wanted because of my very cluttered desk.

In terms of glamour photography, I'm hoping my image processing will become improved as a result of a much higher resolution and significantly larger monitor. If there's one thing most all of my photography tends to be about, it's skin. Skin-tones, therefore, are quite important to me whether I intend them to be realistic or not.

Unfortunately, when I see my images (that I personally processed) on other computers, they almost always appear overly-warm. This, of course, is because my laptop's monitor is overly cool, color-wise, and probably doesn't display the black properly. I've tried to compensate by de-saturating the color on many of my images when processing them but I'm always guessing at how much to de-saturate.

More unfortunately, my laptop's monitor is very limited in terms of adjusting and/or calibrating color or much of anything else. Yeah, I know there's products out there to help with that but please remember I don't process my images except for my own personal use. My clients have re-touchers and graphic designers who do that stuff. As a result, I haven't wanted to spend the money on screen calibrating products which are available. (Sheesh! I must be sounding more and more like a cheap-fuck as I write this update.)

Anyway, the computer arrives tomorrow. It actually arrived locally last Friday evening but UPS doesn't deliver on Saturdays nor does it have will-call on Saturdays so, with the holiday and all, I'm having to wait an additional 4 days for it to arrive. That sucks, doesn't it? By the end of the week I should know if my new computer meets my overall expectations for it.

The jumping pretty girl at top is Jessie. She shares my excitement of buying a new computer even though she didn't know it at the time.

Mirrors of Time

2011-12-31T16:19:00.000-08:00

Last night, I watched a flick called "Jar City" on Netflix streaming. It's a foreign film shot in Iceland with an all-Icelandic cast. The dialogue, as you might expect, is spoken in Icelandish or whatever they call the language of Iceland. Since I'm a competent reader of English, I was able to follow along thanks to the subtitles, of course.

I gotta say, whatever they call whatever it is they speak in Iceland sounds about as foreign to me as most any language I've ever heard. I've watched plenty of foreign films. Many of them made in places like Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spanish-speaking countries and elsewhere. All of those languages (none of which I can speak) have words you can pick out that sound a little English. Not so for Icelandish. Just like it's not so for most any Asian, Middle-Eastern, or African country. (Except South Africa.)

But Iceland isn't in Asia, the Middle-East, or Africa. It's technically Europe... I think. Anyway, you've heard the phrase, "Sounds Greek to me," haven't you? It refers, of course, to someone or some thing you can't understand at all. Well, I'm changing the phrase to, "Sounds Icelandish to me." Iceland, if you didn't know, has a bleak, barren, and alien-looking landscape. No wonder they invented a language so alien sounding.

"Jar City" is a pretty good murder mystery thriller revolving around the well-deserved demise of some old scumbag with a very heinous past. The protagonist is a conflicted police detective who has lots of personal shit going on in his private life. (Sounds very Hollywood-familiar, doesn't it?) The film also has to do with a rare brain disease passed on by paternal parents and grandparents; a disease that often manifests itself in the very young and is lethal.

Part of the murder mystery focuses on what happened to one of the dead scumbag's old friends who disappeared years before. His disappearance holds a big clue to the murder mystery. It turns out the friend (who had disappeared) was an avid amateur photographer. The detective discovers this when he interviews the missing dude's elderly mother. When asked what it was her son so loved about photography, the old lady says her son used to often say, "Photographs are mirrors of time."

Those mirrors of time, it turns out, play a big part in unraveling the mystery.

I'm sharing this because I thought it's a cool and somewhat different way of describing photography or, rather, photographs. Often -- especially thanks to Kodak who may not be around much longer -- the ways in which photographs are often described tend to be about the memories associated with them rather than time. Calling them "mirrors of time" almost makes time sound like something tangible. I kinda like that. Sure, photographers talk about those little moments in time captured by the clicks of a shutter. But it seems like photographs themselves are more often associated with memories rather than time itself. It's all semantics, of course... and metaphor. But I enjoy different sorts of metaphors, analogies, and the kinds of semantics which can be used to describe things. They can be very thought-provoking.

BTW, my next post, which will be in the very early part of next year, will have everything to do with glamour photography and nothing to do with foreign films from Iceland. I promise.

The pretty girl at the top is Paris. It's a mirror of time when I still had my own studio. That was then and this is now but I still have plenty of mirrors of my time spent in my own studio.

Wish List for 2012

2011-12-29T09:51:00.000-08:00

Like many of you, the end of a year always has me thinking and planning for the upcoming year. Unfortunately, what starts out as ambitious resolutions too often ends up as a bunch of broken promises; promises made to myself, that is.

Instead of calling them resolutions, I've taken to calling the things I plan (and hope) to accomplish in the coming year a Wish List. In other words, I hope and wish I'll manage to find the resources, energy, determination, and good fortune to make good on those things I plan to do in the coming year.

You might be thinking, "C'mon Jimmy! That stuff shouldn't be labeled as wishes. You're in control of what you do and what you accomplish!"

That's true enough. Getting things done or not is completely in my court. But, at my age, I've grown to know myself pretty well and I know, for whatever reasons, I'll not do/accomplish some of the things I hope and wish and set out to do. I'm not making excuses. I just know it will work out that way. That might seem a negative outlook but, personally, I prefer calling it a realistic outlook.

That's the bad news to myself. The good news is I know I'll accomplish some of the things I'm hoping to get done. In other words, some of my wishes will come true.

Here's what I know I'll accomplish:

1. I'll continue updating this blog, hopefully providing readers with ideas, information, guidance and more which, as a result of people reading this blog, will play some part in helping them realize their photography goals. (Something I find personally rewarding in so many ways.) The Pretty Girl Shooter blog, BTW, will celebrate it's 6th year in existence come next July. To date, I've authored over 800 posts. I think I still have a few more in me.

2. I'll author a minimum of two e-books in 2012. I've already begun writing my 4th e-book: Flash-Free Model Photography. I'm not exactly sure when I'll complete and release it as I have many custom photos to shoot for it. Hopefully, I'll have it out in February or March. That will leave me 9 or 10 months to complete yet another e-book in 2012. (Subject to be determined but I have a few ideas I'm kicking around.) If I can't produce a 2nd e-book in the 9 or 10 months remaining in 2012, that is, after my next e-book is released, something is definitely wrong with me.

Now, here's what I'm hoping I'll accomplish but can't guarantee, to myself or anyone else:

1. I'll finally begin producing workshops! I'd say there's at least an 80% chance this will happen. Hopefully, some of you will be interested in attending. I've been working with a good friend (and partner) to get the workshops going. We've been communicating with a potential sponsor and, if we succeed at getting them on board, it will be a very cool thing! The sponsor is not a gear manufacturer or anyone like that. I'm not going to reveal who it is but I'll simply say that, if it goes down the way we hope it will, it will add something very special and unique to the workshops, including some incredibly hot models. That's not to say that without the sponsor I'll be unable to procure some incredibly hot models to participate -- I'm confident I can do so -- but if things go according to plans, hot models are only one part of the deal. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

2. Produce a video, hopefully a series of videos, on shooting glamour models. I realize I've been talking about videos for a couple of years and that's because it's been on my ~~Resolution~~ Wish List for those years, but I'm still hoping to accomplish it. I give the videos a 60% to 70% chance of coming to fruition.

Well, those are my plans for the coming year, leastwise as they apply to this blog, e-books, workshops, and videos. BTW, I'm not making any plans which go beyond next December 21st just in case the people predicting catastrophic significance to the ending of the Mayan calender are right. My gut tells me it's bullshit but, you know, who knows, right?

The pretty girl at the top (click to enlarge) displaying her full-frontal assets is Charmane. I've shot Charmane a bunch of times and it's always been an easy shoot thanks to her beauty, sensuality, modeling skills, and terrific attitude on sets.

Joe McNally's New "Sketching Light" Book

2011-12-26T12:42:00.000-08:00

I hope everyone had a terrific holiday. 2012 is nearly upon us so I'm also hoping and wishing for an awesome new year for all.

A friend of mine wrote to me this morning telling me about Joe McNally's new book: Sketching Light: An Illustrated Tour of the Possibilities of Flash, which he purchased and is now reading. My friend tells me he's more than half-way through the book's 400 pages and, to steal from a couple of movie critics, gives it a big thumb's up.

My buddy says the book is filled with great advice and pictures amplifying the author's words. He says it's a truly entertaining read with plenty of humor and clever metaphors, diagrams further underscoring the how-to aspects of the book, warnings about pitfalls and things to watch out for, and that it's grounded in realism. McNally, my friend tells me, offers up the gear he uses to make the shots included in the book, but also discusses alternate equipment approaches to the images. My friend says the book is well-organized, coherent throughout, nicely laid-out, and a fun read.

Joe McNally, of course, is a well-known photographer and, lately, has become an equally well-known photography educator. Last year, he and David Hobby (the Strobist) set out on a whirlwind national tour (on a tour bus, no less) to preach the gospel of small flash lighting. I understand they're planning to reboard the bus to reprise their lighting revivals.

Anyway, just thought I'd share a bit of what my friend has to say about McNally's new book. If you're interested in getting a copy for yourself, you can click here: Sketching Light: An Illustrated Tour of the Possibilities of Flash.

The eye candy at the top is Bree Olson. (Click it to enlarge.) Bree earned herself ten or fifteen minutes of fame in 2011 as Charlie Sheen's "goddess." I shot this pic of Bree while all the Charlie Sheen stuff was in the papers almost every day.

So You Wanna Assist? (Part Deux)

2011-12-22T18:08:00.000-08:00

I spent most of my last update writing about some of the reasons I rarely allow volunteer assistants or visitors to attend my shoots. In Part Deux, I'm gonna talk about what I expect (or don't expect) from those I do allow to volunteer their time assisting or merely to visit one of my pretty girl photo shoots.

As you might guess, the numero uno transgression on a pretty girl shooting set is drooling, gawking, or otherwise ogling the models. Eyes popping out is also verboten. If you cannot be around beautiful, sexy, alluring, naked models without engaging in behaviors that even remotely resembles anything I listed above or in ways best reserved for strip clubs or bachelor parties or in any other ways similar, as an example, to the Roger Rabbit image I've posted to the right, you definitely have no business being at my shoots.

Assuming you're there to assist, I expect you to work, not merely to watch. I expect you to work hard for me even though you're doing so without compensation. That means you'll help carry gear and perform other duties often handled by pack mules. You'll also help set up gear and generally be at my beck and call to assist me in a myriad of ways for the duration of the shoot.

You'll also remain within close visual range and/or earshot of me unless I've sent you elsewhere on the set or at the studio. I don't expect you to be a highly skilled assistant -- you're there on your own time after all -- and I will treat you according to my knowledge or perceptions of what you know how to do. For instance, if you know how to hold a light meter and to read it, I'll probably have you do that. If you don't know how, I may even take a few moments to teach you how to do so. Hopefully, you're a quick learner because, like I said, I'll only spend a few moments teaching you how.

There are only two egos permitted to play, duel, whatever, on my shooting sets: Mine and the model's. If the client is present, there may be three egos at work or play. If I don't seem to be utilizing you to the fullest extent of your creative and technical know-how, go get your own gigs and you can use your personal skills and artistic capabilities to their fullest extent while you're shooting for yourself or for your clients. Quick story: I was the Director of Photography on a video shoot one time. As is my way, I was joking around with some of the cast members, mostly the females. The director approached me and asked if he could have a word with me. He pulled me off to the side. "There's only one funny person on my sets," he told me. "And that's me." With that, he turned and walked away.

If I ask you to find somewhere else to sit or stand while I'm shooting, A) Please don't take it personal and get all butt-hurt and B) always place yourself somewhere where the model can see you. Nothing worse than an assistant or visitor who parks themselves somewhere behind the model. The model will become apprehensive if you do so and the last thing I need are apprehensive models when I'm shooting them. I once allowed a friend of a friend on one of my sets. I knew the guy but not well. I asked him to find himself a place to sit. He found a chair, carried it back to where I was shooting, put it on the floor -- on the seamless actually -- and right next to me. He sat down and stared at the model. Needless to say, he was told to move his ass somewhere else.

As I mentioned in my last update, please don't make suggestions or tell me about some great idea you have. Save your great ideas for when you're shooting for yourself. I might sometimes ask what you think of something and, if I do, by all means, be honest and tell me. You can volunteer what you think about what I'm doing, without me asking that is, but if you do please only do so if you think what I'm doing is awesome or cool or terrific. If it's critical, keep it to yourself... especially when we're shooting. After the shoot, you can ask me whatever you want or tell me what you thought. You know, as in when we're alone and shootin' the shit. That's not to say I expect you to be a JimmyD cheerleader when I'm shooting. I don't. But if you feel you must occasionally comment, only do so if it's positive. To be truthful, I'd prefer you to keep your comments, positive or otherwise, to yourself.

Also, as mentioned in my previous post on this subject, please don't engage my clients, my models, or others on the set with much more than pleasant niceties. If I spot you, as an example, off to the side in a deep, heavy conversation with my client, right or wrong I'll probably assume you're pitching him or her on your work, that is, you shooting for them. Yes, that's happened in the past. More than once I might add. Also, please don't bring along your portfolio stored on an iPad or iPhone or other device and show it to others. I will not appreciate you showing your work to my clients or models. You're there to assist, not to show off you work. I'm a great believer in photographers networking in order to help themselves get work. There are appropriate times and places to do so. While you're assisting is not one of those times or places.

Before you're even on my set, i.e., if you're there to assist, I will already have tried to ascertain what your skill level is so that I can take full advantage of it. I'm happiest when someone who really knows their shit is assisting me. I'm happier still when they know their shit better than I know mine. BTW, everything I listed are my personal expectations for assistants or set visitors. But I'll bet many of them will apply to most any photographer you might be assisting or whose set you might be visiting.

The pretty girl at the top is Penthouse Pet, Tori Black.

So You Wanna Assist?

2011-12-19T12:21:00.000-08:00

A lot of guys ask me if they can assist. No surprise there. I'm usually shooting hot chicks in various stages of undress.

I'm guessing more than a few red-blooded males would pay an admission fee to watch me shoot... more specifically, to watch the models being shot. After all, those sexy models call to them, like they call to me, like the sirens of yore called to brave Ulysses and his lads.

Still more guys, i.e., photographers on the uphill side of the learning curve in particular, will gladly barter their time and sweat to assist me. Plus, who knows? There might be something for them to learn by assisting. Assuming, of course, they're paying at least as much attention to what I'm doing and how I'm doing it as they are to the hot models who are selling their allure in seductive ways and, as the shoot progresses, wearing less and less.

I don't often permit visitors, volunteer assistants or otherwise, to attend my sets. There's a couple of reasons for that: A) My clients are usually on set and, for the most part, they aren't generally too tolerant of visitors; B) the shoot might be negatively impacted for a variety of reasons, all stemming from a visitor or an inexperienced volunteer assistant.

Here's how the shoot might be negatively impacted as a result of visitors or volunteer assistants who aren't accustomed to being on a professional set, especially sets which feature nudity:

1. The visitor/assistant weirds out the models. As much as many of the models I shoot are accustomed to getting naked in front of strangers, they have a finely-tuned ability to sense when or if those strangers are unaccustomed to being around models, especially naked models. When they sense that's the case, there's a decent chance it will weird them out. Weirded out models don't generally make for good models who achieve the goals of the shoot.

2. The visitor/assistant doesn't understand set protocol. While I'm the kind of guy who generally appreciates good ideas and suggestions from others, I don't appreciate them being offered while I'm shooting. Unless the visitor/assistant notices something is amiss, perhaps something that could pose a danger to others or is obviously out-of-place and I don't seem to notice it, I really don't want to hear anyone's great ideas or suggestions. First, it undermines my position as *the* photographer. Second, since the visitor/assistant might not be aware of any special requirements or expectations of the shoot, there's a good chance his or her great idea or suggestion does not meet those requirements or expectations. Third, it's simply not kosher.

3. If an assistant doesn't have much experience working with equipment like cameras, grip, and lighting, why would I want them assisting me on a set? The whole idea of an assistant is to assist. Assisting is meant to make the shoot move forward more efficiently. If an an assistant can't help make that happen, they're likely to be of little, if any, help. Worse, they might slow things down or impede the efficiency of the shoot. While I consider myself something of a mentor and/or teacher, that's not what I am when someone is paying me to shoot.

4. I've spent lots of money on my gear. Someone who is unaccustomed to handling gear represents someone who is more likely to damage my gear. Certainly not intentionally but that person's lack of experience increases the odds they might do some unintentional damage to my equipment.

5. More set protocol: Visitors and volunteer assistants may not understand that being a helpful fly on the wall is part of their duties. Visitors and assistants should refrain from engaging my clients or the models in too much, if any, conversation. If those people engage the visitor/assistant, that's one thing. The visitor/assistant engaging them is another. Even when the visitor/assistant is engaged, they should keep it polite, simple, and not overly engaged... if that makes sense. Once again, making suggestions or sharing ideas, in this case with my clients or the models, is off-bounds. It will likely guarantee the visitor/assistant will never be a visitor/assistant on any of my future sets.

There's more rules to abide when you're a visitor/assistant on a professional set but the few I've provided should give you an idea of what's expected. HERE is another photographer's take on assisting.

I'm not trying to sound like a prick but this is how I make my living and it certainly isn't in my best interests to do things, like allowing visitors or inexperienced volunteer assistants on my sets, where they might, inadvertently and potentially, negatively impact my relationships with clients and models or do others things which are not in the best interests of my shoots.

On the positive side, in the past I have allowed a number of people to either volunteer assist me or, in rarer instances, simply be a visitor on one of my sets. It doesn't happen too often and it would take another blog entry to list the reasons I might have done so or might do so in the future.

The pretty girl at the top is Nikki. (Click it to enlarge.) I shot Nikki last night for a client's project. I even found some time to shoot Nikki wearing one of my Pretty Girl Shooter t-shirts... you know, being the self-promoting sort of guy that I am. If you're of a mind to purchase one, there's a banner in the right-hand column you can click to do so.

Pretty Girl Shooter T-Shirts Now Available!

2011-12-16T10:58:00.000-08:00

Over the years, a bunch of people a bunch of times have suggested something like this: "Jimmy! Why don't you make some pretty girl shooter t-shirts? I love shooting pretty girls and I'd love to wear one!" Well, I have and HERE they are.

Recently, I had dinner with a good pal, one who's a graphic designer and whom I've known and worked with over the years. He told me he's been doing custom t-shirts. "Really?" I said. (I hadn't seen him in quite some time.) "How about you design me a Pretty Girl Shooter tee?" I asked.

And so he did!

CLICK HERE (if you didn't click above) to get yours. I've priced them economically at $15 (USD) and I think you'll dig them. I wore one to a shoot just the other night and my Pretty Girl Shooter tee didn't go unnoticed. In fact, I heard words like "cool t-shirt" way more than once.

So what are you waiting for? CLICK on over the Official Pretty Girl Shooter T-Shirt page and get yours!

The pretty girl above, the one who just happens to be wearing an Official Pretty Girl Shooter T-Shirt because I just happened to have one with me when I recently shot her and who also just happens to be featured in last post before this one -- wearing significantly less -- is Alexis.

4.5' Seamless Redux

2011-12-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

About three weeks ago, I wrote about shooting models on a 4.5' seamless. At that time, I hadn't shot the models yet so my thoughts were more anticipatory. HERE is that post if you didn't read it and/or might want to.

Anyway, that was then and this is now and now that I've shot about a half-dozen models on the 4.5' seamless I can honestly say it's a pain in the ass. I definitely prefer more "elbow room," as Daniel Boone used to say.

My goal throughout has been to keep all the models' body parts in front of the seamless. Since there isn't much room in the space my clients have had me shooting this stuff in, that's mostly meant shooting 3/4 body shots or images framed even closer with the models remaining near-perfectly centered on the seamless. It's also kept me in one spot to shoot from. I don't much care for being inhibited that way and neither have the models.

It's also caused me to have to pay way too much special attention to what's going on in my viewfinder regarding keeping the models in front of the seamless. That's not that big of a deal but I found myself constantly giving directions like, "Can you scoot your feet about six inches to the right?" Again, not that big of a deal but, often enough, I had to say those sort of things after the model was already posed in one pose or another. Having to do move her spot on the seamless a few inches this or that sometimes seemed to ruin the natural flow of things. I hate when flows are ruined!

The next time I'm called on to shoot on a seamless in a fairly confined space where a 9' seamless is too wide for the room to handle it, plus my lights and stands, I'm going to use one anyway. I'll simply make use of a fine-tooth saw and lop off two or three feet from the width of the seamless roll.

The pretty young thing at the top is Alexis. (Click it to enlarge it.) For the most part, it's an out-of-the-camera image. I left my framing intact and just shrunk the entire image so you could see how little "elbow room," either side of her, there was on that 4.5' seamless. If you're wondering, the things around her wrists are little bungee cords. Some of the photos were intended to have a semi-bondagey feel to them and, for this model, the photography brain trust (my clients) thought they'd shake things up a little and use bungee cords instead of the handcuffs or shackles we used for some of the pics of the other models. I tried to tell them I didn't think the bungees visually (or practically) worked so well but hey! What do I know? Maybe there's lots of people out there with a bungee fetish?

Composition and the Fibonacci Spiral

2011-12-12T11:54:00.000-08:00

No. I haven't gone all Dan Brown/DaVinci Code on everyone. Sure, Brown used Fibonacci numbers as clues in his best-selling religious thriller but that has little to do with photography.

Or does it?

Fibonacci's ratio can be geometrically translated a number of ways. One way is into a spiral called, as you might have already guessed, the Fibonacci Spiral. It's a spiral almost identical to another cool spiral called the Golden Spiral. In nature, these spirals are seen often enough. For instance, we see them in spiral galaxies, leastwise in pictures or through a telescope, and we see them in some sea shells. Spirals like these are also seen in photographic and other artistic compositions. Some call it "Divine Composition." Divine Composition is like the Rule of Thirds gone god-like.

There's an entertaining, quick-read, blog post about this Rule of Thirds and Fibonacci stuff (as it applies to photographic composition) on photographer Jake Garn's web site. Click Here to check it out.

BTW, I'm not suggesting you come up with some sort of a Fibonacci overlay template when fine-tuning your work. (Via cropping in post.) Doing so, leastwise for me, would be adding a way too scientific and technical aspect to that part of my work I consider the art part rather than the science part. Still, I often pose, frame, or crop my models with an obvious nod to the Rule of Thirds and, who knows? Maybe the spirit sometimes moves me to apply a bit of Divine Composition to some of my pics? Perhaps even without realizing what I'm doing? You know, sort of like being possessed, albeit not demonically possessed.

Wait! Maybe I am demonically possessed? Especially considering the content of much of what I shoot. Plus, there's all that photography stuff about the Devil being in the details. And I'm definitely a guy who pays attention to the details in my photography work. Oh well. It doesn't really matter if I'm divinely inspired on occasion or the Devil makes me do it as long as my pics turn out okay and the checks clear.

There's no Fibonacci Spiral evident in the full-frontal nude pic of Jayme I attached to this update but, I have to admit, she both divinely inspires me while simultaneously eliciting some devilish thoughts in my head.

Lens Flares: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

2011-12-09T12:43:00.000-08:00

Lately, more and more, I see photographers embracing lens flares. I don't know if this is an across-the-board trend/fad/whatever, encompassing portraiture, nature, et al, or it's limited in its scope to pretty girl pics. For the most part (and for some odd reason) I find myself mostly viewing photos of pretty women. Certainly more often than admiring, as an example, well-executed landscape images. But maybe that's just me?

There's nothing new, of course, about seeking lens flares rather than avoiding them. The trick, of course, is capturing the perfect lens flare and in ways where the flare adds an interesting creative touch without ruining the intent of the photo. I see some photographers making terrific use of lens flares. Others make ugly, bad use of them. Course, who am I to judge? Just because I think one use of a lens flare adds to an image while another subtracts from it really doesn't matter. It's a subjective call. It's simply my opinion and we all know what opinions are like.

I'm not convinced everyone who posts an image with a lens flare -- good, bad or otherwise -- purposely captured the lens flare. Sometimes, I'm guessing the lens flare was unintended and unnoticed when the image was captured. Later, while processing the images, the photographer noticed the flare and thought, "Gee. That's looks kinda cool. I think I'll keep it."

I've shot both kinds of lens flares: Intended and unintended. Heck, there's been times I've taken advantage of a third kind of flare by adding a faux-flare in post. I'll also admit to liking some of my unintended lens flares and, later, when others expressed some kind words about the image, neglecting to tell them, "Well, you see, I actually fucked up and didn't notice the flare when I was shooting but, later on, I thought it was pretty cool so I went with it."

None of this is to infer that shooters who post flare-adorned photos are all capturing unintended flare-adorned photos. Some photographers go out of their way to capture the perfect flare and some of them do it near perfectly.

In my e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography, I mentioned an old Egyptian proverb a few times: A beautiful thing is never perfect. I wrote a fair number of words discussing that notion as it applies to portrait photography. Some photo-purists act as if lens flares almost always represent unwanted imperfections in the technical quality of a photo and, often enough, I suppose it's true that they do. Obviously, those folks aren't aware of that bit of Egyptian wisdom I just mentioned here and in my e-book, especially when they seem to label most all photos which include a lens flare as being imperfect... and not in a good way.

The key to great lens flares, of course, isn't so much about the technical aspects of the flares themselves (although, to some extent, it is) but whether the flare helps make for a better image or if it detracts from what could have been a good image. As with many of a photo's elements, that's a personal and subjective call.

It's a bit hard to teach someone to have a good sense of artistic aesthetics. For many people, they either have it or they don't. That's not to say shooters can't increase the likelihood of their artistic judgment being effective. To do that, they probably need to spend some time learning what works and what doesn't and why: Viewing the work of photographers whose images are generally considered to possess terrific artistic elements will help photographers learn what works and what doesn't. Reading about why one thing generally works and another doesn't is also helpful. Feedback from your images' viewers should also help hone one's artistic sensibilities, assuming you try to learn from the feedback rather than simply gloating over it when it's good or getting defensive about it when it's less than positive.

Back to lens flares: In my opinion, lens flares, at a minimum, work well as often as they don't. The intent of a photo should dictate when and how a shooter might use effects like lens flares. Since all the photos you snap don't have, as their primary purpose or intent, a requirement that says you must always showcase, in quite obvious ways, your artistic sensibilities, there are many photos, especially in portraiture, where including a lens flare might not serve the photo well. While it might make you feel all artsy, you feeling all artsy doesn't always make for a photo that meets or exceeds the intent of all your images.

As I sometimes do, I'm brain-farting on the name of the model I'm featuring with this update. Also, my apologies for posting a pic which doesn't include a lens flare; intended, unintended, or faux. I wanted to post a lens-flare adorned image (even though I don't shoot them too often) but that would mean rummaging through a bunch of hard drives and folders to find one that's suitable. I'm simply feeling a bit too lazy to do that at the moment.

Nothing Trumps Consistency

2011-12-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

I'm sometimes asked what I think is the most important characteristic of good glamour photographers. My answer is always the same: Consistency. If anything sets glam shooters, if not all photographers, apart it's their ability to consistently produce good images.

Notice I didn't say anything about amazing photos? That's because very few photographers, pro or hobbyist, consistently produce amazing photos. (Not Facebook user-dubbed amazing photos but truly amazing photos.)

Sometimes, I get hired because of a single image I've snapped. Usually, that's because whoever is doing the hiring thinks the photo at the heart of their hiring decision is something akin to an amazing photo. They might think that for all kinds of different reasons. Whether the photo truly is an amazing photo or not -- it's often not, leastwise in my estimation -- doesn't really matter much. What matters is the person hiring me thinks it is.

Most often, I'm hired by reputation. My reputation influences many different sorts of clients: Those I've worked for previously as well as potential clients who might be new to me. They hire me, for the most part, because of things like who I know, my ability to get along with others, my work ethics, and the fact that they either know or have been told I can consistently produce good images... not most of the time, but every time. That's not to say, of course, that every photo I snap is a good photo. It's only to say that there's always enough good photos amongst those I do snap to satisfy the needs of my clients. Sometimes, it only requires me to produce one, good, exceptional image. Other times, about twenty good images. If I had to consistently produce truly amazing photos, whether it be one image or twenty, I wouldn't get much work. Very few people would.

There are many facets to consistently producing good images. All of them include the word "consistently." For instance, when I'm shooting I consistently try to get along with others. I consistently apply the same work ethics to every gig, big or small, well-paid or not so well-paid. I consistently do my best to snap good photos. I consistently apply the same knowledge, skills, and techniques; that is, I don't experiment on my client's dime.

I see some photographers who are constantly trying out new things and new ways to photograph those in front of their cameras. I'm guessing they do so in their quest to shoot an amazing photo. Nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, it's usually a good thing. Sometimes, a very good thing. Everyone should be pushing their own envelopes, shooting outside their personal boxes, trying new ways of doing things outside of their comfort zones, and moving forward, ever expanding their photo-snapping horizons.

But here's a caveat of sorts, actually two of them: Don't attempt expanding your horizons on your client's time and dimes, and do spend enough time working and practicing at becoming consistently competent when shooting one way before you move on to shooting in other ways. Otherwise, there's a good chance you'll remain a jack of all shooting styles and techniques and a master of none.

The pretty girl at the top is Vanessa, snapped in the backyard of a location house up in the Hollywood Hills some time back. I used one, large umbrella, probably a four-footer, and let the sun do the rest.

Steps Can Be Misleading

2011-12-01T13:55:00.001-08:00

I regularly see posts, articles, and other sorts of advice provided in a multi-step format. It seems to me that breaking things down into steps somehow infers near-guaranteed results will result from following the steps listed. Steps might contain five steps to accomplish this or ten steps to get you to that. Five-step advice and ten-step advice seems the most popular number of steps to break things into, step-wise. Three-step advice probably comes in third... naturally.

Generally, and regardless of the number of steps provided, the stepped advice I most regularly see all cover the same subjects over and over: Better exposure, better lighting, better composition. The steps all, we're told, equal better photographs. But the question remains: Better than what? Better than photos that suck? Better than photos that look amateurish or were shot by a 5 year old? I should hope so. From those perspectives, steps help... possibly a lot!

There's nothing inherently wrong with breaking things down into steps. They often accomplish (to varying degrees) the results they claim. But breaking advice down into steps, in my opinion, isn't generally conducive to realizing distinctive photography. Same holds true for most other art forms. While "sorta" nice paintings (sorta not, actually) can result from paint-by-number kits, paint-by-number kits don't produce outstanding paintings. Same holds true for photography. Shooting by the numbers doesn't produce an abundance of distinctive work. If anything, it produces an abundance of work that mostly looks the same. I'm certainly often guilty of doing that. But I do it on purpose. I get paid to produce an abundance of work that mostly looks the same. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

Most of you have probably seen many of these steps regularly offered up. Interestingly, I keep seeing the same steps listed by a multitude of different step providers. Sometimes, the various step-providers alter the order of their versions of the steps. They do that, of course, when the steps don't need to be connected in a chronological or particularly orderly fashion. I suppose that's why many purveyors of steps prefer stand-alone steps: Mixing up the order of the steps helps make the step-providers look like their steps are original or unique. Leastwise, I assume that's why step-providers often change the order of the steps they list.

Personally, while I appreciate receiving advice, good advice, I take some issue with calling them "steps." I know it sounds like I'm complaining about semantics here, and I guess I am, but semantics are important to me. Semantics are all about meaning. Words like "steps" infers a guarantee: If you follow these steps, success is guaranteed. That's what steps sorta mean.

While most of the stepped advice I see includes relevant and factual information, there aren't any guaranteed steps to great photos. Much like joining a 12-Step program doesn't guarantee someone will become or remain sober, following various photographic steps doesn't guarantee you'll become a good photographer or produce great photos. Generally, the steps offered are steps in the right direction but they're not guaranteed steps to success as they seem to infer. Good photography is a result of much more than following simple, recipe-like, steps.

Take things like lighting and composition . The steps someone might provide, while probably being good steps, aren't guaranteed steps to great composition and lighting. The best they might be are guaranteed steps to varying levels of competent lighting and composition. Nothing wrong with competent. But transcending merely competent photography is, I assume, something most photographers aspire to.

Sure, I can give advice, make suggestions, offer tips, and try to point people in the right directions. But advice, tips, and suggestions aren't bullet-proof. They include plenty of gray area not covered in any of the steps I, or anyone else, might offer. Advice, tips, and suggestions are soft and flexible. They're subjective. They're neither hard nor fast and they're certainly not guaranteed to always work. leastwise not in exceptional ways. While advice, tips, and suggestions might be worthwhile, they don't, by their labels, infer guarantees. Following steps, on the other hand, seems to claim following the steps are guaranteed ways to get to wherever the steps lead. Unfortunately, they don't. Not always.

Those who rigidly follow exact steps or photographic recipes are likely to capture plenty of competent, although mediocre and pedestrian, photos. Yes, following steps and recipes can be great ways to begin learning. And, they'll occasionally produce awesome photos. They also might produce technically perfect photos. But technically perfect photos, while being technically perfect, can easily be boring as hell. Following steps and recipes are good ways to begin one's photography education, but to continue unwaveringly sticking to them, once a certain level of competency is achieved, doesn't lead photographers further up the stairway to photo heaven.

Photographers often love bandying about notions like shooting, "outside the box." I sometimes do so myself. Unfortunately, there are no steps to shooting really cool, "outside the box" photographs. If there were, I suppose those photos wouldn't enjoy having an "outside the box" status.

I think the multi-step advice spread around by photographers to photographers should be labeled in ways that better reflect what they actually are: Ideas, suggestions, tips, and advice. That way, it doesn't sound like they include guarantees. Again, I know I'm arguing semantics, and possibly trivialities as well, but meaning (for that's what semantics are all about) is important to me. Meaning, in my opinion, is not trivial.

Okay. I'm off my "semantics" soap box. The pretty girl at the top is Cytherea. I went a tad "artsy" with this one which meant my client (not the model) hated it. (Click to enlarge.)

For Whom the Camera Loves

2011-11-28T20:01:00.000-08:00

I'm often amazed at the truth contained in the often-heard statement, "the camera loves her." I've shown up on sets and been introduced, for the first time, to a model I'm about to shoot and thought, "she's hot but nothing special." A bit later, when the model who failed to elicit an overly positive response in my head is in front of my camera and, after taking a few shots and chimping the results, I've then thought, "Wow! The camera really loves her!"

There's no absolute way to figure who the camera might love and who it might not love. The term "photogenic" is used to describe people who photograph well. Some photographers claim they can spot "photogenic" with their eyes. I can't. I doubt they can either. Not really. Not with nearly-guaranteed accuracy. It usually requires snapping a few and viewing the results before I apply the word, "photogenic" to someone.

I've shot women who, in real life, were absolutely stunning head-turners. Tens! Put them in front of the camera and, while they're still hot, they just don't photograph like the dream dolls they are in person. For whatever reasons, ten drops to eight in the photos. Sometimes, less.

Often enough, the opposite is true. A model who fails, at least in my opinion, to project a head-turning aura in person, who might even appear somewhat plain and rather average, (let's call her a seven) lights up in front of the camera and looks like the most beautiful, sexy, alluring woman on the planet. Course, things like makeup and hair and more effect that, often in huge ways. But the same makeup and hair and more on the already stunning dream-doll doesn't produce the same effects in the photos or prevent their real-life "ten" status from dropping a few digits. Go figure.

I'm not going to name names. There are a few models I've shot who occasionally read this blog. I'm not going risk the off-chance that one of them, that is, one who might fall into either category I mentioned above, especially the first category, is reading this. Next thing you know I'm getting a nasty email or phone call or they're bad mouthing me to people who might be clients. Plus, I don't roll that way. I don't like hurting people's feelings or bruising their egos. (Unless they deserve it.) So don't ask cuz I'm not gonna tell.

There was a time I chalked up "the camera loves her" concept to things like facial bone structure, neck length, body shape, and those sorts of things. I gave up on that theory a long time ago. Now, my theory is that whatever that thing is that makes the camera love one person more than others isn't a concrete and steadfast thing. It can be many things. A combination of things. An infinite combination of things. Plus, I think you have to add some ethereal aspects to it. People say true beauty comes from within. Usually, they're not referring to physical beauty when they say that. And they're right. There are many kinds of beauty which come from within. But I also think there is something that comes from within that does impact physical beauty and the camera sees it and records it. I wish I could suck whatever that is out of every model I photograph.

The gratuitous pretty girl at the top is Penthouse Pet, Celeste Star.(Click to enlarge.)

A 4.5' Seamless?

2011-11-21T12:51:00.000-08:00

I'm going to be shooting some stuff off-and-on over the next few weeks for a client who is also a good friend. He's the producer of the project although, normally, he's not a producer. I'm helping him with some things that he's not overly familiar with. It's not that he hasn't been around productions before. He has. I'm just making sure he doesn't overlook things. When people show up on a set is not the best time to discover what's been overlooked.

I'll be shooting the stills in the garage of a location house. I've already been to this house so I know what it looks like. It has a two-car garage but not a very large 2-car garage. Plus, there's lots of boxes and other crap stacked against all the walls of the not-especially-large garage. My friend wants the pretty girl stills shot on a seamless. "Great!" I told him. "That makes things easier for me."

I asked my pal to ask his art guy if he wants me to use a standard white seamless or something else; some other color, that is. I'd prefer gray and asked my friend to mention gray but the art guy, as expected, said white. No problem. I can do white. After all, I've only done white about a bazillion freakin' times.

It's a small production so my friend, the producer, is also the production manager, production assistant, occasional gopher, and more. My friend is also in possession of the production funds and will be cutting the checks. That still makes him the boss regardless of what other production tasks he might choose to perform in order to keep costs down.

My buddy asked me where he should go to get the seamless. I directed him to a local camera store: One I know carries a good supply of seamless rolls. "Do they come in different sizes?" he asked. "If so, what size should I get?"

I told my friend to get the smaller width, not the 9' width, because the garage we'll be shooting in is kind of cramped. I could fit a 9' in there but then my lights would have to be on the seamless and I'd be dealing with light from my rear accent lights bleeding onto the background. I can certainly deal with that but I'd prefer not to have to.

Somehow, I thought the smaller width rolls were 5' or 6' wide. I was wrong. They're 4.5' wide. I've never shot with a seamless BG other than with the 9' rolls. Not once. Ever.

At first I thought this might be a bit of a hassle. But then I thought, "Why do I care if my shots are wider than the seamless?" After all, when putting together the art work, the art guy is going to cut the models out of the shots anyway. All I'll have to do is keep the model, including her arms and legs, inside the width of the seamless and not worry about seeing the seamless (or the stands holding it up) in my frames. Plus, the majority of my shots will be 3/4 body shots so that helps too. The garage doesn't have a finished ceiling but, like most garages, it has rafters and they are only just over 8' high. I'd prefer more height but I'll deal with the height issue easily enough. Being adaptable is key to any photographer's abilities to get the shot.

Anyway, not much of an update. Just talking about something new. Leastwise, for me it's new... shooting with a 4.5' wide seamless, that is.

Model at the top is Charlotte. She isn't particularly small, the chair is particularly large.

Are You Fluent in Lighting?

2011-11-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

I read a short article today in which the writer wonders why so many photographers seem to fear shadows. He calls it being "shadowphobic." He believes much of today's photography has become mundane because of this near-universal outbreak of shadowphobia.

The writer takes aim at all kinds of photography, from portraiture to HDR and it's ability, through multiple exposures of the same image, for capturing a dynamic range which allows us to see "...every single pixel in every single shadow."

Regarding HDR, I'm not an HDR photographer nor am I a particularly big fan of the technique. I've seen some HDR images that are very cool. I've seen plenty that are not so cool. Personally, I've never attempted HDR. It's not that I'm down on HDR. It's cool when it's cool. It just doesn't much interest me. That might have something to do with me being a portrait photographer and HDR's fairly narrow and limited use for most portrait shooting.

So, let's get back to this shadow thing and photographers being "shadowphobic," as the writer of the article contends: First off, I'm not sure it's a fair assessment to say many shooters have shadowphobias. What I do think is going on is that many photographers, especially newer photographers, shy away from shadows because they're not yet fluent in lighting.

The language of lighting is one which nearly all people, photographers or not, naturally understand. Far fewer people, however, know how to speak with lighting. Lighting fluency doesn't automatically happen. Just because we naturally understand the language of lighting doesn't mean we naturally know how to speak with it. Hey! It takes time to learn to speak with light! It takes time and study and practice. A lot of practice!

Many photographers seem to think that finding or creating beautiful light (whatever that is) is the goal. For me, beautiful light covers such a broad spectrum of lighting. Beautiful light can be soft and creamy. It can also be harsh and specular. Beauty, as they say, is in the minds of the beholders. When I'm looking to create or take advantage of beautiful light, it's the intent of the image and the context of the emotions and attitudes of my subjects which makes me decide what kind of light is most beautiful for any given photo. There are times, of course, when I let whatever type of beautiful light that's available, via the natural or environmental light that's present, dictate the emotions and the attitudes I direct my models to project.

Low-key lighting employing a heavy dose of shadows, for example, says one thing to viewers while high-key lighting, nearly void of shadows, says something entirely different. Viewers naturally understand what's being said whether they're able to verbalize their understanding or not. The more fluent in lighting a photographer becomes, the easier it is for viewers to understand what's being said with the lighting the shooter employed or took advantage of. (When such lighting is naturally present.)

You see, the language of lighting doesn't speak with words, it speaks with emotions and feeling. If the writer of the article I read is correct, i.e., he's correct about so much of today's photography being mundane, it's not necessarily because photographers have become shadowphobic. It's more because photographers don't work hard enough at becoming light-fluent. (As well as fluent in the other languages used in photography.) Consequently, many images end up being short on feeling and emotion. Sometimes, even when the subject is projecting plenty of feeling and emotion! That, above all else, is what makes many photographs mundane, certainly in most any kind of portraiture.

If you want to learn more about becoming fluent in lighting and in the other "languages" used by photographers, my e-books, Guerrilla Glamour, Guerrilla Headshots, and Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography all include much in the way of helping you learn to become fluent in the many ways photographers communicate with their imagery. My books might not be the "Rosetta Stone" of photography's many languages but, in more than a few ways, they try to be.

Sorry for the shameless plug.

The pretty girl at the top is my friend, Kori. (Click to enlarge, right-click and open for an even larger pic.) I snapped it in my studio a while back. (When I still had a studio.) As cliche as boas are, I had a white one and a black one I had picked up at an estate sale. They were probably from the 1940s, possibly earlier. The feathers were real, unlike many boas you find these days. I thought they were kinda cool -- I'm into vintage stuff, tho not necessarily vintage chick stuff -- so I bought them and decided to use them a couple of times... as cliche as they might be.

So, What Are Highlights? Chopped Liver?

2011-11-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

Syl Arena, photographer, author, blogger, and guy with curly, red, Art Garfunkel-ish hair says: “If you want to create interesting light, you have to create interesting shadows. So, look at the light and think about the shadows.” If you don't know who Art Garfunkel is, think Larry from the Three Stooges when envisioning Arena's red hair. BTW, I'm not saying Syl is stooge-like. I'm just providing a visual reference point.

I think Syl is a terrific photographer. He's also a witty and entertaining writer and blogger. But I can't completely agree with Señor Arena on this one. While shadows can play an incredibly important part in making interesting photos, I don't feel I have to create interesting shadows to make interesting light. Highlights can be equally important in creating interesting light. Sometimes, they do more than simply creating interesting light. Certainly, when it comes to glamour photography. When shooting glam, highlights are often more important than shadows.

When I'm shooting beautiful and sexy women for glam and tease shots, I always pay attention to shadows. Sometimes, I even go out of my way to create cool shadows, especially if I'm going for mood and drama with my pics. More often than not, however, I'm paying more attention to the highlights. Highlights can create every bit as much interest in a photo as shadows might create. They also can say as much about a photographer's skillful use of light as shadows do.

We all know the brightest parts of a photo draws viewers' eyes and tend to grab their attention. Often, highlights are some of the brightest parts of a photo. That's why I don't simply use highlights to edge a model (i.e., to pop her or separate her from the background) or to add generic visual interest, I also use them to draw viewers' eyes to parts of the model that are important in terms of glamour and tease shots. Granted, some of those body parts I might highlight are, on their own, parts of the model which will automatically draw viewers' attention. Especially when the viewers are guys. (Yeah, you know what parts I'm talking about.) Still, I think it's generally effective to further highlight those obvious attention-grabbing parts of a female model's anatomy.

For me, the use of highlights, just like shadows, are equally important techniques I might utilize to make almost any photo more visually appealing. As photographers, shadows can be your friends. Sometimes, your best friends. But highlights ain't exactly chopped liver.

BTW, if you want to know where and when you can learn more about Syl Arena's take on the importance of shadows for creating interesting light, CLICK HERE. (Pssst... Don't tell B&H you heard about this from me. Those B&H folks have big "issues" with blogs that feature scantily-clad and/or naked models. That's why they 86'd me from being one of their sales affiliates. )

The sexy girl at the top is Rebecca. It was an interesting shoot as Rebecca didn't speak much English and I don't speak much Spanish. I used a lot of improvisational sign language and pantomime to direct her. You should'a seen me demonstrating that pose she's striking in the pic. Talk about comedy!

I think the pic is a decent example of using both shadow *and* highlight to enhance visual interest and create interesting lighting. Course, the fact that Rebecca is a hottie and wearing very little also helps the visual interest. BTW, the photo is not a natural-light, window-lit, shot. Except for some ambient daylight courtesy of an overhead skylight, the lighting is artificial.

What Came Before

2011-11-15T13:49:00.000-08:00

A Midwest friend of mine gave a presentation at a local photography workshop the other day. The workshop was focused on shooting models: glamour, fashion, and more. Prior to his presentation, he had emailed me his fairly detailed outline covering the topics he was planning to speak about. For the most part, it was Photography 101.

"What level of photographers will be there?" I asked after having a look at his outline.

"Mostly beginners and novices and maybe a few intermediates," he said.

I made a couple of suggestions, mostly that he shit-can those parts of his outline which, I thought, seemed to get into way too much minutiae. (Think stuff like Ansel Adams' Zone System and more.) Anyway, my suggestions weren't anything major. Overall, it was a very well thought-out outline.

My friend tells me his presentation went very well. He had also prepared some hand-outs to go along with his words. In the handouts, he listed some suggested reading material. He was nice enough to include my e-books in his suggestions. One of the attendees mentioned he had already purchased my book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography. The person told my friend (who then told me) that he had printed the e-book out and that he liked it so much he read it twice. Twice! That's the kind of compliment all writers love hearing!

During my friend's presentation, he mentioned a few iconic photographers. Specifically, photographers noted for their pictures of women. George Hurrel and Helmut Newton were two he mentioned. To my friend's surprise (and to mine as well after he told me about this) not a single photographer in the room had ever heard of Hurrel or Newton.

Wow. Just wow.

"And these were a bunch of new-ish, but serious, photographers hoping to learn about pretty girl shooting?" I asked.

"Yep," my friend told me.

Throughout most of my childhood, I spent a lot of time living and breathing baseball. (Much like so many other boys.) Each year, I could hardly wait till baseball season arrived because it meant two things: 1) I would be playing on a youth team and, later, on a high school age team and 2) my beloved New York Yankees would return to the field wreaking some serious havoc in the American League and, hopefully, come the Fall, in the series.

Almost as soon as I began my love affair with baseball, I realized I wanted to know everything about it. Not just how to play the game, but it's history and more. Sure, players I idolized -- players like Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Roger Maris and more -- were in the current line-ups. But I also wanted to know about many of baseball's greats. Especially, of course, Yankee greats. From Ruth to Gehrig to DiMaggio and more, I soaked up all I could about my new-found heroes from baseball's past. I'm not just talking about stats and the records they achieved. I also wanted to learn how the greats played the game. You see, even at a young age I came to understand the importance of learning something about, make that a lot about, what came before in baseball; including whatever I could learn about how the greatest players became so great. (Through their skills and abilities and more, that is.)

Baseball may be worlds apart from photography but the importance of studying and trying to learn from those who came before is as true for photography as it is for baseball. For those of you who are serious about your photography, it's not enough to simply learn the "how-to" steps to better pictures. It's not enough to learn why you should do certain things or when you should do them. It's equally important to learn from, and study, what came before. And the best way to do that is to study the work of the greatest photographers who came before. Certainly, those of them who are well-known for shooting whatever it is, whatever genres, you might be most interested in shooting.

I'm not saying your work should mimic the work of those who came before. (Although there's lots to learn from attempting to do so.) But there's nothing wrong with letting that work influence your work. In fact, I doubt you can avoid having it do so. Besides, your work is probably already influenced by the work of others whether you realize it or not. And don't feel like that's a bad thing. It's not! It never has been. Much of the history of great art, from painting to sculpture to music to literature and, yes, even to photography, is built on artists being influenced, often heavily influenced, by other artists who came before them.

The pretty girl at the top goes by the name Ash. (Click pic to enlarge it. Right-click and open to enlarge it even more.) Obviously, it's a high-key shot. I used a 46" Photek Softliter for my main with a Lumopro Lite Panel for fill. I also used a couple of small, shoot-thru umbrellas, either side from behind, for highlights.

Capturing Motion With Motion

2011-11-11T14:30:00.000-08:00

Photographer Vincent Versace once said, "A still photograph is called a still photograph because the picture doesn’t move, not because the objects in the pictures are not in motion.” Versace added, “The photographer's mission, should he decide to accept it, is to capture motion with stillness."

Conversely, photographers shooting video need to adapt to capturing motion with motion when shooting video. I know it sounds simple, even similar. And, in many ways, it is. But in many other ways it's not.

With all their similarities, even if you're using the same camera to capture stills and/or video, the two are as different as they are the same.

I wrote a bit about the differences and similarities between still picture production and motion picture production in my latest e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography. I didn't write about them in the "how-to" sort of way. The book isn't a "how-to" book. Instead, I discussed them in more aesthetic ways. There's plenty of "how" available on the subject. There's somewhat less regarding "why?"

While it might seem a book about portrait photography is an unlikely place to include anything about shooting video, the recent convergence of stills and video obliged me to do so. Fortunately, I've been shooting video since the late 70s. That's about as long as I've been a photographer; a paid photographer, that is. My video shooting experiences have also been, for the most part, paid experiences. So, I felt I have enough professional background in both photography and videography to write about both and to compare the two.

In one of the chapters of my e-book, a chapter titled, "Good Photography Speaks With Silence," I related an experience I had working with an accomplished photographer. He was a guy (now deceased, RIP) who had spent many years as a staff photographer for a quite famous magazine aimed, principally, at men. It was his first time trying his hand at shooting video. He did so employing the same sort of beautiful and sexy women he had photographed for print. I was editing the project for him.

When we first began in the editing room, he was quite proud of the way he lit and composed his models. He lit and composed them much the same way he had lit and composed so many models before. He was all smiles when we first began viewing the clips... until the models moved.

Somehow, I think he half-expected the same beautiful lighting he worked hard to create and the artful composition he used to initially frame his models would magically follow them as they moved about his set. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. He asked if I thought, once some sexy music was added to the sound track, it would make up for the failure of his lighting and photographic composition to follow his models around. He wasn't heartened by my answer. I don't want to sound like the man was stupid or that he had unreal expectations. Neither was true. There were simply too many variables he didn't take into account due to his inexperience shooting video versus his experience shooting stills. His sharp eye for detail, razor sharp from working so many years as a photographer, meant he began noticing the problems almost instantly even though it was his first time shooting video.

Making a successful transition from stills to video isn't simply about making changes to lighting and the way you compose your frames. Obviously, those things will also have to change in some ways but there's a lot more to it than that. If you hope to be successful making the stills-to-video transition, you're going to have to go back to school. I'm not necessarily talking about attending an actual school, but you're going to have to school yourselves, or get schooled, in the many differences between shooting kick-ass photos and shooting kick-ass video.

Shooting stills includes much about learning to capture motion with stillness. Shooting video includes much about learning to capture motion with motion. Some, make that more than a few, of the same skills apply. But you're going to need to learn new skills you've likely never used before when you're shooting video. Leastwise, if you want to do it well.

The pretty girl at the top is Jenna. (Click it to enlarge it.) I snapped it in a studio in North Hollywood. Used three lights: 5' Photoflex Octa for my main. Couple of strips boxes, either side, for some edge lighting. I probably had a reflector also in use. I often do to provide a bit of fill.

Knowledge is Power

2011-11-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

The famous English author and philosopher, Sir Francis Bacon, coined the term, "Knowledge is power." Sir Francis wasn't a photographer. Hell, there were no photographers back in the 16th century. Photography had yet to exist. But Sir Francis' phrase is well applied to the art and science of snapping photos.

Try as modern cameras might, and no matter how automated they become, powerful photography will remain a product of knowledge, not gear.

Sure, there are other factors beyond knowledge. Stuff like creativity and imagination are critical components to powerful photography. And yes, the right gear often goes a long way towards creating photos which resonate in powerful ways with viewers. But knowledge remains, as always, the primary key to powerful photographs.

I don't care how creative someone might be. I don't care how high-end their gear might be. If they don't have the knowledge to transform their creative visions with that gear, the photos they're hoping to create will not result unless Lady Luck smiles on them. Personally, I've never counted on Lady Luck to help me make my photographs.

More than a few people, that is, those who call themselves photographers these days, seem to count heavily on gear and luck to achieve good, if not great, photos. I don't really blame those folks. Equipment manufacturers and their marketing teams have been working overtime to convince the masses that good photography is a product of gear, their gear, rather than knowledge. A more recent term, certainly much more recent than Sir Francis Bacon's "Knowledge is power" quip, is "no brainer."

I don't know about any of you but, when it comes to my photography, I prefer not to think that what I'm doing is no brainer. I'm fairly proud of my brain. I don't know what I'd do without it. The term, "no brainer," seems to infer I don't need my brain. When it comes to things like photography and my ability to use and apply my brain, not merely some camera's computer chip, is something I take pride in. And what would my brain be without knowledge? Not much more than a computer chip regulating the functions of my body.

It's the knowledge packed in my brain which allows me to use my brain in photographically creative ways. If photographers don't need knowledge packed into their brains, everyone and anyone could be a photographer. I think, in fact, we've been seeing more than a little of that these days.

While it's true anyone can snap a picture, even a baby if their finger finds itself pressed to a shutter button, snapping terrific pictures requires brains loaded with some amount of photographic knowledge stored in them. Unfortunately, these days, there's plenty of people calling themselves photographers -- worse yet, some of them calling themselves professional photographers -- who are seriously lacking in much actual knowledge of photography. Instead, they count on no brainer gear and, I guess, luck and/or dim clients to achieve the results they're hoping for.

My advice? Anyone serious about photography should seriously strive to pack as much photography knowledge into their brains as possible. I'm not talking about knowledge resulting from questions like, "What's the best camera or lens?" I'm talking about knowledge that goes way beyond that: The kind of knowledge that serves photographers in ways that consistently helps them shoot terrific pics even if they might be using the worst camera or lens... if that makes sense.

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge makes better photographs.

Knowledge makes the photographer; gear doesn't.

The gratuitous, freckle-faced eye candy at the top is Faye. (Click it to enlarge.) I snapped this one in some sort of procedure room just down the hall from the old morgue in the basement of an abandoned hospital in East Los Angeles. It was kind of creepy down there. Snapped it with my Canon 5D w/ a 24-105 f/4 L mounted and zoomed in to 70mm . Shot at ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 100th. I used three lights: Main light modified with a Photoflex 5' Octa and a couple of kickers, either side, using small shoot-thru umbrellas. The shiny tiled wall made controlling specular reflections on it a bit tough but, you know, knowledge stored in my brain helped me out a bit in doing so.

How Well Does Your Photographic Memory Lie?

2011-11-06T09:41:00.000-08:00

Some people claim to have photographic memories. I'm often amused by this statement. As a photographer, I'm well aware that photographs lie. If photographs lie and routinely misrepresent the truth, why should photographic memories be trusted?

Photographer David LaChapelle once said, "People say photographs don't lie. Mine do." I'm happy to say mine do too. I totally endorse LaChappelle's words. Personally, I have no problem, none whatsoever, admitting to the lies, deceit, exaggerations and misrepresentations of the truth contained in most of my photography. While I'm not a surrealist photographer like LaChappelle is -- most of us probably aren't-- I still used LaChapelle's simple yet insightful words as one of my chapter headings for my latest e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography.

The freedom to lie with our photography, especially glamour and other forms of portraiture, is probably the single most important aspect of our work. Lies enables us to make photographs that are more memorable: Portraits that resonate with viewers in the ways we intend them. Lies might not be a positive trait for people in general but, in many areas of photography and for many photographers, it is. It's a very important and positive trait. In fact, I'd say it's a required trait.

When it comes to glamour, fashion, beauty, and other types of portrait photography, as well as more than a few other genres, the better a photograph lies, the better the photograph. I'm not talking, for the most part, about big whopping lies. (Although big whopping lies can sometimes be effective and work well too.) Big whopping lies don't usually make for portraits that achieve the photograph's intent. Rather, I'm talking about small lies and exaggerations of the truth; the lies in a photograph which are often lies of omission. After all, in photographs we don't see the whole picture. We only see a limited, rectangular or square view or portion of the big picture. As photographers, we let others see only what we want them to see and in ways we want them to see it. What we want others to see includes all kinds of lies of omission and exaggerations or misrepresentations of the truth. I wrote a fair amount about this in Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography.

Besides saying someone has a photographic memory, photographic memories are also words used to describe photography itself. Kodak built most of it's marketing strategies on the idea of photographs being the tangible equivalents to memories. A photograph is, after all, a remembrance of a time already gone: A picture reflecting a tiny fraction of a second depicting some past moment. With photography, we both document and re-create the past while photographing in the present. This might all sound very philosophical but, I think, good photographers should, besides being creative and skillful, be philosophical about photography. Being that way helps us better understand what we're doing, as well as becoming more effective and accomplished whenever we raise cameras to our eyes.

The pretty girl at the top is my friend Jamie from a few years back. Jamie wasn't really pursuing modeling as a career of any sort. She just enjoyed getting in front of the camera occasionally. I love having attractive women like that as friends! I was playing around with some yellow and red gels and snapped this one of Jaimie straddling my pal, Rick's, orange Kawasaki.

Choosing Who You Learn From

2011-11-02T21:05:00.001-07:00

A few years ago, I allowed myself to get sucked into a rather heated debate in a Model Mayhem forum. It quickly became me versus some arrogant asshole of a commercial photographer from Chicago. I don't remember his name so, if you're curious, I can't provide it. (Not that I would anyway.) Besides, I can't remember half the names of the gorgeous models I've shot, I'm certainly not going to remember some jerk's name from an internet forum. He was, as I recall, a very active, long-time, MM member. His photography, I'll readily admit, was quite good and he was looked up to by many other photographers on that site.

The thread had to do with the (then) current state of professional photography from the perspective of career opportunities for photographers-- both new photographers and already established photographers. My position was the industry was shrinking rapidly and there were fewer opportunities than in recent memory. Leastwise, regarding more than a few photo genres. His basic position, since it seemed he had not yet felt a decline in his personal workload, was that the problems, if any, were the photographers themselves: Those having problems getting work simply didn't have the chops to be pros, regardless of skill or ability.

According to him, there were as many opportunities as ever for commercial photographers, editorial photographers, fashion, beauty, and glam shooters, and others. Also, according to him, it didn't much matter if there were many more photographers competing and vying for the work that was available. "The cream always rises to the top!" he announced. He then added something about photographers whose work wasn't cream-like should pursue other careers because those people were, rightfully, shit out of luck.

I don't know about any of you but I've seem more than a little less-than-creamy work coming from some very successful and continually working photographers. I've also seen some absolutely stellar work from photographers who couldn't manage to get themselves hired to sweep out a photo-booth at a kid's arcade.

Quickly, the Windy City photographer ran out of evidence to support his contentions. Mostly, because he had none. All he had to go on was what he was experiencing in his own, private little world of photography. At that point, he resorted to name-calling and trying to convince others that whatever I had to say had zero relevance due to the content of my work, i.e., because I mostly shoot glam and tease and naked women.

His change in approach backfired on him. Instead of scoring allies, even from those who were, up to that point, kind of agreeing with him, he ended up alienating himself from many of the photographers participating in the forum thread. (It was Model Mayhem, after all. A site mostly aimed at pretty girl shooters of all sorts.) Abruptly, the guy quit MM and canceled his long-time account. Personally, I didn't feel at all sorry for his sorry ass. He took the coward's way out in my opinion. Undoubtedly, he was once one of those kids who took his ball and went home when he didn't like something that took place in a game.

Flash forward and here we are: It's a few years later and it seems many opportunities for photographers have melted away faster than the ice caps. This, in spite of global-warming as well as today's "photography as a highly rewarding business is in deep Bandini" deniers. I guess both Mother Nature and today's realities of the photo-biz climate have a way of ignoring lies, bullshit, and denials.

Sure, if you're shooting weddings or families and events, or a few other genres, there's still work. Perhaps plenty of it. To score much of it, though, most photographers will have to seriously cut their asking prices. I'm not talking about everyone. I'm merely addressing about 80% or so of the folks pursuing photography as some sort of a career, myself included. There are still those doing quite well and charging hefty rates. I'm guessing those folks and/or their rates are also melting away, although that's purely speculative. I don't shoot those things.

On the other hand, it's been and continues to be an incredibly exciting time for hobbyists! All the advances in photo-technologies, from the gear to software to learning opportunities, have been and continue to be positively awesome! The learning curve has been dramatically flattened by many of those technologies and photographers with less and less real experience are often able to put out work that rivals people who have been doing the same sort of work for many years. Again, myself included.

There are a few things, however, I find curious. As you probably know, there are now plenty of successful and talented photographers writing how-to books and putting on workshops and seminars. Never before have so many novice photographers had so many opportunities to learn from the pros. Course, if you're wondering why so many successful pros are suddenly sharing their secrets, you only have to go back to my forum debate with the jerk from Chicago.

If you believe many of these successful shooters are suddenly rubbing elbows with all the newbies because they suddenly woke up one day feeling like they needed to become some sort of altruistic guru, you're wrong. A decline in available work has hit them hard as well. It's not that they have no work of the sort they spent most of their careers shooting. It's that a substantial amount of the available work they once relied on has also receded like the ice caps. And what work there is for them often pays less. Too often, significantly less.

As a result of all these newly-minted mentors and gurus, I have some advice: If you're seeking to learn from the well-known guys -- and this, in some ways, goes back to my previous post about vetting e-book authors -- you might want to, in specific ways, vet the photographers who have written the books or are hosting the workshops you plan to spend your money learning from. I'm not talking about vetting them in terms of their so-called sense of morality or other crap like that, as discussed in my previous update, but in terms of other qualifications: Their genre-specific qualifications.

Here's an example: Just because someone is a rather well-known nature photographer, it doesn't suddenly mean they know much about shooting portraiture-- glam, fashion, editorial, or other sub-genres. Sure, they know the gear. They also know something about lighting. And they know much of the technical stuff. But that's mostly all they know in terms of genres outside of what they normally shoot or have shot for most of their photo lives. Someone who is a successful and often published nature photographer probably knows little about working with and shooting models. Even if, believe it or not, they write a book or suddenly begin conducting workshops on the subject. I'm not naming names but I see more and more well-known photographers from other genres acting like they are experienced at shooting genres they, frankly, barely know squat about. (Not that they'll admit that.)

Yes, part of the reason I'm writing this update is self-serving. I am, besides being a long-time photographer, also a photography book writer. But I haven't written any books that don't specifically target the genres of photography I know best. Genres I've worked in for many, many years.

In the world of photography, my name is far from being a household word. But in the world of pretty girl photography, I've shot more models than most or that most will ever shoot: Literally, a few thousand of them. Certainly many, many, many more than most of the guys who have shot umpteen covers for Outdoor Photographer magazine. BTW, if you don't think many of my clients aren't as picky and as tough to please as the photo editors at Outdoor Photographer, you are sadly mistaken. That aside, I'm pretty sure after shooting so many beautiful and sexy women, and shooting them in so many ways in in so many places, I might know a thing or two about doing so. If I don't, I'm either a complete moron or I have a severe learning disability.

All I'm saying is if you're of a mind to learn, learn from those who know a lot about what it is you specifically want to learn, and not from those who know something else best but suddenly have proclaimed themselves, by words or actions, experts in areas of photography where, frankly, they barely know shit. And yes, I'm a bit annoyed with some of those folks. In my mind, they're simply trying to fool people, trading on their skills and notoriety in one area and trying to play them off like they really know what they're doing or talking about in another. I call bullshit on that! Just because someone is an expert in one type of photography, they're not experts in all types.

Ok. I feel better getting some of this stuff off my chest. If you want to learn something about shooting glamour and you're up for learning some of it from an e-book on the subject, I suggest you purchase my e-book, Guerrilla Glamour, or some other e-book authored by someone who has actually shot tons of glamour for a very long time. Someone who knows, from oodles of experience, WTF they're talking about. I'm not claiming I'm the only one who knows what they're talking about with glamour. I'm certainly not. I'm merely trying to share some straight-up and sensible advice for choosing who you might learn from for any specific type of photography.

It seems the model at the top whom I chose to accompany this lengthy ~~rant~~ update is one whose name I do remember: Paris. I shot Paris in my studio on a gray seamless with my 33.5" Mola "Euro" beauty dish for a main light and a couple of medium, Chimera strip boxes, either side from behind, to "edge" her and separate her from the background. There probably was also a white board reflector involved.

Vetting e-Book Authors

2011-11-01T11:24:00.000-07:00

I'm always on the prowl for potentially lucrative affiliates for my e-books. I'm not complaining about the sales of my e-books, I've done fairly well with them, but I know those sales could be much greater if I could get my books in front of more people. Web marketing is about reaching a big audience. Not just in terms of numbers of people, it needs to be a specifically targeted big audience. People don't buy things, potentially interested in them or not, that they're unaware of. D'uh, right?

Most of the time, when I send an email of inquiry to a potential affiliate -- someone or some site I believe could generate significant sales -- I'm ignored. I've spoken with other e-book authors and they say they regularly experience the same thing.

Just the other day, I sent an inquiry to a fairly well-known site that pimps more than a few e-books, books, and other photography training and education media. They wrote me back. (I did appreciate not being ignored, BTW.) But in their response they cited the content of one of my books, Guerrilla Glamour, as not being appropriate for some of their site's visitors and, because of that, they felt they must decline.

"No problem," I told them in a follow-up email. I have two other e-books, Guerrilla Headshots and Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography, and both of them are "G" rated and would be a perfect fit (and should be no problem) for anyone on their mailing list.

"Well," they told me, "The problem is we Googled your name and email address and a number of the "hits" were flagged by Google for content inappropriate for children and some others.

I politely responded that Disney produces "R-rated" movies (and has for some time) and that simple fact doesn't seem to effect the marketability and sales of their traditional "G-rated" children's fare. I'm sure there's a few people who began boycotting Disney once Walt's company got into the "R-rated" markets but I stress the words, "few people."

Although they admitted they could probably sell a ton of my "G" rated e-books to the tens of thousands of people on their mailing list, they still told me, "Thanks but no thanks." According to them, they didn't want to risk any of their people Googling me and discovering links with "content problems" attached to some of the results of such searches.

Obviously, their business is their business. They can choose to support or not support anyone they want and for any reason they deem appropriate. It's a free country, right? Well, it's sorta free, at least it used to be, but you get my drift.

I am, however, rather bemused that someone or some site might not support "G-rated" photography books because the author has written an "R-rated" photography book. I could name off any number of books authored by high-profile photographers which include plenty of not-for-kids or not-for-church-ladies content. Would they, the site I was going back and forth with, turn down a book by a successful contemporary photographer like Michael Grecco, as an example? How about one by an iconic fashion shooter like Helmut Newton? I'm certainly not putting myself in the company of those two great photographers in terms of their successes, but I think the comparison is still valid. Significant amounts of nude and/or erotic work are part of those two photographers' resumes.

I also question how many of a website's followers or subscribers would actually take the time to research an author on the chance he or she might have written other things or, in the case of photography, shot stuff that doesn't fit into their personal, tidy, moralistic view of what's right or wrong? I don't know about you, but when I purchase books, books of any sort, I don't do background checks on the authors. Authors don't need to be vetted for me to want to read their books or look at other work they may have done. For whatever reasons I might buy a book, any book, the author's personal sense of morality, supposedly represented by portions of their work or history, or his or her background isn't on any of my lists of reasons to buy or not to buy a book. Maybe I'm just unique that way? (Although I think not.)

The pretty girl at the top is one of my favorite models to work with, Faye Reagan. We were shooting in a loft in downtown L.A. I used the sunlight coming through the big bank of windows plus a reflector and an HMI to light her.

Who is Your Favorite Photographer?

2011-10-30T14:06:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, someone on FB, actually, someone who runs one of the many photography pages I "Like" on FB, asked, "Who is your favorite photographer?" I thought about it long and hard and it seems I don't have a favorite. Not one, individual, single favorite.

I do have favorite photographers, as in more than one. But their "favorite" status isn't necessarily etched in stone. For me, my faves tend to go in and out of most-favored status. There's also photographers who intrigue me for varying lengths of time, but those shooters may or may not make it to my personal fave list.

When I'm especially intrigued by an individual photographer, my intrigue might be for a contemporary photographer or for one who has come and gone. Photographers who intrigue me might be wildly popular and well-known or they may be much less so. It's enough for me that I discover or re-discover a photographer's work and that the work, for whatever reasons, fascinates me.

For the last week or so, I've found myself especially intrigued by the photography of Ralph Eugene Meatyard. Meatyard, you might know, was famous for using masks in his photography. Halloween, BTW, has nothing to do with my current fascination with Meatyard's work.

For me, it's not simply a matter of admiring or being intrigued by a given photographer's work. I always hope I'll learn something from his or her work and that it might inspire me in some ways. I never intend to mimic or clone a favorite or intriguing photographer's work. Rather, I hope I might be influenced, in positive ways, or that I might incorporate some aspects of that work, in big ways or in little ways, into my own work; be it visual aspects, emotional aspects, or in some other ways.

Personally, I think it's very important for photographers to spend as much time developing lists of favorite photographers or discovering photographers who might intrigue them in various ways -- and then studying and learning from those photographers -- as they do learning new skills or how to use different kinds of gear. It's all of those things -- learning new skills, honing them, and studying the work of others -- which ultimately comes together to define your work and your style.

As usual, I'm brain-farting on the model's name pictured above. (Click it to enlarge.) Hey! You try keeping track of all the names of as many models as I've shot. We're talking a lot of them! Maybe I should get myself a bottle of Gingko Biloba?

The Summer I Got Tall

2011-10-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

My really good pal, Lewis Adams, has written a book! It's titled, "The Summer I Got Tall," and it's available on Amazon. (It's a book, BTW, not an e-book although it's also electronically available for Kindle readers.)

This isn't a book about photography. It's a non-fiction, personal, roller-coaster ride through the less-seen back streets of one of society's most popular -- although not always admitted to being so popular -- and sordid industries. The book is poignant, heartfelt, and punctuated with plenty of humor! Did I mention yours truly is mentioned a few times on its entertaining pages?

If you thought you already knew something about some of the adult industry's famous (infamous?) smut peddlers -- guys like Larry Flynt (of Hustler fame) and Bob Guccione (of Penthouse fame) -- or of bullshit peddlers like attorney Gloria Allred, you'll find you know less than you thought.

Lewis recounts his personal story. It's the story of a young, well educated, buttoned-down kinda guy who walks away from a promising career in NYC's banking district to follow his dream: A dream of eventually making it big in the entertainment industry. Instead, through an unforeseen series of events, he lands a temp job in an entertainment industry of another kind. Soon, his temp job becomes a full-time career as a marketing director for Larry Flynt's Hustler empire.

For a young man with plenty of hormones to spare, Lewis believed he had landed the ultimate dream job, one which more than a few young men would give their left-nuts to have. But what begins as an unexpected and incredible dream turns into something else after Lewis begins dating Flynt's beautiful and sexy executive assistant. Quicker than you can say, "Condoms? Who needs condoms?" Lew finds himself about to become a Dad. That one big step in life also results in Lewis suddenly finding himself out of a job. A situation he refuses to take lying down.

If you like books which make you root for the little guy, books that do so in entertaining, witty, and heartfelt ways, this is one of them. For a good read as well as a seldom-seen view of the business of sex, I enthusiastically recommend The Summer I Got Tall.

The gratuitous eye-candy at the top is Jenna H.

The Practice of Practice

2011-10-27T13:31:00.000-07:00

Photography, like many other things in life, requires practice... and plenty of it!

There's good reasons the world's greatest athletes practice regularly. They never stop practicing, superstar status or not. Excelling at photography is no different regardless of the kind of photography you pursue. It takes practice and, like I already said, plenty of it.

Learning, of course, is also wildly important. And there's so many great ways to learn! There's workshops and seminars you can attend, books to read like those I've written or the many others authored by other photographers, blogs with shooting and processing tips, tutorials, video course-ware like Phil Steele's How to Shoot Professional-Looking Headshots and Portraits on a Budget with Small Flashes and so much more.

Still, learning isn't enough. You need to practice what you've learned. The cool thing about learning and practicing is the more you practice what you've learned, the easier it is to learn even more new things and work them into your workflows. That's how it generally works. But it still takes practice, whether it's practicing something new or practicing what you already know.

Although the more you learn and practice, the easier it becomes to learn even more, practice remains the key to working new knowledge into your photography. Not only is practice important for the new things you might learn, it remains important to continue practicing what you already know how to do. Even if you feel you've practiced those things a lot and know how to do them inside out, practicing them remains incredibly important.

The same learning/practicing cycles hold true for gear. Whenever I've gotten a new light modifier, for instance, I could already call on my existing skills and knowledge working with similar modifiers. But it still took time practicing with the new modifier before I could make it work really well for me. You might think, "Dude! A soft box is a soft box. Learn to use one and you know how to use them all." That's true in some ways and not so true in others. There's a reason I bought the new soft box even though I already had others. Likely, that reason can be found somewhere in the fact that all soft boxes don't behave the same or produce the same results. No matter how well I already knew how to use my existing soft boxes, it took practicing with the new one, whether that new one was different in size, shape, or in some other way from the others I already had, before it became a tool I truly knew how to employ for maximum results.

Learning new skills and ways of doing things, or learning to use new gear when you've added new gear to your shooting arsenal, are very important aspects of growing and maturing as a photographer. But none of what you've newly learned will do you maximum good until you've practiced those new skills, ways of doing things, or the use of a new piece of equipment. I've said it many times before: The biggest part of getting good at photography revolves about practice... and more practice and more practice.

As usual, I can't remember the name of the pretty girl at the top. She's busting a fairly artsy pose and, personally, I like it... a lot!

UPDATE: One of my super terrific readers correctly identified the model in the photo above as Madison Young. I love my readers!

How Do You Prefer Learning?

2011-10-25T13:45:00.000-07:00

Some people mostly prefer learning by reading. Others prefer watching and listening. Still others enjoy any number of the many ways available to enhance their photography skills: e-books, hard-cover books, tutorials (video or other), workshops, seminars and more. If you're a long-time reader, you know I'm not a guy who pimps too many products on this blog. Mostly, when I've done so, its been about books, e-books, either my own or a select few authored by others.

I know many of you are committed to, amongst other things, learning as much as possible about creating beautiful light with minimal gear. That's why I'm writing today to tell you about Phil Steele's online video course called "How to Shoot Professional-Looking Headshots and Portraits on a Budget with Small Flashes." Phil adheres to the same guerrilla-shooting approaches that are the foundations of my first two e-books, Guerrilla Glamour and Guerrilla Headshots.

Like my e-books, Phil Steele's programs do their best to keep it simple or, as Albert Einstein once said, "...as simple as possible but not simpler." Phil, like me, is also an Ockham's Razor devotee: He's dedicated to doing things in ways which avoid multiplying difficulty beyond necessity. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about.

All the above and more is why I thought you might appreciate knowing about Phil's online video course. Steele's course-ware includes most everything you need to know to know about lighting models with off-camera flash. And he does that by keeping things simple, without multiplying difficulty beyond necessity. As a bonus, you'll get some great post-production tips as well! As an additional bonus, I did some hard-core negotiating with Phil. (I made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Trust me, you don't wanna know what that was.) Anyway, I scored everyone a 10%, limited-time, discount. How's that for looking out for my friends?

So what are you waiting for? CLICK HERE and be magically transported to Phil's preview page for his course, "How to Shoot Professional-Looking Headshots and Portraits on a Budget with Small Flashes." There, you'll learn so much more about Phil's program. More than I can tell you on this blog page. If you decide to purchase, when you click the "Add to Cart" button you'll be automatically discounted 10% off the regular price. (For a limited time only, that is. Make that for the limited time of the next 7 days only.) BTW, You can also click on the banner in the right-hand column, the one with the flashing strobe, if you're more of a right-hand-column-clicking kinda person.

So don't wait! Timing is everything! Get 10% off Phil Steele's lighting program now!

Speaking of timing, would you believe that Daisy, the pretty girl in the pic at the top, suffered a wardrobe malfunction a brief moment before I snapped the shutter?

No? Neither would I.

Wardrobe malfunction or not, the visual result is still sweet.

The Art of Peopleography

2011-10-24T09:51:00.000-07:00

If you're a portrait shooter, regardless of whether you shoot glamour, fashion, head shots, business or family portraits, whatever, you're both a photographer (someone who writes or paints with light) and a peopleographer (someone who writes or paints with people.)

The photography part of your craft has much to do with things like lighting, exposure, composition, and so much more. The peopleography part of your craft has much to do with things like rapport, trust, direction, and so much more. When both photography and peopleography skills meld or fuse in skillful and excellent ways, the person wielding the camera's best work is realized.

Considering today's technologies, the photography part of the portrait equation has become more and more no-brainer. From a purely photographic standpoint, today's new photographers seem to go from beginner to something so much more with lightning speed. Because of this new ease of technical craft, gaining peopleography skills should become the most important part of your learning curve. The best portraits, regardless of genre, don't just look great, they feel great. Leastwise, they make viewers feel something. The more your photos evoke feeling, the better they are. That's basically true almost regardless of genre.

When I'm editing a set of images searching for the keepers, I have both photographic and peoplegraphic criteria for selecting the... well, the selects. I'm not simply looking for the images which might be "the best" photographically, I'm looking for the images which also speak to me in other ways, that is, in ways that speak of other things other than my photographic skills. Hopefully, they will speak to viewers in much the same way as they speak to me. Often enough, I'll turn a blind eye to technical flaws if I think the image speaks louder in more human ways.

While the Art of Photography uses exposure and lighting and more to shade it's subjects in aesthetically memorable ways, the Art of Peopleography use human emotion and other things to create feeling or to tell stories. The feeling or story might be obvious or it might be subtle. But for a people portrait to truly excel, those elements, emotional or story elements, need to be there. They need to be perceptible. They need to communicate to viewers.

I see a lot of photographers who seem so consumed with the technical aspects of photography at the expense or neglect of the peoplegraphic elements. It's why I so strongly agree with Andreas Feininger's observation that, "A technically perfect photograph can be the world's most boring picture."

I'll be real honest: Technically perfect photos don't impress me at all, especially these days.

Technical perfection, or something close (enough) to it, has become, quite simply, too easy to achieve. There was a time when technical perfection was harder to come by. That was then, this is now. Never in the history of photography has technical perfection been so easy to achieve... and it's getting easier every day! The more familiar photographers become with whatever modern image-capturing device they're using, coupled with post-production technologies, the more fool-proof and easily attainable technically perfect photos have become.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm not being an old school elitist. I'm simply noting that, since technical perfection in photography (or something close to it) is now so easy to come by, one would think people photographers would spend more time on the peopleography elements of their images rather than the technical elements.

But that doesn't seem to be the case. When I go on forums and view the comments made by other photographers, so many of those comments -- the vast majority of them it seems -- appear mostly concerned with the purely photographic elements of the images. I'm certainly not saying achieving near-technical-perfection doesn't require skill or isn't important. It does require skill and still is important. But today, it requires less skill to achieve than ever before and it's importance might be somewhat diminished. Shooting for the web, as an example, definitely reduces the importance of technical perfection.

My latest e-book, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography," could have just as easily been titled, "The Art of Peopleography." Frankly, that's what it's mostly about: Helping portrait photographers become better peopleographers.

Because of today's technologies, the photography learning curve hasn't simply been flattened, in some ways it's nearly been squashed. I know that might not seem the case for those just starting out on their photographic journeys. Many of those people don't really have much to compare it to. (In terms of what it once took to produce technical perfection in photographs.) But if you stay at it for some time, a shorter time than ever before, and you do so with some appropriate level of dedication, you'll find, thanks to today's many new technologies, it becomes easier and easier to achieve.

The peopleography learning curve, on the other hand, remains a bit more challenging. My advice is this: As your technical skills increase and become ever less daunting -- and they will -- your focus on learning about and working to attain exceptional peoplegraphy skills should increase exponentially.

Generally, I'm an 80/20 kinda guy. It's a ratio I often mention. When first starting out, I advise spending 80% of your time learning the technical side of photography. As you become more and more familiar and skilled with the technical side of photography, flip the ratio around and spend 80% of your time learning and gaining the appropriate people skills. Then, bring to bear those newly learned peopleography skills to your work. Consequently, your portrait work will improve dramatically. That a guarantee!

The gratuitous pretty girl at the top is Kayla. She's a model I truly love working with and, I'm happy to say, I've done so a number of times.

Do You Shoot It All?

2011-10-21T12:01:00.000-07:00

Photographers can be divided in many ways. One way to divide them is into two, broad groups of generalists and specialists. What I mean is they either shoot, almost exclusively, one genre of photography or they try, or are willing to try, to shoot it all.

Me personally, I'm definitely a specialist. If or when I'm asked to shoot outside the realms I know best, i.e., the people portrait realms, I openly admit I'm a novice and more than a little unsure (and insecure) about what I'm doing. I might take stabs at other genres but they remain stabs. Obviously, some skills in my personal skill-set transfer to other genres of photography but, for the most part, I don't have a clue what I'm doing beyond how those transferred skill-sets might help me.

One might think if someone is a portrait photographer and has really good lighting skills they should be able to shoot, as an example, product photography about as competently as they do people. After all, most of a portrait shooter's lighting skills should transfer to shooting other things besides people. Personally, I don't think it works that way, at least not automatically. Sure, a portrait shooter can bring to bear their lighting skills on a piece of jewelry or a plate of sushi and the results will probably be okay but those results aren't likely going to be extraordinary in other ways, that is, without the photographer learning some new skills regarding shooting jewelry or food, coupled with plenty of practice.

People who aren't photographers don't quite understand why a photographer, pro or hobbyist, might not "rock it" when shooting outside of what they truly know how to shoot; not even close. Some photographers themselves don't understand why they don't rock it when shooting outside of what they're mostly experienced at shooting. Worse, some photographers don't recognize they're not rocking it: They think they are when they're not.

I sometimes get asked to shoot things I don't really know how to shoot. Make that things I don't know how to shoot with any high level of skill or experience. When asked to do this, I might give it a shot but, when I've done so, the results weren't anything to write home about. The results were okay but just okay doesn't cut it for me and it usually doesn't cut it for many clients.

When I'm asked to shoot outside my ~~comfort~~ knowledge range, I usually tell whoever is asking me that they'd probably be better off getting someone who knows how to shoot those things. Certainly, someone who knows how to shoot them much better than I know how to shoot them. "You're a photographer, aren't you?" is the reply I've often heard. Well, yeah. I am. But being a photographer doesn't mean I know how to shoot anything and everything, certainly not anything and everything in terrific ways. I could probably learn to shoot whatever it is (outside of my norm) I'm suddenly being asked to shoot but clients aren't generally interested in funding or subsidizing my photography education.

It's not that I'm trying to talk myself out of jobs. It's simply that I feel my reputation is always on the line regardless of what I'm shooting. It's a small enough world that failing to deliver good work in one area of photography might somehow, later on, bite me on the ass in terms of getting hired to shoot what I do know how to shoot. More so since the reason I probably was asked to shoot what I don't really know how to shoot was the result of someone recommending me. That someone was, more than likely, somehow connected (sometimes in big ways) to the work I normally perform.

Just because someone is an accomplished French chef doesn't necessarily mean they're capable of shaking up the culinary world of Chinese cooking. I'm sure a much heralded French chef could give Chinese cooking a damn good try but he or she would still be no match against a highly skilled and experienced woksman.

I'm aware that more than a few photographers will take on nearly any assignment. I know more than a few who do so. I've seen the results of some of that work and, frankly, it wasn't too impressive regardless of how impressive their usual and customary work might be. That's not to say the outside-their-normal-box work sucked. It's only to say it wasn't as extraordinary as the work they normally produce.

IMO, the bottom line is this: If you're going to branch out into other areas of photography where your skills and experience might not be so awesome, be prepared to find yourself -- once again, and just like you were when you first began shooting what you do have experience and mad skills shooting -- being something of a novice and on the uphill side of the learning curve. You might thoroughly believe you can shoot it all but shooting it all -- shooting it all really, really well -- is another story.

Once again, I've posted a pic of a chick whose name I can't recall and, also once again, I can't seem to drum up the motivation (for a variety of reasons) to spend time hunting down her name in my paper records.

Lighting Sandwich

2011-10-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

German photographer, Michael Zelbel, on his blog, Smoking Strobes, has come up with a clever way of describing one particular style of glamour lighting by calling it a "lighting sandwich." I love that! It's such a visually descriptive analogy! Saying the lighting is used to 'sandwich' the model nearly speaks for itself.

Personally, I do a lot of sandwiching when I'm lighting models. (I also do a lot of sandwiching in my personal life which isn't always a good thing. My belly will attest to that.)

Sometimes, when I sandwich with lights, the sandwiching is quite obvious and dramatic, much the way it is in Michael's description and video tutorial on his Smoking Strobes blog. Other times, as revealed in the photo of Dana I've provided for this update, the sandwiching is much more more subtle, barely noticeable in fact, and only targeting specific areas of the model's body.

Whether you sandwich in obvious or subtle ways, sandwiching your models with light is a very effective glamour lighting setup. In fact, it's often used and for good reason: Highlights resulting from the sandwiching are sexy, they call extra attention to the model, they add more interest to your photos, and they go a long way towards creating fantasy in your glamour photography. Sandwiching is also quite simple to employ -- I'm all about keeping it simple -- especially when working on a seamless where you don't have to worry much about your lights bleeding onto areas in your images you don't want to illuminate. BTW, sandwiching is also very effective for other types of portraiture beyond glamour.

Michael says he's going to update every first Thursday of the month with a new video showing various lighting setups. Sounds like a good reason to bookmark Michael's blog or subscribe to his feeds.

Show Offs: Who's More Important?

2011-10-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

There are two people showing off in every glamour photo: The model and the photographer. The trick, of course, is to find a balance between the two. How effectively that's done rests in the hands of the photographer.

Glamour photography is, in a nutshell, about showing off the beauty and allure of the model. But the photographer, of course, also wants to show off their skills and know-how. Problems sometimes arise when the showing off is lopsided.

Obviously, as a photographer, you want your images to reveal your photographic abilities. How evident those abilities are revealed can be the difference between a decent glam photo and a great one. Photographers who work too hard at showing off their own skills can inadvertently defeat the purposes of their photos. Those purposes, of course, include an important one I've already mentioned: Showing off the beauty and allure of the model.

This might sound like I'm splitting hairs and maybe I am but I've seen plenty of glamour images which were so obviously about the photographer's skills, the photographer showing off, whether through production or post-production techniques, the models nearly became irrelevant. That might be a positive thing for the photographer but it's not so positive a thing for the model, especially if the photos are designed to "sell" the model to an agency or potential employers of some sort.

If you're shooting models for the sole purpose of showing off your photographic skills, being the principal show-off in your photos probably isn't a bad thing. But if you've been engaged, as a photographer, to capture the beauty and allure and marketability of a model, you need to strike a balance between your abilities and the model's beauty, skills, or potential as a model.

While much of glamour photography is about creating fantasy, that doesn't necessarily mean the fantasy should be at the complete expense of viewers being able to recognize the model when she's not participating in the fantasy you're working so hard to create. Sure, that might work for some photos but it doesn't work for all of them. In fact, it might work for less of them than you think. It all revolves around who's more important in terms of showing off, the model or the photographer? Most the time, I believe the two should be equal.

The pretty girl on the staircase is Devin. I used my 5' Photoflex Octodome for a main light and let the natural light coming in from a bank of large windows above and behind her do the rest.

Like a Sales Tax Pawn

2011-10-13T10:23:00.001-07:00

Some of you might have noticed I haven't had an Amazon link featured on my blog for a while now. If you didn't notice, that's cool. Be advised this blog has been Amazon-free for some time.

It's not that I gave up on Amazon, it's that Amazon gave up on me... plus thousands of other Amazon affiliates. You see, for some time, Amazon and the State of California, the state where I reside, have been squabbling over collecting California sales tax on all orders which result from the efforts of their California affiliates.

Some of you might be wondering, "Why should I pay California state sales tax? I don't live in California."

Well, Amazon agrees with you. And so do I. But the State of California believes otherwise. The state contends if an Amazon customer makes a purchase as a result of clicking a link to Amazon from a website, like this one, where the site's owner is a resident of California, you should have to pay California sales tax regardless of where you reside and regardless of the fact that Amazon does not sell and ship products from the State of California. Anyway, that's their beef in a nutshell. (My apologies to vegans for stuffing meat in a nut in my last sentence.)

As a result of this Amazon/California sales tax feud, one in which neither party would give any ground -- sound familiar? -- Amazon decided to dump all of it's California affiliates and offer a big GFY to the State of California.

Some time later, cooler heads prevailed: California and Amazon kissed and made up, at least temporarily. Apparently, they forged some sort of deal which includes putting off the sales tax issue for two years.

Now, of course, Amazon is saying to all it's former California affiliates, "Hey guys! C'mon back! We love ya!"

Although thousands of California Amazon affiliates, myself included, have been played like virtual pawns in this Amazon/California sales-tax chess game, I'm not a grudge-keeper. While I don't make much pimping Amazon, I do make some -- which I take in the form of gift certificates rather than cash -- and so, in the spirit of reconciliation and gift certificates, I'm gonna take the high road, be the bigger man, and embrace Amazon again.

My Amazon link is now back in the right-hand column. If you click on it before going to Amazon, I receive a small commission (and some gift certs later on) from whatever you might purchase. Doing that helps keep me motivated to author this blog. I'm not saying I'd quit authoring it without some sort of monetary motivation. I'm certainly not authoring this blog for Amazon's sake or simply for the sake of anything else I might "sell" via this blog. I authored this blog for four years before I ever sold, for instance, a single e-book from it's pages. I find authoring it personally rewarding in many ways beyond earning a few bucks with it. Still, added rewards are added rewards and, like most people, I like being rewarded in many different ways.

Sorry but I don't recall the upside-down model's name seen at the top. I could search my records for her name but, frankly, that sounds a little too much like work at the moment.

Finding Your Photographic Voice

2011-10-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

As a human, a photographer, and a writer, I have three voices: The voice that comes out of my mouth, the voice I use as a photographer, and my writing voice.

Like you, unless you're a mute I suppose, I was born with my vocal voice. I didn't need to go in search of it. It was just there. A smack on my butt moments after I emerged from the safe confines of my mother's womb and there it was: My voice. Also like you, I've spent the subsequent years defining, refining, and using my voice. Sometimes I overuse it. Occasionally I don't use it when I should. At times, I've used it wisely and at other times not so wisely.

My writing voice is one I had to go in search of: It wasn't natural. Sure, there are writers whose writing voices seem as natural as their speaking voices but I'm not one of those lucky few. At least not yet. My writing voice is still a work-in-progress. Besides writing about photography, I've applied my writing voice in other areas over the years, sometimes successfully and other times not. Like my speaking voice, my writing voice is heard. You aren't hearing my physical voice as you read this but you're hearing a "voice" in your head saying my words.

My photographer's voice is another matter. It's not heard at all. Still, it speaks. It might not always speak to everyone but it speaks to me. In my mind, photographers are like mimes. Mimes communicate visually and with visual cues. You don't need to hear a mime with your ears or via a "voice" in your head but you understand what they're saying whether you hear them or not. Good photographers do the same. In some ways, good photographers are a lot like good mimes.

Someone once said, "Good photography speaks with silence." I couldn't agree more.

Although I use the word, "style," often enough when describing a photographer's methods of silently communicating -- as in a photographer's "personal style" -- I only do so because it's commonly understood what I'm referring to. Beyond that, I don't much like using that word to describe a photographer's work. Mostly, because it sounds so purposeful. It also sounds a little highfalutin. I've seen photography which truly excelled in many ways yet was anything but highfalutin, style notwithstanding.

Besides, we're not born with style. Style is something we develop and use and it's not wholly our own. It's generally developed or applied as a result of trends, fads, and the influences of family, friends, peers, people we look up to, cultures, software developers, equipment manufacturers, and more. We are, however, born with a voice. We are also born with the ability to create other voices, sometimes voices which are as easily heard as our vocal voices: Voices like writing voices and artistic voices.

A lot of photographer's go in search of their personal styles. Unfortunately, when personal style is perceived as something external and something purposely created, photographers often spend more time looking for tools, techniques, and other things outside of themselves to apply to their work in order to bestow something on that work that seems personal and stylistic. What they're really doing is applying those things, things which are often created by others, and claiming them as their own. That's not always a bad thing. In fact, it can be a good thing, especially when trying to satisfy clients or customers, but it's often not a unique personal style. More often, it's a copied style. A mimicked style. Worse, an often and much copied and mimicked style. It's possible, of course, to have a style without having a voice. You might even get by on style alone. Plenty of photographers do. But when you add a voice to style, you might get by even better.

Finding your photographer's voice is something entirely different than applying style. First off, it's yours. Second, it doesn't require applying external things to your work. Third, and most importantly, your voice doesn't have to be obvious in order for it to communicate. Like your speaking voice, it can whisper or shout. It can hum or sing. It can speak eloquently or coarsely. But above all, it's yours and speaks of you as well as what you're pointing your camera at.

How do you find your photographer's voice? Well, much like when you're speaking or writing, it helps when you're photographically expressing things which are meaningful to you. We all love speaking of the things we love. We enjoy talking about the things that interest us. Photographers should do the same. They should photograph what they love. They should shoot what they're truly interested in. In so doing, they will generally add personal passion to their photography. Not simply their passion for photography itself, but a passion for the things they photograph. That passion will be evident beyond the stylistic tools and techniques they might apply. Their pictures won't simply express style, they'll express it with a voice. A passionate voice. Their voice.

There are other types of photography I could easily apply my skills and knowledge to but they don't generally interest me much. My photographs of those things might be technically good but risk being generally boring or without much passion, mostly because I simply wouldn't have much interest in them and, because of that, they wouldn't include a passionate voice used to express them. I often hear things like, "You're a photographer. You should be able to shoot anything." There's both truth and a lack of it in that statement. I can cook, for instance, and some of the things I cook I'm passionate about. But I don't have passion for all of the things I might cook that, say, many great chefs have. Nor do I have passions for many foods others might have. Consequently, I don't cook those foods even though, like so many people, I'm generally passionate about food. Sometimes, a little too passionate as my belly will attest.

One of the really big things my new book, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography," tries to help photographers discover is their voice: Their portrait shooting voice. I don't always express it in the book as a "voice," but helping others discover their photographic voices is what it hopes, in many ways, to achieve.

The photo up top is Nautica. My client (not the model) hated it, asking me, "What am I supposed to do with this artsy shit?" But it speaks to me. And, according to Nautica, it speaks to her. I wouldn't be surprised if it speaks to others.

10 Pretty Girl Shooting Suggestions Redux

2011-10-08T11:11:00.000-07:00

I wrote these 10 suggestions to improve your pretty girl shooting almost two years ago. Thought I'd re-post them since, IMO, they haven't lost any of their potential usefulness. Most of them apply to all genres of photography.

1. Learn the Front-End of Photography. By the front-end, I mean learn everything you can about the art and science of photography. Don't expect computer processing to make you a great photographer. Great photography begins with great photography. Computer manipulation is merely a tool and adjunct to what you've already captured. To hear this said better than I could ever say it, watch and listen to what the late, great, Dean Collins had to say about it.

2. Quit Over-Processing Images! Women have skin covering their bodies, real skin, not some artificial, poly vinyl, coating. Just like a Real Doll won't ever replace a real woman--except, perhaps, in truly desperate times--Barbie skin is neither sexy nor enticing. Sure, fix things in post. Enhance them. (Within the bounds of believability.) But quit processing women into something akin to a computer-generated character in a James Cameron movie.

3. Don't Play the Art Card. I wrote about the Art Card a few updates ago so I won't rehash it in this post other than to add: Accept criticism of your work with the same humility you accept compliments. If you don't accept compliments with humility, here's one added suggestion: Get over yourself!

4. Gear Doesn't Trump Knowledge, Skill, or Creativity. Yeah, we all want better gear. I know I do. But don't expect that new camera body or that faster lens or the latest version of Photoshop to automatically improve your photography. There is no replacement for taking the time to learn how to do things right, how to do them better. Each piece of gear is simply a tool. And tools, themselves, do not make exceptional craftsmen. Just because you own a hammer and saw, perhaps the best hammer and saw money can buy, doesn't mean you know how to build a beautiful home.

5. Improve Your Communication Skills. Models want direction. Models need positive reinforcement. Models want to hear that they're not alone out there in the lights. Dead air is not conducive to great photography. You don't have to become Mr. Personality. You simply have to communicate.

6. Learn to Use One Light Before Trying to Use Two or Three or More. Besides the fact that a single light source can be very effective, learn how to manipulate, modify, control, and exploit a single light before moving on to multiple light source setups.

7. Resist the Urge to Use Cliché Props. Yes, I'm talking about items as diverse as angel wings, "caution" tape, and guitars. It's not that those things and others (you know what they are) are inherently bad, it's just that we've seen them used so often and in so many ways that their use fails, on a grand scale, to impress viewers. I can't remember the last time I saw a pic where cliché props were used in a truly unique and evocative way. If you're going to use props, use less-seen props in less-seen ways. If the urge to use cliche props is overwhelming, get it over with-- Use them once then move on.

8. Experiment! Try doing things differently. But do so on your own dime. If someone hires you to shoot, deliver what they expect. When shooting for yourself, develop other ways or approaches to your photography. When you've worked the bugs out of these new ways of doing things, share them with others for feedback. If people like what they see and once your comfortable with your new techniques, work them into your normal work flow.

9. Develop a Personal Style. But not at the expense of good and effective photography. Sure, you can break the rules in developing your style. In fact, you'll probably need to do so. Developing an obvious, unique, personal style, by the way, is not an absolute requirement for being a successful photographer. While there are plenty of successful photographers whose work is unique and identifiable, there are also many whose personal style is quite subtle and difficult to define or put a finger on.

10. Practice, Practice, Practice! It would be nice if we all could shoot like masters the first time we picked up a camera but that's not how it works for most people. Yeah, some people seem to be born to do certain things. They have an innate ability to grasp and perform in exceptional ways right from the start. But those people are the exceptions, not the rule. For most of us, there's no replacement for practicing and honing our craft: Practice and repetition, like one foot in front of another, again and again, moves us ever forward on the path to Photo-Nirvana. It doesn't happen overnight. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and continues with many steps. Most importantly: Enjoy the journey. Have fun! Love your craft. It will love you back... long, long time.

The pretty girl at the top is Selena. Sometimes, I have this weird effect on models. Please visit my Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography web page. Purchasing and reading the book might not have a weird effect on you, but it might have a positive one.

For Whom the Bell Tolls and Why

2011-10-07T11:17:00.000-07:00

For the past 3 or 4 days, I've been having a back and forth email conversation with a well-known publisher of photography books. They were interested in my next book for possible publication, that is, as a hard-bound, paper book. They also wanted electronic rights, of course.

While that's all dandy for my ego, I had questions I politely asked them. I didn't expect them to tell me exactly what I'd earn, I understand there are many variables. I did ask simple questions like what is the average retail price of their books and how is that determined? What is their standard author's share versus publisher's share and re-seller's share of revenues? How long after I did my job would it take to publish the book? Those were the sorts of questions I asked. I hardly think those are state secrets. Apparently, to them they are.

They steadfastly, although politely, refused to divulge any information whatsoever regarding the business side of publishing my next book. Not a single thing! Zero transparency! All they remained focused on was whether I could produce 25,000 words, 250 photographs, and would I give them an in-depth outline ASAP. They kept harping on these things even after I told them my first e-book is over 28,000 words, my 2nd is more than 35,000 words, and my latest, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography," exceeds 37,000 words. I also reminded them I've produced hundreds of thousands of photos in my career and snapping 250 useable images didn't seem to represent a daunting or Herculean task.

They did, in the end, tell me their authors earn anywhere from a few thousand to one-hundred thousand dollars. (Wow! That certainly narrows it down.) With a $100K carrot dangled, they returned to harping on their 25,000 word, 250 pic, give us an outline dialog.

When I then asked if their high-earning authors were well-known photographers or if those books were part of a popular series or what they represented -- 1-in-5? 1-in-10? 1-in-20 of their catalog of photography books? -- they wouldn't divulge that either. I reminded them, again politely, I could easily produce and sell e-books generating a few thousand or more in revenue. Actually, a fair amount more than a few thousand. I also mentioned the money would be instantly in my account. I told them I can produce and release my own e-books in a fraction of the time it might take them to print and release a book. I also advised them that, if I were interested in seeing my books in actual print for vanity reasons and, if that was my primary motivation, I'd simply self-publish hard-bound versions of my books and sell them myself.

They then politely blew me off.

That's right. As a result of my polite requests for some simple, non-binding, answers to some generic, business-related questions, they blew me off.

Did I mention they also told me sales of my book would have a lot to do with how successfully *I* market the book? No? Well, that's also something they said.

If, in addition to writing the book and shooting all the pictures, I'm responsible for a big hunk of the marketing, WTF do I need them for? Their sales people are going to get me better placement on bookstore shelves? I seriously doubt it.

In my opinion, it's more than competition from electronic media that's tolling the death bell for a big chunk of traditional book publishing. It might also have something to do with their reluctance to be up-front and honest with prospective authors. The word, "arrogance," comes to mind.

The pretty girl at the top is Aneesha, a mainstream actress and model. (Click the pic to enlarge.) She was in my studio for some headshot and portfolio pics. Aneesha was unsure of whether she should go with a party-girl look, wearing that sexy, black, cocktail dress, or should she don the leather and beret and go for a tougher, street-wise look. I suggested we try to incorporate both into the same picture for some of the shots.

When Good Photographers Make Bad Pictures

2011-10-04T12:24:00.000-07:00

We've all done it. We've all made photos that suck. We always will. Thankfully, the many genres of portraiture and other types of photography offer second chances.... and third and fourth and many more additional chances to snag a great image within of a set of images that mostly aren't so great.

You think every time a superstar shooter like Annie Leibovitz or any of her photography peers snaps the shutter an incredible photo is the result? Yeah, well, if you believe that I'm the real Obi-Wan Kenobi.

In today's digital photography age, there are only three things that truly matter: 1) snapping your photos; 2) editing your photos; 3) processing your photos. The order I listed those three skill-sets reflects their order of importance. Please note I didn't include gear as one of the Big Three.

Snapping Your Photos: #1 is #1 for many reasons. Your best photos will always, as always, be created while you're clicking the shutter. I don't care how much processing you throw at an image later on, a picture is terrific or not (and everything in between) the moment, as Henri Cartier-Bresson famously said, you capture it.

Editing Your Photos: This is as important as capturing your photos. You might snap a hundred images of a model. There might only be one in that hundred that is truly outstanding. Your ability to recognize and identify that one is as important as snapping it.

Processing Your Photos: This one generally runs a distant third. (Digital artists excepted.) I don't care how much cool processing you lay on a photo. I don't care which of the latest fad treatments you apply to it. A boring or average or crappy photo is a boring, average, or crappy photo and will remain that way, regardless of your attempts to alter that fact. You might, in post, make it less it less boring, average, or crappy but, in truth, a silk purse isn't made from a pig's ear. They may someday genetically modify pigs to grow silk ears but that day hasn't yet come. You might fool some people with all that processing and image manipulation but you won't fool everyone. In fact, you might be fooling less people than you think.

So, what does all this mean? Well, you could certainly be a spray-n-pray shooter, hoping there will one great photo amongst the many you capture. And there might be! Course, if that's your modus operandi, I strongly suggest you hone your editing skills to high levels of ability. You will, after all, have to find that photo amongst your many... assuming it's even there.

Personally, I strongly believe your best bet is to focus on the front-end of photography: Learning, applying, and practicing as much and as often as possible. After that, focus on your editing skills. Why is one photo so much better than another even when that other is only barely different? Your ability to answer that question may be paramount to your success.

Finally, learn to process your images in ways which best achieve the goal or intent of the photos. Gratuitously adding cool treatments rarely makes a great photo. Processing or manipulating your photos to achieve some sort of perfection doesn't generally meet the intent of many photos. An old Egyptian proverb says, "A beautiful thing is never perfect."

If you're making glamour pics, for instance, working overly hard in post to make everything about the model "perfect" rarely results in perfectly executed photos. People aren't perfect. (That includes the most beautiful models.) Some of their imperfections are appropriate to manipulate, remove, change, whatever. But doing so in heavy-handed, overly processed and overly manipulated ways, removing every imperfection in an attempt to create beings so apparently perfect, so without flaws, so un-human-like, generally does not yield photos viewers find truly beautiful or memorable.

The pretty girl at the top is Penthouse Pet, Celeste Star.

BTW, I've been getting some great feedback on my latest e-book, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography." If you'd like to learn more about it, perhaps purchase, you can do so by CLICKING HERE or on the graphic in the right-hand column.

Jump!

2011-10-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

Jessie, the young lady in the photo above, showed up in front of my camera so full of physical energy it was difficult to bring her down to manageable`shooting levels. And no, there were no tell-tale signs of any tweaky drugs involved. It was just her. When she walked out in front of me in bra and panties and wearing those beat-up Converse sneaks, it should have been my first clue.

I didn't want to relax her too much. I definitely wanted to take advantage of her energy. But keeping her in one spot long enough to snap a few images was difficult. I'm not a sports photographer.

I'll admit her energy was contagious. Almost at once, my ass was up off the apple box it's usually plopped on and I was moving about, trying snag some pics. Unfortunately, it was like herding a cat. She was so energetic! I could barely keep her in one spot long enough to focus, much less keeping here where I needed her to be for my lights to do their jobs the way I wanted them to perform.

Don't get me wrong, I was loving her energy! I simply would have loved it more if I could capture it in focus and close to a spot where one or more of my lights weren't over-exposing her. She was on a 9' wide seamless and the seamless was in a room that didn't afford much space to get my lights very far away from her, especially my back lights set on either side, just off the seamless.

I decided to wear her out a bit. "Let's see you jump," I said.

"Jump?" she asked, a bit of a confused look on her face.

"Yeah, jump. Jump as high as you can from a standing position. And give me some kind of a pose and a great expression while your up there." I told her, pointing towards the top of the seamless with my index finger.

So, jump she did.

"Jump again!" I directed her. She jumped again.

I kept having her jump until she started jumping a little less high each time. And boy! That took more jumps than I thought. I would have been worn out after two or three. But an eighteen year old can jump a lot before tiring.

My client wasn't looking for jumping shots of Jessie. My client was looking for sexy, glam shots. Regardless, I snapped my shutter each time she jumped. I'm a photographer, right? That's what we do. And it was fun doing it! Jessie was also having a blast jumping while I was having a great time photographing her in seemingly gravity-defying ways.

Soon enough, I told her she could quit jumping. I offered her a bottle of H2O and she gulped some of it down while she caught her breath. In a minute or two, we were back making pictures. This time, she kept on her mark yet still displayed plenty of energy: Her energy was now manageable. It was also more emotional and much less physical. We had a great shoot together!

About-Photography Podcast

2011-09-30T16:53:00.000-07:00

Sorry if the image to the right startled you. If you come here often, you're accustomed to seeing a photo of a hot model rather than yours truly peering out at you. There are some very good reasons I generally remain on the unseen side of the camera and you're looking at, pretty much, all of them. The image is smaller than those I usually post of my beautiful models. Posting a smaller version of this image is called being "merciful."

I voiced a podcast interview with my photo-buddy, Ed Verosky, for his About-Photography website. If you have a spare 20 minutes and want to have a listen, you can do that by CLICKING HERE. Warning: If you click on the link, there's a bigger version of the graphic above on About-Photography's home page.

The interview is fairly short, again revealing my sense of mercy.

After listening to the interview myself, I'm now... you know... on a mission to eradicate the words, "you know," from my everyday speech. You know?

I don't want to beat this self-deprecating stuff too far into the dirt so here's a pretty girl pic of Katarina. One of the cool things about listening to a podcast, as opposed to reading an interview, is you can surf around looking at pics of beautiful women (like Katarina) or men, depending on your gender or orientation, while you're listening.

Paging Ms. Leibovitz

2011-09-29T17:03:00.000-07:00

First off, a big thanks to everyone who's purchased my new e-book, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography." Sales have been terrific and I've received some excellent responses. "It's a good read, " is one of the things people are telling me. For writers, "a good read," is definitely something we love hearing. If you're thinking of purchasing and haven't yet done so, CLICK HERE to learn more about the book.

BTW, I sent an email to Annie Leibovitz's people offering a courtesy copy of the book for the super-star shooter to have.

Oh yes I did!

I quoted her a few times in the book so I thought, "Why not?" . Ms. Leibovitz once said she uses her camera, "in a Zen way." (That's one of her quotes I used, of course.) Based on that alone, I'm thinking she might relate to some of what's in the book, assuming she reads it. (Not that the book is filled with all that much Zen. It is, first and foremost, a book about shooting portraiture. The Zen stuff is used to punctuate the ideas in the book.)

Paying homage to Annie Leibovitz, even if it's only by using a few words in my book which sprang from her very own lips is, at the very least, a nice compliment to her. I mean, considering all the iconic photographers I also quoted in the book, I put her in most excellent company, photographers quoted wise. In the book, Annie L even gets a chapter heading, Chapter Eighteen I think, where I used a quote mouthed by her.

You know what? I'm so stoked, I just made an executive decision: I'm going to offer my other two e-books at a discount!

From now till next Friday, October 7, you can purchase and download either or both of my first two e-books, "Guerrilla Glamour" and "Guerrilla Headshots," with a 20% discount off their regular price of $9.95 (USD). That's $2 off each e-book! $4 off if you buy both! (I used a calculator and figured out what 20% off equals for one or both books just in case you suck at math as badly as I do... Your welcome.)

Now I'm in a positively giddy mood! I'm going to send another e-mail Annie Leibovitz's way. I'm going to personally, yes personally, offer her that 20% off my first two books, not that she needs my e-books, of course. She does know a thing or two about photography. But now she gets a courtesy copy of my new e-book, PLUS, just like all of you, Annie L can save $2 or $4 purchasing one or both of my other two books. Doesn't that make you feel like there's only a few degrees of separation between you and Annie Leibovitz? It does me. Well, sort of. Okay. Maybe not. But still, right?

CLICK HERE for "Guerrilla Glamour."

For "Guerrilla Headshots," CLICK HERE.

CLICK HERE for "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography."

After you arrive at the sites, click on the Add to Cart buttons if you're of a mind to purchase. If it's one of my first two e-books, when your shopping cart appears tap in the discount code, GIDDY, update the cart, and your total will automatically reflect 20% off. I just know this deal is making you feel, as it is me, giddy like a school kid!

Speaking of giddy, I got a little giddy when I was working Devin, pictured above. So much so, I shadowed her with my camera almost everywhere she went. That's how I snagged the photo of Devin primping in the mirror in the shot above.

My New e-Book is Available to Purchase

2011-09-26T18:12:00.000-07:00

My new e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography, is now available to purchase. It's priced at $9.95 (USD) just as my two previous e-books were. You can learn more about this e-book (and purchase it if you're so inclined) by CLICKING HERE.

I can't express how relieved I am to finally have this book completed and released. I put so many friggin' hours and lots of hard work into it! Course, I'm no stranger to hard work. What with having to get up, go to sets, photograph beautiful women in varying stages of dress and undress... Hey! C'mon! It's a tough job! Someone's gotta do it.

Besides, writing's tough work too! And someone has to do that as well! What would the world be if no one put any hard work into things like writing and photographing beautiful women? A damn less exciting, entertaining, and informative world, that's what!

For my next book, I'm going to try to figure out a way to bring both those kinds of hard work together. Sort of like the convergence of stills and video in the same dSLR. All I'll need is some hot models to hang around and look pretty while I beat on my keyboard and kick out another e-book. They should also, of course, be hanging out in varying stages of dress and undress while I'm beating... Wait. Did that come out right? Dudes! I meant beating on the keyboard while I'm writing! Get your minds out of the gutter! It's getting crowded down here!

Kidding aside, the book is done. I'm toast. I'm gonna try to do as little as possible for a couple of days.

Anyway, I would be remiss if I didn't post the link to my new e-book at least twice in the same update so here it is again: You can CLICK HERE to read about and/or purchase my newest masterpiece... or whatever it might actually be.

The pretty girl at the top is Charmane. What? You thought I might go all high-brow "author" on you and not post a pretty girl pic with this update? Photographers please.

Pre-Launch Jitters

2011-09-21T12:55:00.000-07:00

I'm nearly ready to launch my new e-book, Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography. I've put a lot of work into it and, for the last few days, have added constructing the book's web page to that work.

I still have a few passes to make over the e-book's text: Proofing, more editing, a bit more revising. Still, for all intents and purposes, it's done. Looks like it will be 137 pages. It was 152 pages but I whacked a bunch of stuff out: Mostly, those parts which were, in my opinion, occasionally bombastic and over-written. Leastwise, in my mind that's what the cut stuff represented.

Now, I'm getting the jitters.

I'm jittered (jittering?) because I'm unsure how many photographers are truly interested in the sort of stuff I wrote about.

Many photography e-books target the various photographer markets with books filled with photos, lighting diagrams, tutorials, gear suggestions, and more. My two previous e-books, Guerrilla Glamour and Guerrilla Headshots took that sort of approach for their respective genres. This new one doesn't.

Many photography e-books target the "how-to" crowd providing recipe-like techniques and suggesting all the "instant pudding" ingredients necessary to make good looking photos. This new one of mine doesn't.

Instead, Zen and the art of Portrait Photography is aimed at photographers who want something beyond the usual stuff. It focuses on key elements of all genres of portrait photography that are, especially in the digital photography age, sometimes overlooked or neglected in spite of their importance to capturing truly memorable images of people. That is, beyond a photo's technical qualities or various pre-packaged effects and treatments which may have been applied to the image.

In other words, it's the subject and format of the e-book which is giving me the jitters: I'm simply not sure how large of a target audience there is for this sort of photography e-book. I guess I'm going to find out rather soon.

The image up top is one of the photos I'm using on my web page for the new book. In case you're disappointed I didn't post one of my customary pretty girl pics, here's one below. It's a dressed/undressed diptych of model, Sofia.

Zen and Portrait Photography

2011-09-10T20:24:00.000-07:00

I've been working my tush off. Don't worry. I have plenty enough tush to spare.

Specifically, I've been working my tush off on my newest ebook, "Zen and the Art of Portrait Photography." I've invested so many freakin' hours into this ebook I'm Zen'd out!

I began writing it, I don't know, I think in early Spring of this year. Maybe earlier, especially if you count outlining and thinking and thinking about it some more. In the last week or so alone I've put well over 100 hours into it. But finally, FINALLY, it's done!

Course, there's done and there's done.

To paraphrase Miracle Max from the film, "The Princess Bride," Whoo-hoo-hoo! Look who knows so much. It just so happens the ebook is only MOSTLY done. There's a big difference between mostly done and all done. Mostly done is slightly not done. With all done, well, with all done there's only one thing to do. (And I hope to do that by late next week... publish and release it, that is.)

I still have, I don't know, a few days of editing, proofing, more editing, more proofing and probably a bit of rewriting too. Probably a bit more than a bit of rewriting. Like I said it's MOSTLY done. But mostly done still deserves another whoo-hoo-hoo, don't ya think? So, here goes: Whoo-hoo-hoo!

Some of you might notice a slight title change to the ebook. Hey! Nothing in life is guaranteed. Things change. Shit happens. Sometimes we think the journey is all mapped out and set in stone when all of a sudden a slight detour is in order. And I stress the word "slight."

When I decided to slightly change the title, taking a slight detour as it were, I only did so after giving it long and serious thought. I even conferred with my ebook-authoring consiglieri and he concurred. The decision to do so wasn't an easy one to make. Fortunately, doing so didn't require changing all that much in terms of what I'd already written and where I was going with what still needed to be written.

What I've done by making this change, I think, I hope, is given the ebook wider, somewhat more universal appeal. Is that such a bad thing?

Anyway, I'm toast. I just finished putting another 12 hours into the book today. And even still, cuz I'm the kinda guy I am, I'm taking some time to update the blog. What a guy, right? And don't think I'm updating without also posting a pretty girl pic. I'm not. So here's one of Cody, below.

When the Internet Goes Down

2011-09-07T12:15:00.000-07:00

For most of the Labor Day weekend, I had no internet. This past Friday morning, the morning before the start of the long holiday weekend, our internet suddenly went out. Not just the internet, but cable TV too. Nice. Not.

After nearly an hour on hold with our service provider, a technician finally came on the phone. The technician guided us through all sorts of tests and ways to get our modem jump-started, all to no avail.

The technician also ran a number of tests from his end. He even "pinged' our modem, or so he told us. That sounded more like something submarines do with sonar but what do I know?

No matter, even with all the tests and jump-start attempts and pinging, we had no connection. The technician then delivered the bad news: he advised us the problem was our wireless modem. He told us our modem was toast, history, finito! Well, maybe not in those exact words but those are the words that flashed in my brain as the technician continued talking about our modem in a postmortem way. He then explained they would need to mail us a new one. We could expect it to arrive the following Thursday.

Say what???

Almost a week without internet access? Not to mention the cable TV? A freaking week? Especially with the "Sons of Anarchy" season premier coming up in a few days? Was he shitting me?

No. Apparently, he was not.

We could, however, pay $150 to have a technician come out the next day and replace the modem. It was a weekend, after all-- Premium charges for weekend visits.

$150?

Ping this, pal! No thank you.

After steaming about this for a few hours, we called again and waited another hour for someone to get on the line. When they did, we turned up the heat. Finally, after this new technician had to endure plenty of whining, moaning, bitching and more coming from our end (we might have even pinged his ass a few times) we were given a "special weekend number" we could try calling the following day, Saturday.

The next day, we called the "special number." Someone special, I suppose, answered almost immediately. After explaining our special situation to the special person on the other end of the special number, the special person agreed to send someone out by 4 PM... and without the special, premium charge. In fact, at no charge at all. Wasn't that special?

It was.

Minutes before 4 PM, a technician showed up. He did a little of this and a little of that and announced there was no problem with our modem whatsoever. Good news! Of course, the bad news was the problem was at their "hub."

"Where's your hub?" I asked.

"Just down the street," he answered.

"Can't you just ping it or something?" I asked.

"No," he said.

"Well, when can you fix the hub?" I hesitantly inquired

"Sometime tomorrow," he told me.

Tomorrow wasn't as great or special as I was hoping for but it beat the crap out of waiting till the following Thursday. Plus, if we had waited till the following Thursday without insisting a tech showed up over the weekend, we'd be right back to "square one" on the following Thursday since the problem, as it turned out, wasn't the modem.

A few minutes before 4 PM on Sunday, the special tech returned. Mission accomplished! The hub, whatever a hub is, was repaired. All he now had to do was perform a few tests at the house, maybe fiddle a little with this or ping that, and we'd be back on line.

The tech went about his testing and fiddling and pinging and, in no time at all, "Tah dah!" We had internet and television back on line.

Whew!

But let me back up a bit...

When the internet first went out, and after bitching, moaning, and sulking about it for a while, I decided to use my time, suddenly free of the temptations of Facebook, photo forums, Facebook, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Facebook, ~~porn,~~ Facebook, and more Facebook, and do something constructive with my time.

And that's exact-o-mundo what I did!

I bent my head down and dove back into my newest ebook which, for a few months, had been left a bit over half-done with me only making barely productive attempts to finish it.

So, I dove back into it like a madman. I put hours and hours into it, probably 18 hours on Saturday and another 18 on Sunday. Even when our internet returned, I kept my nose to the grindstone! (I never quite understood the adage about noses and grindstones. Did people once do that? Damn! That had to hurt!)

On Monday, Labor Day, I continued laboring. Same for Tuesday and, outside of writing this blog update, it's the same thing I'm doing today!

As a result, I anticipate completing this ebook by the end of this coming weekend! I might even have it available sometime next week. Leastwise, that's the plan.

Sometimes, good things come out of not-so-good things. Or, perhaps those not-so-good things aren't as not-so-good as we sometimes think?

The gratuitous, sullen-looking, half-naked pretty girl at the top is Alexa. She looks fairly forlorn, as if she might have, besides losing most of her clothes, also lost her internet as well.

Less Can Be Best When More Remains

2011-08-30T20:16:00.000-07:00

Famed photographer and writer, Diane Arbus, once said, "Lately I've been struck with how I really love what you can't see in a photograph."

I'm quite sure Ms. Arbus wasn't referring to glamour or tease photography when she said that but her words certainly apply.

As most of you know, leastwise those of you who regularly (or even semi-regularly) read this blog know, I'm a glamour/tease photographer. I get paid to shoot pretty, sexy women in various stages of dress and undress. It's nice work if you can get it. Lately, business being what it is these days, I'm getting less of it, much less, but that's not what I'm writing about today. My last update speaks, in some ways tho not all, to that subject if you want to read about that kinda stuff.

I've been shooting clothed, scantily clothed, and unclothed women for quite a few years. In all, the number of times I've shot pretty girls in sexy and revealing ways numbers in the thousands. Okay. Maybe a couple of thousand or more, perhaps as many as three-thousand, but that still qualifies as "thousands," right? And in that time, as you might expect, I've developed a few opinions about glamour and tease photography. One of those opinions mirrors Ms. Arbus's words regarding what you can't see in photos.

As you may have already guessed, especially considering the Diane Arbus quote I began this update with, I believe photos of models still wearing something -- and that something might be as little as the skimpiest pair of thong underwear on the planet -- tend to be sexier and more seductive and alluring than when my models are wearing their birthday suits and nothing else. In other words, it's what you don't see that often adds power to a glamour or tease photo.

It's certainly no revelation that leaving some things to the imagination enhances many photos, especially glamour and tease photos. D'uh, right? And none of this is to say I'm in any way turned off by gorgeous, buck-naked models. I'm not. Not at all "not!" But for sheer seductiveness and sexual allure, many of the photos I've snapped, that is those where a bit of wardrobe remains on the model, generally rate higher on the HOT! scale than those where my model is fully naked. Leastwise, for me they do.

Generally, when I'm shooting a glam/tease model, we begin with her wearing something. It might be lingerie, a bikini, bra and panties, or she might be fully clothed in some sexy outfit. Perhaps even a not-so-sexy outfit. From there, I start shooting, the model starts posing and, at some point (usually when I direct her to begin) she starts peeling. What begins with a fully-clothed model ends with a fully unclothed model. How long that transformation takes generally depends on how long I might have with the model. It might be ten minutes, it might be an hour or more.

Interestingly, many models often rush the process of getting out of their clothes. In certain aspects of my life, I'm all for beautiful women hurrying to undress when I'm with them. Not so, however, when I'm photographing them. Often, I have to slow my models down when we're shooting. I don't know why they're in such a rush to get naked? I know it's not because I look like God's gift to women, not even close. But being in a rush to get naked is something many glam and tease models seem to be in. I occasionally ask why?

I usually get the same answer: "I love being naked!"

Gotta love that!

"I love when you're naked too, beautiful!" I sometimes tell them in response. "But I need you to slow down some."

I try to have my camera raised to my eye and ready to snap when I say that because the cute, pretend-pouting expressions that sometimes happen after I tell them to slow down their undressing are just too sexy!

You see, I'm being payed to shoot sexy, seductive photos of these girls and my clients want as many photos of the models still dressed or partially-dressed as they do those revealing her completely naked. In fact, most of my clients generally want more of the less-dressed content than anything else. And there's a reason for that, one that I agree with: the sexiest photos usually lie amongst those where the model is still wearing something, anything, even the slightest bit of something or anything.

Anyway, as usual, I'm just saying.

I've posted the photo at the top before, probably the color version, but I think it's a decent (some might say, "indecent") example of how leaving some things to the imagination can be sexier than when nothing is left to the imagination. I know photos like the one at the top often do a better job of fueling my imagination than those of models fully unclothed. That's not always true but it is often enough.

You might or might not agree. If you don't agree, that's cool. We all have our opinions. Please note I snapped plenty of pics of the model at the top wearing absolutely nothing. In my opinion, the photo above, and some others like it, are sexier than all the naked photos I shot of her. But maybe that's just me? You can click the pic to enlarge it.

Why No to Free Photography Means No

2011-08-28T14:55:00.000-07:00

Words of Wisdom from UK photographer, Tony Sleep, published on his web page. To say I agree with and endorse everything Tony says on this subject would be an understatement.

I lifted Tony's message and pasted it below. Hopefully, he won't mind. He's an English guy, BTW, so the spelling and some of the word usage might seem linguistically un-American. Trust me. You'll still comprehend the gist of it, if not the entire message he's communicating.

Tony writes: I receive an average of 2 proposals a week from people who have "no budget" for photographs. Book publishers, magazines, newspapers, charities, corporates and start-ups nowadays all believe that photos are cost free, or that they are doing me a favour by offering to use my work and giving me a byline.

I no longer reply to such inquiries except by linking to this text.

Let's be clear about a few things:

"No budget" is a euphemism for "we think photographers are mugs". This offensive interpretation can easily be verified by trying the phrase at your local restaurant, e.g., "I have no budget for dinner but I'd like to eat". Adding a promise to tell all your friends where you ate will not deflect your head from the curb as the manager throws you out.

Now imagine being a restaurant where most people who come through the door try this on. The answer is NO, and I am being excessively polite.

If you didn't really mean it and your "no budget" claim was just an opening bid, the answer is still NO. I want nothing to do with greedy opportunists who try to commence a negotiation with a lie. You have already demonstrated you cannot be trusted. You probably won't be honest about usage, and will try not to pay.

And if you were one of those promising lots of better, paid work later if only I can help you out now, offer a contract else I'll know you're talking bullshit and the answer is of course NO.

You see I don't want your stinking "exposure", I want mutually beneficial, productive relationships with clients. I try to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness, and I expect clients will do likewise. Exposure is the end of that process, not a means. Similarly with bylines. I don't require applause earned by being a sucker. If free matters more than good, ask someone else.

Like most people I work because I need to pay bills and support myself, my work and my family. The fact that I love what I do is why I have spent 40 years persevering whilst going without stuff most people take for granted. Vocation is not an invitation to disrespect.

Unsurprisingly I will not support parasitic business models that rely on exploiting photography, or me, to extinction. With very rare exceptions (small charities run by unpaid volunteers that I choose to support) I have no budget for subsidizing other peoples' work and profitability. Supporting my own is next to impossible thanks to the current vogue for passing off exploitation as opportunity.

When I can afford it, I will drop a few quid into a charity box or give to a homeless person on the street. I regularly work for charities at a discounted rate. I look after baby birds that have fallen out of nests. I am a generous, kind and loving human being. But I make an exception for salaried beggars who ask me to stuff a bundle of tenners in their pocket. They just piss me off. Especially when they insult me by telling me my life's work is jolly nice but worthless.

I have had the most amazing conversations with numerous chancers who think decent photos are just some sort of serendipity that they should be entitled to freely earn off because electrons don't cost much. One woman, a CEO of a £3.3m/yr organisation, explained that they like to use photos on their website because readers tell them that images communicate on a more accessible level than the text she commissions from her paid writers. So the value of photos was not in question. But she could not understand that perhaps she ought to use some of her £160,000 year website budget (I looked up their accounts on the web) to pay for photos. She could not understand that the photo she wanted to use only existed because I had invested time and money and learning in creating it. "Most photographers are happy to let us use their work for free". Oh no they aren't. They just didn't go and look at her accounts and see that this woman was on £66k a year salary and ask why she didn't work for the same rate she was shamelessly demanding.

Supply without payment is, of course, only viable for hobbyist photographers who don't need an income from their photography. They have salaried jobs, pensions or private incomes, or perhaps suicidal romantic tendencies. I do not. They have a selfish attitude to destroying the sustainability of photography as a profession which they call "beating the pro's at their own game". Moreover a byline might appeal to their idiot vanity. I suggest you ask one of them. Alternatively find a new graduate or student to exploit - they are desperate and naive and you have the opportunity to add to their crippling student debt by saving yourself a few quid.

If all this means you can't source the images you want, that is just tough. I can't source free cameras, computers, software, food, housing, fuel, either. If it's all so damn easy and cheap, go and make your own photos.

If all this offends you, best stay away from mirrors too.

Yeah. What Tony said.

The freckled-faced smoker at the top is Faye. It's one I captured in a just-for-fun photo session we did last year. I don't mind working for free when the work isn't work and I'm doing it just for grins and giggles. Enjoying a bit of foto-fun when it's with someone like Faye is an added bonus.

You Want What?

2011-08-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

Clients can often be vague when telling you what they want. Especially when they use words like creative or edgy. That's because words like creative and edgy don't often mean the same thing to everyone.

Words like creative and edgy can mean so many different things to so many different people that any client using those words to describe their expectations of my work might as well be speaking to me in French. And I don't understand much French beyond fries, toast, and mustard!

Here's some things clients usually mean when telling me they want creative or edgy: the same they’ve wanted all along, but not quite; the same their competitors are having their photographers shoot, sometimes exactly the same or sometimes a little different.

Here's what clients rarely, if ever, mean when asking me for creative or edgy: something they've never seen before.

Problems can occur, of course, when photographers wrongly translate the words creative and edgy.

More than a few photographers will wrongly assume, i.e., when asked to produce creative or edgy work, that their clients want stylistic photos of the sort they've never seen before and the photographer has never shot before. To attempt to satisfy a client's wishes, photographers will sometimes decide to shoot in ways they have little or no experience shooting. Consequently, the most obvious difference between the photographer's new, "never seen before" work and the work they normally produce -- the work that got them the job and the work they might be best known for -- will be that their new and "not seen before" work, compared to their usual work, generally sucks.

Who wants to hand over work that sucks?

Not me.

I've found when clients relay their expectations to me using words like creative and edgy, a question-and-answer session is in both our interests.

My questions tend to be focused on narrowing down what my clients are truly looking for when they're asking me for creative or edgy. Sometimes, the process can take a fair number of questions and answers. Occasionally, I luck out and ask the right questions near the beginning of the Q&A. Doing so sometimes yields enlightening answers: answers that give me a much better idea of what my client is actually looking for when they're asking me for creative or edgy.

I remember one time a client asked me for edgy. I proceeded to ask questions designed to ferret out his idea of edgyness. You know, in terms I might actually understand. It turned out my client was looking for pics that were much like some photos he had seen in a competitor's magazine. It also turned out the images my client simply defined as edgy were photos shot from extremely low angles looking up. My client, once able to describe to me what he was specifically looking for, suddenly came up with his own description for the shots-- He began calling them "worm's eye views" of the models. BTW, I did mention to my client that, to my knowledge, worms don't have eyes but that didn't seem to matter.

Once I knew what my client was truly looking for, it was easy to shoot the edgy stuff he said he wanted. I simply got down on the floor, on my back and with my head near the model's feet, almost between her legs and, using a fairly wide focal length, shot up. That's right, Gracie. My photos were captured upside down. More edgyness, right?

While I was shooting a number of different models throughout the day, my client seemed to constantly keep one eye on me. (He was also directing a video shoot at the location we were working at.) Whenever he spied me shooting the models in my normal manner (which were images he also wanted and needed) he'd loudly call out to me, reminding me to get some of those edgy shots.

"Worm's eye view, Jimmy! Worm's eye view!" he shouted ad nauseum.

He ended up shouting it so many times that I swore if I saw a freakin' worm I'd immediately step on it and squash it right out of existence! I'll also admit there were a few times during the day, leastwise in my fairly irritated mind, when my client himself began resembling a worm; one in desperate need of squashing.

The pretty girl at the top is Joanna Angel. Obviously, it's not a "worm's eye view" of the lovely Joanna. I've already spent one day too many shooting more "worm's eye view" shots than I care to remember. Frankly, that was more than enough time spent on my back mimicking a worm with a camera. As a result, it's a less favored angle for me, although I still might sometimes shoot it. But just sometimes. Not often.

Reflecting on Reflectors

2011-08-25T10:56:00.000-07:00

There's so much written about lighting with artificial light, whether it's small strobes, big strobes, or hot lights, the sun must sometimes feel like a photographic red-headed step-child.

Plenty of photographers, of course, use the sun as their primary source of light. Many of them use it as their only source of light. So why don't I see more written on the subject of natural lighting in my day-to-day perusing of photography-related articles and how-to tutorials? (Actually, I've already begun writing and shooting custom photos for an ebook on this very subject so, at some point in the not-too-distant future, there will be more available on lighting models with natural light only, using the many tools available.)

Back to my question about why I don't see more about lighting exclusively with natural light: Could it be that, despite the incredible results photographers often achieve when only using that natural, "light of the world," it's simply not sexy enough to write more about? Betcha if photographic equipment manufacturers were making lots more money off of gear that requires no more than sunlight to light up a subject, there would be substantially more written about it. Just sayin', you know?

Personally, I feel the best approach to lighting models is in using the best lighting tools for the job. If shooting locations and environment or other factors dictate natural light, and those "best tools" are reflectors or other sunlight modifiers employed to bounce, reduce, diffuse or flag sunlight on my subject, that's what I'm going with. It's all part of the "keep it simple, stupid" mantra that my ebook, "Guerrilla Glamour," revolves around.

In addition to owning enough artificial lights to, most-always, get the job done whenever they're called upon to get the job done, I also have plenty of reflectors and other sunlight modifying gear. I'll bet it's no surprise when I tell you my total investment in that kind of gear is about equal to the cost of a couple of high-end small-flash instruments or decent monolights. In fact, it's more than likely less.

I probably have a half-dozen reflectors of the collapsible kind. They are mostly in the 3' to 5' diameter range. A few of them have up to 5 different surfaces I can call upon: white, silver, gold, black, translucent. One of my collapsible reflectors, a small Photoflex Lite Disk, is only 12" in diameter and comes in handy when I want to bounce some fill that only covers a small area, you know, like just the model's face. I also have a LumoPro Lite Panel I often use.

Beyond my store-bought reflectors, I have a couple of DIY reflectors made from PCV pipe (for the frames) onto which I attach various materials to reflect, flag, or diffuse light. (Note: When I use these modifiers to diffuse light, they're scrims, not reflectors.) One of my DIY reflectors is about 3'x 4' and the other is even bigger. I forget exactly how big, but it's bigger! Quite a bit bigger.

Besides my trusty reflectors -- they're very trusty since they have no moving parts and don't require a power source other than solar power -- I have a number of scrims. As already mentioned, a couple of my collapsible reflectors double as scrims as do my two, DIY modifiers. As for store-bought scrims, I own a Westcott Scrim Jim which can be used as a scrim, a reflector, or a flag, depending on the material I attach to it.

With all these reflectors, scrims, and flags, are you getting the feeling I rely heavily on this sort of gear? If you are, you're right. And I should also note that this stuff doesn't just get dragged out when I'm shooting models using natural light only. It's all part of my overall "bag of tricks," also coming into play when I'm using artificial light or when I'm combining natural and artificial light. Again, it's all about the best tools for the job and keeping it simple. Or, as Albert Einstein once said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Smart guy that Einstein fella.

The biggest reflector/scrim I own is a 12' by 12' China silk. I'll admit it doesn't come out to play much -- it being a total hassle to rig -- but when I do use it, whether to bounce or diffuse light (I mostly use it to diffuse light.... when I use it, that is) it creates beautifully soft and creamy light spread over a fair amount of area.

Often, I find myself working on video production sets. That usually means a lighting crew and a lighting crew means a grip and lighting truck. Those trucks usually have all kinds of reflectors, scrims, and more on board and, since I generally go out of my way to ingratiate myself to the lighting crews, they are often quite generous in allowing me use of most anything they have on the truck. That includes everything from HMI lighting instruments to shiny boards and other reflectors, scrims, flags, and more.

So, even though using natural light and all the tools that can be used along with it doesn't get as much love in the world of lighting tutorials and such, I suggest you consider using all the many natural light tools, many of them quite inexpensive, that are available to reflect, diffuse, or flag light, whether you're using all natural light, artificial light, or a combination of both.

The pretty girl at the top depicted in a very simple, no-frills image is Daisy. We were in a ravine by a stream in the Santa Monica Mountains. Daisy and I hiked down into the ravine with me carrying only my camera, light meter, and a large, Flexfill, collapsible reflector, one I borrowed from the lighting crew who who were up top, lighting the interior of a small cottage which overlooks the stream and the ravine. Daisy, hiking barefoot, was carrying herself and a pair of heels and that's about it. The Flex-Fill reflector was, as I recall, approximately 3' x 6' oval. I used the silver-side out to fill Daisy's front bouncing some of that hard, bright, sunlight coming in from behind her. Very little post on the image other than cropping and some standard adjustments. I burned the background a bit just to better "pop" Daisy in the image, not that she needs much extra "popping" to get the attention of many viewers.

Sin City Fine Art Nude Workshop

2011-08-23T15:51:00.000-07:00

My favorite American photographer living in Zurich, Switzerland, Bryon Paul McCartney, who may or may not be related to that other Paul McCartney you may have heard of, will be hosting his first fine art nude workshop on American soil next month. More specifically, Bryon will be work-shopping with a small group of photographers in Sin City, a.k.a., Las Vegas, Nevada. How small of a group you might ask? Just 4, count 'em, 4 fortunate photographers will be shooting with and learning from Bryon over the course of two days.

Bryon is an internationally-recognized, award-winning, gallery-exhibited photographer known for his fine art photography. This is a great opportunity for a few photographers to learn from, work with, and get help honing their craft from a most excellent photographer. While Bryon's workshop is not directly affiliated with this year's Photoshop World, which takes place in Las Vegas next month on September 7 thru 9, Bryon's workshop immediately follows the Photoshop event and will be held September 10 & 11.

Bryon's debut U.S. workshop will be HQ'd at the Sin City Gallery in Las Vegas, NV. Shooting will take place at various locations in and around Las Vegas.

Bryon tells me each participant will be given the opportunity to focus on their own, specific needs, whether they need coaching on working with models, technical help with shooting them, light styling or post-processing. In other words, with such a small group, Bryon will be able to tailor the experience to each participant's needs.

For more detailed information regarding Bryon's exciting workshop, CLICK HERE. If you decide you'd like to attend, you can CLICK HERE to register.

The pretty girl at the top is Nautica. The photo represents one of my few, meager attempts at art nude photography.

The Most Elusive Skill

2011-08-20T16:39:00.000-07:00

Magnum photographer and Professor of Photography at England's University of Brighton, Mark Power, whose genre of choice is documentary photography, says "Now we can all take pictures with varying degrees of consistency, more than ever before it's about what we do with photography."

For photo-journalists, documentary photographers, and other shooters of that ilk, I couldn't agree more. But what about glamour and fashion and even portrait photographers? Yeah! What about us, Professor Mark?

Actually, I've got my own answer to my own question and, in telling it, I'm going to partially plagiarize the good professor: "Now we can all take pictures with varying degrees of consistency, more than ever before it's about how we interact with our models."

You see, it's like this: Once you've gotten to a certain point with lighting and composition and exposure and post-production and all that stuff, the never-ending pursuit of glamour/fashion/portrait excellence becomes a matter of what you do with your subjects, that is, how you work with, handle, and interact with them.

Sure, there's always more to learn about photo techniques and lighting and processing and all that. And practicing those things will help you become consistent in achieving technically terrific photos. But once your abilities with all those things reach a certain level of understanding and consistency, it becomes, chiefly, all about your skills in working with human beings. How to gain rapport with them, how to motivate and inspire them, how to direct them, how to pose them, how to challenge them and more.

Unfortunately, there are no absolute rules which will automatically help you achieve a higher level of understanding and mastery of these soft, people skills. That's, of course, because people are different. What motivates or inspires or challenges one model might not work on another. Bummer, right?

While these all-important people skills might sometimes seem elusive, and the hard, cold, fact is they are, often enough, hard to come by, the good news is there are some things you can do, some techniques you can hone, to up your people game.

Here's a few obvious people-pleasing behaviors that help: Treat people respectfully, encourage them to get involved in the creative process, communicate with them in effective ways (which includes listening as well as giving directions) and more.

I work with a lot of models. I never assume what works with one model will work with all of them. Still, there's some tried-and-true practices I engage in. Flattery, for instance, is one of them.

I've yet to meet a glamour model who didn't respond well to flattery. The more sincere the flattery, the better they respond. How do you flatter in sincere ways? Well, one good way I know of is to flatter in specific ways rather than generic ways. Models love hearing they're hot. Even more so, they love hearing what it is about them that makes them hot.

I also make it a habit to ask questions which indicate I'm genuinely interested in who they are and what they're about. (I might not always be genuinely interested, but what they don't know won't hurt them.) I have to be careful, of course, my questions don't come off flirty or possibly "pervy" but, when you seem genuinely and non-threateningly interested in a person, they usually respond favorably.

So there you go. If you're already fairly accomplished with the technical side of photography -- heck, even if you're not -- one of the best ways I know to improve your overall game is to work on those people skills. I guarantee the better you are with them, the better your photos will be.

The pretty girl at the top is Roxy. Used a 33.5" Mola 'Euro' beauty dish for my main plus a couple of strips for kickers from behind and either side of her plus a small soft box, boomed overhead, for a hair light. A fan gave some movement to that little lingerie-ish top.

A Cautionary Tale for Pretty Girl Shooters

2011-08-19T12:06:00.000-07:00

An underage teen model is suing a fashion shooter for $28M. Model Hailey Clauson, who was 15-years-old when fashion photographer, Jason Lee Parry, snapped the photo in dispute, says the image is "blatantly salacious," has damaged her reputation, and might even violate child porn laws.

Wow! Those are some serious accusations. As serious as twenty-eight million bucks! And that's serious money.

The Clauson/Parry story reaffirms (for me) why I rarely, if ever, shoot underage girls. It's not that I'd shoot them in "blatantly salacious" ways, I wouldn't, but since more than a few people probably consider (or would consider) a fair amount of my work as being salacious, blatantly or otherwise, I'd rather avoid even the potential for any possible guilt-by-association accusations.

A famous case of a photographer being sued by a model was Brooke Shields v. Gary Gross. (Link is NSFW.) Gross, you might know, shot the then ten-year-old and very naked Brooke Shields with her mother present. Even though Ms. Shields' mother was there and she signed all the necessary paperwork, Shields later sued him, attempting to bar his use of the photos. Gross ultimately prevailed in the lawsuit but fighting it ruined him financially.

If you're a shooter like me, that is, someone who regularly shoots the sort of content I shoot, I think it makes more sense to simply avoid the potential for being caught up in something like this by simply choosing not to photograph underage models. It ain't like there aren't many, many pretty girls over the age of 18 to grace your viewfinders.

In the past, I've had some not-quite-18-yr-old models ask me to shoot them. I told them to get back in touch with me after their 18th birthdays. In fact, I decline to even shoot stuff like senior pics, usually even head shots of under-18 subjects, simply because of the possibility, no matter how unlikely or remote, of someone making accusations and the content of my usual-and-customary work becoming an issue underscoring or driving that complaint... no matter how bogus the complaint might be.

Up top is yet another model whose name I can't recall and digging out the paperwork sounds like way too much work for a blog post. I do know, however, that she is over 18... probably not all that much over 18 but, when it comes to things like a model's age, as long as I know a model is over 18 and I've personally seen and have the proof, I'm generally and for the most part okay with shooting them as salaciously as my models are willing to go.

Selecting the Right Soft Box

2011-08-17T09:44:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I shared a video by photographer, Jay Morgan, where he talked about the size of soft boxes and how different sized soft boxes yield different results. With soft boxes, size does matter! But it isn't the only criteria when selecting the best soft box for various applications. The shape of the soft box is yet another important consideration. Today, thanks to Photoflex's cool blog, I came across Part 2 of Jay's softboxology video: Soft Boxes Applied.

In Part 2, Jay demonstrates the uses of different sizes and shapes of soft boxes in a multi-light setup. Once again, Jay presents the subject in a straight-forward, succinct, and easy-to-digest way. For those of you looking to increase your understanding of soft boxes, how to use them, and how different shapes and sizes of soft boxes will help you capture better pics of your subjects, I enthusiastically recommend you watch Jay's video. And guess what? You can watch it right here, below!

The pretty girl in my photo at the top is Faye. (Click it to enlarge it.) For the image of Faye, I didn't use a soft box at all. Sometimes, when selecting soft boxes or other modifiers, deciding to go with no modifier is the way to go. So, instead of using a soft box in front of a monolight, I employed an HMI (Hydrargyrum Medium-Arc Iodide.) I don't actually own any HMI's -- they're quite expensive and often require special maintenance -- but, since I was on a video set and the show's gaffer was a friend, I asked him if he could pull one off the truck and let me use it for my set with Faye.

As you can see, daylight coming through the window was quite bright and intense and the power of an HMI (plus the daylight color temperature it generates) was perfect for the spot where I decided to shoot my model. A Fresnel lens on the HMI provided it's unique lighting characteristics -- characteristics I'm a big fan of -- so, with the addition of a small shiny board set low and in front of the model reflecting daylight for some added fill, all I needed was the HMI to capture the kind of high-contrast pics I was looking for in my shots of Faye.

The image below is a behind-the-scenes shot captured during my set with Faye. On the right, my friend, the gaffer, is adjusting the HMI for me. You can also see the shiny board in place to the right of Faye. The reflector (on a stand) in the foreground isn't doing anything but waiting in case I might need to use it for any of my shots.

Everything You Wanted to Know About...

2011-08-16T12:16:00.000-07:00

...high-end lighting set-ups, but didn't know where to go to learn it.

Well, your quest is over.

Photo-assistant, Melanie Mann, who calls herself a "mad photo assistant," and who has assisted many of the uber-shooters who dot the photographic landscape, dishes the straight-up skivvy on her blog, Confessions of a Mad Photo Assistant.

Have you ever asked yourself, "I wonder how Annie L lit that?" Now you'll know. Not only will you get the 411 on the divine Ms. L's (and others') lighting set-ups, Mann also shares some of her on-the-set experiences beyond lighting and tech stuff.

Mann's new blog is now on my list of blogs to check out regularly. You might want to do the same. What's the worst that could happen? We all learn something we didn't know?

Since I don't like to update without an accompanying pretty girl pic here's Sasha, below, from a shoot at a location house in L.A. Used a 5' Photoflex Octadome for my main with the monolight fairly cranked up to come a little closer to balancing with the bright background through the windows, some fill coming from the right and in front of her and a kicker behind her, from the left, to help separate her from the BG and add some highlight to her hair.

"I'm Breaking All the Rules I Didn't Make"

2011-08-13T14:58:00.000-07:00

So *that's* what you're doing? Silly me! I simply thought you didn't have much of a clue WTF you were doing. Thanks for clearing that up! I don't mind admitting being wrong when I'm so obviously wrong.

Sarcasm aside, if that's what you're doing, breaking all the rules whenever you shoot, and if those are your photographer's "words to live by," odds are the vast majority of your work sucks. I'm not saying that because I'm down on breaking rules. I'm also not saying breaking all the rules or some of the rules doesn't produce incredible images, leastwise, on occasion. I'm simply saying it because, for the most part, it's true.

There are many ways to define all this rule-breaking. These days, one of the most popular is to label it as shooting "outside of the box."

There's much to be said for rule-breaking and shooting "outside the box." It can be fun, challenging, rewarding, and fulfilling. Especially, when the moon, stars, and the planets all line up perfectly and your "outside the box" endeavors deliver an awesome photo! That's why more than a few of today's "photo gurus" preach the gospel of shooting OTB. To be honest, most of them preach other gospels as well, but OTB is often one of them. Unfortunately, if you're nearly always shooting as a devout follower of the Gospel of OTB, I have three words for you: Let us pray.

There are, of course many good reasons for shooting OTB. Here's one of them: Let's say you're a new-ish and/or mostly inexperienced shooter. As such, much of your work likely isn't overly memorable unless you're some kind of photographer-prodigy. No offense but consistently producing good work -- and I stress the word "consistently" -- usually requires practice. And more practice and more practice on top of that. Still, let's say you haven't put in much time practicing and honing your shooting skills. No problemo! When someone has the audacity not to bestow those ego-stroking kudos and attaboys on you and your work, perhaps they even (shudder) criticize it, all you have to do is respond with something like this:

"My work is outside the box. I don't feel I need to conform to the rules. That's how I shoot. I can't help it if you can't recognize or appreciate art when you see it!"

How cool is that? Instant justification and a bona fide defense even if it's also instant and bona fide bullshit.

Here's the raw, no bullshit, bona fide truth: Although shooting OTB sometimes yields great photos, shooting "inside the box" is more likely and more often the way to snag great snaps. What lies "inside the box" can be, and often is, just as exceptional, inspiring, and challenging as anything shot OTB.

I'm not discouraging rule breaking or shooting OTB or "pushing the envelope" or being (artistically) at the "leading edge" or whatever you want to call it. I'm just saying it's not the only way to stand out and be recognized and rewarded as a good photographer, glamour photographer or otherwise.

I can't recall a single instance or example where an "outside the box" photo I might have snapped -- and I believe I've snapped a few of them, maybe even a few pretty good ones -- was *the* photo that landed me more work or a new client or pushed my career forward in some notable way.

As usual, I'm just sayin.

Speaking of not being able to recall things, I can't recall the name of the pretty girl at the top and I'm too freakin' lazy to hunt it down or dig it out. Sorry. So shoot me already. I'm often just sitting here, inside the box, so I should be a fairly easy target to hit.

Beating Facebook's Morality Police

2011-08-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

When it comes to posting photos, many photographers, myself included, have routinely complained, lamented, become frustrated with, shook their fists and screamed loudly at Facebook's mysterious and inconsistent enforcement of their TOS (Terms of Service). Well, that's what I used to do. But no more! I mean, first off, why bother? No one at Facebook is listening anyway, right?

Apparently, all it takes is one, self-appointed, morality cop to flag a photo and Facebook removes it with an accompanying dire warning and, sometimes, removal of photo uploading privileges for varying lengths of time. They even sometimes threaten to ban your entire account! Permanently! They don't, BTW, tell you which photo they've deleted (it becomes a mystery if you have many photos uploaded to your FB page) and they don't tell you why they've deleted it, leastwise, not specifically why. They simply say the offending photo violated their TOS.

Facebook's TOS is fairly straightforward when it comes to photos. In a nutshell, it says no nudity or porn, no drug related pics, no pics that are hateful. I don't know about you but, for me, that seems simple and easy to understand.

Apparently, though, it's not as easy to understand as one might think. I've had many photos deleted (with accompanying threats and denial of uploading priviledges) which did not violate FB's stated TOS. They didn't feature nudity. They weren't porn, altho some of them might have been pics of porn stars. They weren't hateful. They did not feature a drug theme.

(Note: I did upload one photo, one time, that showed a pretty model with a bong in front of her. FB deleted it and I didn't complain as it did violate their TOS. See? I'm willing to admit guilt when I'm actually guilty.)

Finally, I decided to quit uploading photos to my Pretty Girl Shooter Facebook photography page. Course, I wasn't thrilled about doing that... I mean not doing that. I have over two-thousand-two-hundred "fans" of my FB photography page and, frankly, most of them are there to see photos I've snapped of hot chicks.

So, what could I do?

Then, it hit me. I'll simply create a a free, Google Blogger, blog page and post my photos there and then link to them on my FB photography page. The link even provides a thumbnail exactly the way it would if I had uploaded my photos directly to FB. You can choose, of course, not to show the thumbnails. In fact, that's what I first did when I started linking to my pics; mostly because the pics I was linking to often did include nudity.

(Another Note: I've learned to link to the enlarged photo on Blogger so, when people click on the link or the thumbnail, the only thing it links to is the full-size photo itself.)

After a while, however, I decided to throw caution to the wind and link with the thumbnail revealed. I did this a number of times, waiting for FB to slap me for it. They didn't. I kept posting and linking with the thumbnail showing but FB still didn't delete the links or threaten to remove my account or otherwise get on my case about it.

You see, for hyperlinks, there seems to be no "Flag" button for the morality cops and the church ladies to click. Since, IMO, no one at FB ever looked at my non-TOS-violating pics anyway (they simply and automatically deleted and threatened if someone flagged it) FB would be none the wiser if people couldn't flag my links to photos which, in reality, often do violate Facebook's stated TOS.

Since my photos don't violate Google Blogger's TOS, plus Google provides a "Content Warning" for my "R-rated" photo-posting blog (something FB could and should do) just like they do on this blog, from a content perspective there's no harm/no foul. If you object to the pictorial content on this page or my other blog page, finding it offensive or inappropriate or whatever, you can't say Google hasn't warned you. If you have "issues" with my photo content or my words, when you see the content warning simply choose not to proceed to my blogs. How freakin' easy is that?

If you're having problems with censorship on your FB page, I suggest you go to Google Blogger, create a free blog page to post your pics, post your photos there and link to them on your FB page and fuhgedabout the Morality Police and the church ladies on FB. Doing it that way has been working for me for a while now.

The pretty girl at the top is Jayme. The photo is fairly typical of the content parameters I post on my Blogger photo page and link to my Facebook photography page.

Monday Morning Blahs Demolished

2011-08-08T11:46:00.000-07:00

Usually, probably much like many of you, Monday mornings aren't my favorite mornings of the week. They're most often on the "blah" side if not being outright depressing. More so if the weekend I just enjoyed was a terrific one! (Although, unfortunately, I can't say this past weekend was anything special for me. Bummer, right?)

On this Monday morning, however, I woke from my nightly coma to a pleasant surprise. After groggily checking my email then logging onto Facebook, I sipped on a much-needed cup of joe and half-ass watched my News Feed scroll by. Suddenly, I spotted one of my pics! In spite of my semi-conscious condition, I quickly realized it was posted on Photoflex's FB page! That sure wiped the sleepiness from my eyes and jump-started my senses.

I clicked on the Photoflex FB page link to discover not only my photo, but a link to Photoflex's blog. After clicking the blog link, I saw that my BTS (Behind-the-Scenes) photo of glam-goddess, Tera Patrick, one that I had snapped during one of my photo-sessions with Tera, was being featured at the top of the Photoflex blog update.

Very cool!

I guess it pays to tag your photos with the name of the company who makes some of the gear you use. Those companies, if they notice the image and like the photo, probably like it even better when their gear is featured in the photo, including the company's logo. D'uh, right?

CLICK HERE if you missed the hyperlink above to go to Photoflex's blog.

The snap above is one from the same session with the Goddess of Glam, one where I also shot the BTS pic Photoflex featured on their blog.

New eBook: Boudoir Photography

2011-08-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

While there's a myriad of differences between how you should approach boudoir photography versus glamour photography, the end results are often quite similar. D'uh, right? One of the biggest differences between the two genres, of course, are the models themselves.

Glamour photography generally strives to capture the sensual allure of professional, semi-pro, or amateur models. Boudoir photography also strives to capture that allure but, with boudoir, the models themselves are rarely professional or even amateur models. Instead, they're housewives and girlfriends and Moms and even Grand-Moms. In short, boudoir subjects can be just about anyone.

While most glamour models are quite comfortable posing in various stages of dress and undress, boudoir subjects generally aren't accustomed to flaunting and projecting their allure in similar ways for the camera. (Much less that strange photographer guy or gal.)

I doubt it's a surprise to any of you that many of the same photography and lighting skills necessary for shooting great glamour pics are very close, if not identical, to what's required for shooting great boudoir photos. Boudoir photographers, however, need an additional set of skills, many of them specialized people skills, in order to be successful. They also need unique marketing skills and more.

That's where Ed Verosky's new ebook, Boudoir Photography, comes in. What Ed has done with his new ebook is compile the best of his two previous ebooks on boudoir photography, added more info, suggestions, how-to stuff and advice, and picked the brains of some other well-known and successful boudoir photographers (and shared the results of that brain-picking) in order to help you become a better and more successful boudoir photographer.

If you're already shooting boudoir or are just getting started, or even if you're simply thinking about jumping into boudoir shooting but haven't yet begun pursuing it, this ebook will be a terrific resource for you.

CLICK HERE (or on the Boudoir Photography graphic in the right-hand column) to learn more about, and/or purchase, Ed Verosky's new Boudoir Photography ebook.

What Size Softbox Is Best?

2011-07-29T11:36:00.000-07:00

I came across a terrific video today. It's hosted by photographer, Jay Morgan, and I think it's one of the best and most succinct and easy-to-digest videos I've seen regarding softbox selection.

Most glamour photographers often go with the largest softboxes they have, leastwise for their key or main light. Often, that's a great choice. Traditional softbox wisdom says size does matter and going big with softboxes often yields pleasing glamour results. The bigger the light source, after all, the softer the light. And soft light is something we generally prefer when shooting gorgeous models for glamour pics.

Soft light, however, isn't always our first choice. Sometimes, we want to cast shadows to play dramatic roles in our images. The best way to let shadow do its thing is to reduce the size of the light source (relative to the model) so there's less wrap-around and the shadows become more obvious and defined.

Glamour photographers are also interested in coverage, that is, how much area will my modified light cover? One would think the bigger the softbox, the more area it covers. Sounds like a reasonable assumption, no?

No.

As you watch the video, you'll discover that various sizes of softboxes behave in almost identical ways in some ways, and very differently in other ways.

Here's Morgan's video:

The pretty girl at the top is Chayse. I was shooting in a warehouse in downtown Los Angeles. I used a Photoflex 5' Octo for my main and a couple of kickers from behind, either side, both modified with small, shoot-thru umbrellas. As always, you can click the pic to enlarge it.

A Kiss of Light

2011-07-23T13:39:00.000-07:00

I'd be a big, fat, liar if I didn't admit I've fantasied about kissing some of my models. I won't say where I'd often like to kiss them -- beyond the usual kissable places -- this being a socially-correct and polite blog... well, it's sort of socially-correct and polite, text-wise, at least. I also won't say my fantasies don't sometimes go beyond kissing. But that's another story, one better kept private.

Since I'm rarely invited to kiss my models other than with harmless, welcoming or departing, pecks on their cheeks, even the occasional brief and friendly lip-to-lip action, I'm usually left with merely kissing them with light. (Sucks, don't it?)

I don't, of course, kiss (with light) many of my models just anywhere. Mostly, I kiss them with light in places that match some of the very same places I'd like to kiss them in other ways. Go figure, right? BTW, if I'm sounding like a perv or a GWC, I really don't care. I prefer to think I'm sounding like most all men. Leastwise, men who are honest about this kind of stuff.

When it comes to photos of beautiful naked women, one might think a viewer's eyes, especially male eyes, would have no problems focusing on certain places on the model's body that are "places of interest." Yeah. You know what I'm talking about. Still, as a glamour photographer, I often feel compelled to use light to draw the viewers' attention to some of those body locations that are, to be honest, of major interest to my viewers.

I often do this -- kiss them with light in all the right places, that is -- with highlights and accent lights. For those who need this spelled out for them, those "places of interest" usually include the models' faces, breasts, and butt cheeks. Obviously, there are other "places of interest" which might be included on my list of places to kiss....with light or otherwise, that is. It simply depends, for the most part, on what I'm trying to accomplish with the pictures or what content limitations, or desired exaggerations, that might have been communicated to me by those writing checks.

D'uh, right?

Modeling lights and chimping are great ways to insure you're kissing your models with light in all the right places. (Or many of the right places.) Often, after chimping or examining what the modeling lights are doing, I have my models adjust their poses so those "places of interest" are kissed, and kissed well, with whatever lights I've assigned to do the kissing. Many of you probably do the same.

The use of additional lights to highlight a model's "places of interest" is certainly not anything new or original or something many of you haven't considered or regularly do when you're shooting models. I'm simply explaining my way of thinking about, looking at, or imagining what I'm doing with those particular lights when I'm using them to highlight or accent certain parts of my models. You know, as in "Hmm... I should kiss her harder there," or "I need to turn her a bit so the light kisses her better on her..." Well, you get the idea.

The mostly-naked and nicely-put-together model at the top is Madison. As you can see, I used some extra lights to kiss her in some of the right places... some of those "places of interest."

Tronix Explorer Mini Rocks!

2011-07-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

I took my new Tronix Explorer Mini out for a test drive the other day. Okay, technically it was a test shoot, not a test drive, but if this new product had wheels and a motor, it would handle like an agile sports car, accelerating quickly enough to knock your head back.

The Explorer Mini is Innovatronix's latest addition to it's line of portable power units. But don't let the word, "Mini," fool you. This little baby packs a wallop with its 400 watts of continuous power and 1200ws of peak power!

Here's some personal observations about the Explorer Mini, that is, a few things that impressed me beyond my overall sense of being impressed, earning the Mini a JimmyD "Seal of Approval" for this very cool portable power unit.

Recycle time: It was as if my monolight was plugged into an AC socket! Every time I snapped one, my strobe was recharged as quickly as it ever recharges when working in a studio. I never slowed the normal pace I usually shoot at. I'm not saying I fire my Canon like it's a Gatling Gun, I don't. That's not my shooting style. But I often shoot fairly fast, albeit, a single shot at a time. (My camera is practically never in multi-shot burst mode.)

I wrote to Glen, Innovatronix's marketing honcho, and told him I wasn't sure if it was my imagination or what, but it sure seemed like the recycle time didn't slow down in any noticeable way towards the end of my shoot and as the Mini came closer to being spent. Glen wrote me back and said it was not my imagination. He explained that, while I won't get as many total number of POPs with the Mini as I do with my much larger ExplorerXT -- the XT being much bigger and having more overall capacity -- the Mini packs more punch than the XT and that punch is very noticeable in terms of recycle times. It also means the Tronix Mini is compatible with an even greater variety of various manufacturers' strobes than the XT is compatible with. (Note: Whenever I'm in the market for new strobes -- or portable power supplies for that matter -- fast recycle time is always near the top of my list for "must have" functionality.)

While the Mini may not hold as much overall power in reserve as it's big brother, the XT, that's not to say I ran out of juice before finishing my shoot. I was using a 300ws monolight cranked up to full-power output throughout the two or three hours I was shooting and the Mini, as small as it is, delivered about 300 full-power POPs!

I also loved the carrying bag the Mini travels in and for a couple of reasons: First, it's well vented so the Mini and it's charger can always stay in the bag, even while recharging. Second, while the Mini is much smaller than the XT, it's still heavy enough so the bag can be hung from a light stand and perform like a sand bag. I'm not saying it's heavy enough to anchor a light stand with a big modifier up top, keeping it firmly planted in gale force winds. (Neither will multiple sand bags.) Still, it was heavy enough to keep my stand upright in the gentle breeze that helped keep us cool while shooting. BTW, I was using a fairly good size modifier: a 5' Photek Softlighter.

I highly recommend the Tronix Explorer Mini as an effective, reliable, reasonably-priced and terrific solution to your portable power needs, especially for those quick(ish) on-location shoots where A/C is not available. If, like me, you prefer shooting with the advantages and power of monolights, rather than small flash instruments, the Tronix Explorer Mini is the answer to those needs. If, like many photographers, you prefer shooting with small flash instruments, Innovatronix also makes and sells an AC/DC converter/power supply, the Tronix Speedfire, allowing you to plug one end of the Speedfire into the Mini (or into an AC wall socket for that matter) and the other end into your Canon or Nikon flash's power port. Doing so will deliver many POPs from your speedlite(s) and at faster recycle times than your small flash delivers when stuffed with AA batteries.

The young lady at the top is Alexis. She's an aspiring, mainstream actress. I was shooting images for her commercial portfolio. My bud, Dan, was with me and he snapped the behind-the-scenes pic up top featuring both Alexis and the Tronix Explorer Mini hanging from my light stand. As I mentioned, I was using a 300ws monolight at full-power output modified with a large Photek Softlighter. I also set a LumoPro Lite Panel, lengthwise on the ground and angled up for that set of on-the-ground shots. It provided a bit of gentle fill from underneath. The Lite Panel's reflector was bouncing strobe light, by the way, not sun light. As you can see, I was using the late afternoon sun for back light. I love the beautiful, warm, edge-lighting the sun provides at that time of day. It also helped separate Alexis from the background while adding other aesthetic values.

Below is a shot of Alexis I snapped after the sun had set and the ambient was mostly gone. Like the Energizer Bunny, the Explorer Mini still had some fast-recycle power left so I finished out our shoot adopting a slightly editorial look and feel for the last few images of Alexis.

Lighting in Layers

2011-07-16T12:11:00.000-07:00

, I don't regularly shoot outside, that is, daylight exteriors. That's not to say I don't ever shoot outside, I do, but more often than not, my clients have me either shooting in a studio or in some practical location's interior.

When I do shoot outdoor exteriors, make that daylight exteriors, and I'm going to use available light rather than mostly overcoming it with artificial lighting -- which is how I prefer working; using available light rather than overcoming it, that is -- my thought process for approaching my lighting is one where I build on what's available. I rarely rely on what's available by itself.

Some photographers do, of course, rely on available light almost exclusively and they're quite talented at doing so. For the most part, I'm not one of those people. As a result, I almost always add to whatever lighting naturally exists, whether I do so with artificial lighting or with reflectors bouncing direct sunlight or reflecting subtle fill courtesy of the existing ambient.

In my ebook, Guerrilla Glamour, I wrote about building on the "one light," i.e., the main source of light. For me, it all starts with a single light source regardless of whether that light source is a strobe, a continuous artificial lighting instrument, or the sun. (Direct sunlight or indirect/ambient, it makes no difference.) My work doesn't usually remain "one-light" work. Mostly, because contemporary glamour photography often dictates using multiple light sources, adding fill and highlights which are designed to add to the model's allure.

Like working with layers in Photoshop, I think of this as working with layers of lighting. One layer is my main or key light. Another is fill. Other layers might include accents and/or highlights. There's no order in which I might approach these layers. I might begin, for instance, with the back light; definitely if or when it's prominent. (As it often might be when you're shooting later in the day and you're using the sun as a back light and that direct sunlight is quite strong and bright.)

Let's break it down: First, I decide which light is my "one light." (As mentioned above, when referring to my ebook.) Whether that "one light" is a strobe or it's direct sunlight or it's exterior daylight ambient, it doesn't really matter. The light I dub my "one light" always creates the foundational lighting for my images and I build the rest of my lighting scheme, or layers, on that single, usually most prominent, light source I've decided is my "one light."

If I'm outside working in daylight, for instance, I pick a spot where I like the lighting that already exists (Assuming my client gives me the leeway to pick a spot of my choosing, which they don't always do.) The already existing natural light, whether it's direct or ambient, becomes, in my mind, my "one light." Then, I ask myself, "How can I make this better? How can I enhance my one light?" Leastwise, better or enhance it in ways that A) accomplishes what I'm trying to accomplish; B) best utilizes what's available, lighting-wise; and C) most effectively features my model, separating her from the environment and making the image "all about her." Remember: I'm strictly talking about lighting, make that glamour lighting, and not other portrait genres or the many other techniques a photographer might utilize to accomplish those things.

Let's say I'm shooting late in the day in and around Golden Hour. Often, although certainly not always, I'll decide to use the sun as my back-light. I love that natural, warm, golden-aura, edge-lighting that's available during that time of day! Course, shooting in those conditions means I'm usually going to need to balance the bright back-light with front-lighting. Otherwise, without the help of front-light, I'll either blow out the background or end up with a silhouette shot. Most often, those kinds of shots aren't what I'm looking to snap.

Basically, I can add front-light one of two ways: either by using reflectors or strobes. (There's other ways to do this by using continuous light instruments, often in the form of HMIs, but they aren't regularly available to me. )

I'm not going to get into which is best, reflectors or strobes. From an aesthetics POV, there is no best. It's an either/or kind of thing or it depends on which tools I expect will yield the kind of aesthetic results I'm looking for. Often enough, my approach includes both. That is, I might use reflectors as well as strobes or various numbers of each. I don't, BTW, have an absolute preference. For me, these decisions most often depend on what seems most practical (while still delivering the results I'm looking for) or what is the easiest or most efficient way to accomplish what I'm trying to accomplish with my images. I'm all about easiest and most practical.

As everyone knows, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line... or the straightest line you can manage. The rule of straight lines (or nearly-straight lines) applies to where you might be physically going as much as it does to things like how to proceed when photographing models. It does for me, at least. I do understand there are exceptions to this rule, just like there are exceptions to most rules. The way they plot the courses of airliners on trans-oceanic routes is a good example: it's often better, make that potentially safer, to fly over land masses as much as possible rather than simply navigating a straight line across the ocean.

As usual, I won't be providing a lighting tutorial or explaining exactly how to accomplish these things. (There's plenty of websites and blogs that do that!) Besides, no one single lighting tutorial or explanation could cover the different conditions I've mentioned in this update. I suppose I'm more about trying to get photographers to think about how they approach this stuff, you know, in their heads, rather than telling them how to do it. I'm simply sharing how my mind works when approaching my lighting, given the many different lighting factors and conditions that might be present.

Bottom line, don't rely near-exclusively on RAW adjustments or on Photoshop or some other image processor to fix things. Do things right when you're capturing your images. Do things in production that are most effective and most efficient. Try your best to capture you vision while you're shooting, rather than later on when you might have to toil at creating a vision, yours or one you've seen some other photographer create. Use post tools to enhance your images, rather than fixing or repairing them or trying to polish a turd.

The pretty girl at the top is Roxanne. I had to utilize my computer's way-back machine to upload it. I think I snapped that one about 7 or more years ago at a location house in the hills. Obviously, it was captured during Golden Hour. A single, large reflector was used for the front-light. I apologize for, what I now consider, heavy-handed processing. (I'm not too keen on the amputated right arm either.) I no longer have the original image and I did the processing back when I was still a little too enamored, and certainly less proficient, with Photoshop... even if, for the most part, I still suck at using PS.

Google+ TOS: Another POV

2011-07-13T18:39:00.000-07:00

If you read my last update, "A Big Fat Minus for Google+," you might be having reservations about Google's new social media endeavor. Minimally, you might be concerned about Google's TOS and what it means to photographers or, more importantly, any photos photographers might post on Google's new social media website.

But I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy. I like presenting more than one perspective on stuff like this. My last update was based on a blog post by well-known photographer, Scott Bourne, who obviously has heartburn with Google over their TOS. I never knew heartburn was contagious but, after reading Bourne's blog post, it gave me heartburn as well. So maybe it is? Contagious, I mean.

While Bourne may be 100% correct about Google's TOS, there are other ways to look at this issue and, in my never-ending quest to provide all of you with more than a small amount of good info, make that enough good info to help you make good, intelligent, informed decisions about whatever the hell the info is I'm posting on this blog, (i.e., when whatever it is I'm writing about might include some decision-making) I think you might also be interested in a different perspective on this Google+ TOS thing.

So, with that in mind, I give you another talented and skilled photographer's POV on this issue. It's a good read. CLICK HERE TO READ COLBY BROWN'S POV

The pretty girl at the top with the pouty expression is Cytherea.

A Big Fat Minus for Google+

2011-07-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of buzz, positive buzz, about Google+ in recent weeks. And a lot of that buzz might be for some very good reasons.

Not that I'm necessarily counting it as one of the reasons for the buzz, but if anyone might eventually dislodge Facebook as the social media site of choice for many, many people, Google just might be the one to do it. Frankly, if Facebook went the way of MySpace, I sure wouldn't shed a tear or lose any sleep over it.

Having said that, I spend a lot of time on Facebook. It's almost always open in one of my windows. While I might be doing other things like authoring blog entries, writing for my ebooks, editing photos and more, I can easily and quickly monitor my Facebook page for updates, messages, etc. That's why some of my friends think I spend most of my life on FB. While it might appear that I do, appearances can be decieving. BTW, I also usually have my Twitter feed running as well.

Facebook has definitely given me heartburn on more than a few occasions. Usually, it's been when they've deleted my photos because they claimed those photos somehow violated their TOS. (Terms of Service.)

I've only once violated FB's actual stated TOS with a photo. I posted a candid photo of a model who was holding a bong. But in all the other cases of FB deleting my photos, I've not violated their stated TOS. Still, not only did they delete my photos, but two or three times they suspended my ability to upload photos and threatened to banish me from FB forever. GFY, Mark Zuckerberg, you and your morality police.

Now, along comes Google+ in a quest to dislodge FB from the social media throne. That's cool. Competition is a good thing. It keeps people and companies on their toes and, hopefully, also keeps them looking for ways to make their service or product or whatever better or more attractive or less expensive or current and so much more.

When it comes to photo sharing, Google+ wants to make the experience superior to FB's photo sharing capabilities. Cool! I'm all for that. But Google+, like Facebook, also wants to have free reign with users' photos. For many people who simply post snapshots taken with their cell phones or point-n-shoots, that might not seem like a big deal. But for anyone who makes their living, wholly or in part, with cameras in their hands, it's a big freakin' problem. I know I have a big fat problem with it.

Check out this article on the Photo Focus blog: Google Plus - Read the Fine Print Before You Sign Up. If, like me, you're someone who makes their living with photography, even if it's just part of your living, you might want to think about this before signing up or, if you already have signed up or plan to do so, before posting pics to your new Google+ account.

The pretty girl at the top is Nautica busting a fairly silly pose and expression. I exaggerated it by employing some wide-angle distortion. Trust me when I tell you that, normally, Nautica's photos reveal her as quite the beautiful, exotic, and sexy young thing.

Your Personal Style

2011-07-07T13:22:00.000-07:00

Some photographers lay claim to an identifiable personal style. Others depend on viewers of their work, from Facebook or Flickr friends to clients to photo editors even to art critics, to describe their style for them. Many other photographers say they're still in search of an identifiable personal style or that their style is dynamic and ever-evolving.

Whether a distinctive personal style, static or dynamic, is more appropriately described by the photographers themselves or by viewers of his or her work, I'm really not sure. I'm not sure it matters who does the describing. The thing that does matter, I suppose, is that your style is well received by others.

For some, I suppose, having a style, well-received or otherwise, doesn't really matter. You see, some of those folks are photographers who claim they're simply and exclusively doing this thing for themselves and themselves only... which then begs the question, "If that is so, why do you bother sharing your photos with others on forums and elsewhere?"

I should note that I'm not writing today about the merits of having a recognizable, distinctive, and identifiable style, regardless of whether that style is subtle or obvious or common or unique. I think most will agree having a recognizable style is, for the most part, a good thing. More so if that style resonates positively with viewers. For shooters like me, those who make a living (or some part of it) with photography, having a recognizable style is even more of a good thing if that style resonates well with the people who write checks, a.k.a., clients. That includes established clients and, probably more importantly, potential clients.

How are many photographers' personal styles described?

I think describing or defining a personal style mostly begins by categorizing some very important aspects of the work including how that work is created. This is probably truer now, in the digital age, than ever before. If there's two, major, categories that often define, in whole or in large part, today's breed of photographer as well as their styles, it probably revolves around whether their overall style is mostly captured with a camera or is mostly created in post-production.

Some of you might disagree with the above statement. Still, I think it's true. Style-related discussions are often seen on a few of the photographer/model forums I frequent. In many of those discussions, it's obvious it can often be a sensitive subject.

Some shooters seem to feel the need to aggressively, sometimes angrily, defend their methods when questioned (in polite or sometimes not-so-polite ways) regarding how they arrive at their finished photos. It's been my observation that those people, the ones who get angry or defensive, are most often those who rely more heavily on post-processing than production to achieve their work.

Many photographers, of course, simply and unemotionally share their methods. Still others prefer to remain elusive and mysterious about it. My opinion? Whichever way you choose to express yourself, well, that's your business. In the grand scheme of things, it's really unimportant and matters little. If it makes you happy to rant about how your way is the right way, then go for it. If you don't care to share your techniques, oh well. The sun will still rise tomorrow regardless of what you or anyone else says or doesn't say on a photography forum or how you make your photos.

It's likely that some, perhaps many of you, believe your style is achieved through fairly equal doses of production and post-production. Personally, I disagree. From the many, many images I regularly view, it's often obvious (to me) whether a shooter's personal style is mostly a product of what comes out of the camera or is, to a much greater extent, created via post-processing. (I'm talking style here people, not every element of your photos.)

Style is an intangible factor. Still, i think I can assess a shooter's style, in terms of it being mostly camera-related or mostly post-related, with the 80/20 rule. As with many things, the 80/20 rule often applies. Why not apply it to photographic styles? At least in terms of how a given style is arrived at. So, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to apply the 80/20 rule when categorizing the personal styles exhibited, and how they're arrived at it, by many if not most digital photographers.

Yep. It seems to me most shooters' styles are either somewhere around 80% shooting style and 20% post-processing or visa versa. These days, of course, I see plenty of the visa versa styles. But that's not to say there's anything inherently wrong with the way the visa versa people, i.e., those whose work is about 80% processing and 20% production, go about making their photographic imagery.

Please also note that while I might have a personal bias regarding which way the 80/20 should be divvied in terms of which way most often resonates best with me, my bias does not necessarily convince me that one or the other is automatically superior. Fortunately, it's still a free country, leastwise when it comes to having opinions or employing photographic techniques. So, while I have an overall opinion in this matter, plus I have my own ways of arriving at whatever it is that makes my personal style, "my personal style," I don't necessarily believe my opinions or methods are any more valid than the opinions or methods of others. (How's that for being diplomatic?)

Applying the 80/20 rule to style seems especially appropriate in the digital photography age. When photography was analog, the style exhibited by nearly all photographers was mostly a product of their shooting techniques, their aesthetics, and their "eye." In other words, their styles were incorporated into the pictures, for the most part, the moment they snapped their photos.

Sure, there were exceptions. Back in the analog day, some well-known photographers exhibited big chunks of their styles as a result of work performed in a darkroom.

Famed glamour photographer, George Hurrell, comes to mind. I'd put a 50/50 ratio on Hurrell's work. His camera work and lighting was certainly distinctive but the work he did in the darkroom was equally distinctive. When it comes to shooting, coupled with darkroom work, I'd also probably slap a 50/50 ratio on Ansel Adams' work. For the most part, though, the great majority of analog photographers captured their personal styles with their cameras, more so than via work performed in a darkroom.

Looking at a few of today's notable photographers, I'd say Annie Leibovitz's style is mostly captured in the camera. Conversely, the stylistic work of celebrity photography team, Klinko & Indrani, seems more a product of post-processing than out-of-the-camera style. Remember, I'm simply referring to style. Style is just one component of terrific (or crappy) photography.

Here's my advice: Once you've determined or admit to which camp you mostly fall in -- the shooting camp or the post-processing camp -- and regardless of which camp mostly seems to best reflect the way your personal style is achieved, I think it's important to fully embrace your style-related methods of capturing or creating your images rather than worrying about whether one method is superior to another. If, like me, you depend more on things like camera work, lighting, exposure, and interaction with the model to achieve some sort of style, that's cool. If you depend more on Photoshop or some other image processing software, well, that's cool too. Whatever floats your boat, right?

BTW, whatever your style might be or however you arrive at it, if it doesn't seem to be working out for you, that is, your personal style isn't generating the kind of responses you believe (or hope) it deserves, how about instead of aggressively defending it, you know, playing the "art card" or whatever, you consider re-thinking how you approach your photography in terms of your personal style and how you get there. After all, a terrific and well-received photographic style, like beauty, is most often reflected in the eyes of its beholders, not the images' creators.

The pretty girl at the top is Katrina. I've posted this pic before but I think it's a good example of a style I try to incorporate in many of my glamour photos: one where, while using commonly-seen lighting and compositional styles, I also try to include poses and expressions that are on the emotional side, whatever that emotion might be or one I might decide to try to capture.

The More Things Change, the More They Change

2011-07-05T18:23:00.000-07:00

Perhaps like many of you, especially in these financially tight times, I generally keep an eye open for things I can do to make a couple of extra bucks.

As you might guess, I've set some self-imposed restrictions on the things I'm interested... make that willing to do. They cannot A) steal too much of my time; B) require ridiculous amounts of effort; C) take me too far off-course from the course I've set for myself.

What sorts of things do I either keep an eye open for or both of them shut to? Well, I'm definitely not looking to work part-time at WalMart as a greeter or do anything of that nature. Actually, I won't do much of anything that isn't, in some way, connected to shooting cameras or is photography-related or involves helping others learn, develop, and enhance their shooting and production skills. All of that, of course, is in addition to shooting gigs, whether they're inside or outside the genres I most-often work in.

Oh yeah. Speaking of won'ts or don'ts, I also don't and won't shoot weddings. That's not meant in any way to dis those who do shoot weddings. In fact, my hat's off to you. Weddings are hard freakin' work. Oftentimes, with incredible pressure attached! (Bridezillas, little control of the event or its subjects, no chance of re-shoots if the pictures suck.) Not for me, thank you very much.

Just recently, I noticed someone on Twitter posted something about a photography site looking for guest bloggers; make that PAID guest bloggers.

Cool! Right up my alley.

Or so I thought.

When I visited the site, there was, as Tweeted, a page announcing they were looking to pay guest bloggers to write about photography. Specifically, the aspects of photography they were looking for bloggers to write about were as follows:

1. Photoshop
2. Lightroom
3. Digital Asset Management
4. Lightroom and Photoshop Add-Ons
5. Hardware
6. Business of Photography
7. Social Media and Social Networking

Wow! I've been making a big chunk of my living doing this a long time but I'm not really qualified to write about any of that stuff. Yeah, I could touch on some of it but, for the most part, I don't know what I'd blog about within those subject ranges, leastwise in ways that might be compelling enough or informative enough to appeal to too many readers. I did think it interesting that, other than the hardware and business stuff, you wouldn't need to go back too many years to find that all of those other things would barely register on photography's version of a Richter Scale or Geiger Counter, if at all.

Even more interesting, to me at least, was that they (the site) didn't seem interested in having anyone write about shooting pictures. You know, the part of photography where a photographer picks up a camera and shoots photographs. It made me sit back and wonder if the photography part of photography has become the least important aspect of photography in the digital photography age?

If so, no wonder photography is such a tough business these days!

Besides there being way too many shooters all reaching for a piece of the pie, a pie that hasn't gotten any larger and might even be smaller, today's photographers have to learn and understand so much more! They need to know about all kinds of software applications, workflows, storing and managing pictures on computer devices, social media and cyber-networking, all kinds of crap! Much of it having little or nothing to do with actually picking up a camera and shooting some kick-ass photos. Now I know why so many of today's new breed of photographers seem more interested in apps and quick tips for making the shooting part of photography the part that's easiest and most automated.

It used to be all you needed (to kick off a career as a photographer) was some gear, the ability to shoot good pictures with that gear, and some basic business and marketing savvy. Incredibly, make that incredibly sadly, I can almost visualize a time, probably not too far distant, when learning and practicing the art and craft of photography becomes the least important part of being a photographer.

Actually, it sometimes seems like we're already there.

The sexy lady at the top is Kimberly. I was going for a subtle, retro-bordello look... not that I know anything about bordellos, retro or otherwise. (Click it to enlarge it.)

So Now You're a Filmmaker Too?

2011-07-05T11:27:00.000-07:00

It wasn't enough that just about everyone became a pro-status photographer once dSLRs took hold. Now, with the addition of HD video to many dSLR's capabilities, it seems many of those same people are now also filmmakers, albeit digital filmmakers.

And why not? New technologies have put digital film-making into just about everyone's hands.

Once upon a time, it was incredibly difficult to become the next Steven Spielberg. These days, becoming a Spielberg or a Lucas or a Cameron or some other well-known "name" from the ranks of A-list directors might seem a somewhat more realistic goal, within everyone's grasp.

But is it?

Nope. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

Here's some 4-1-1 about becoming a successful, commercial filmmaker:

It takes talent. Plenty of it.

It takes luck. Plenty of luck.

It usually takes being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people and so much more.

It takes money. Plenty of money. Owning an HD video-capable dSLR, some lights, digital editing software, sound equipment and other gear is a good start for any fledgling filmmaker but it's not enough. Not nearly enough.

It takes more. So much more.

Let's say your film-making aspirations fall way shorter than joining the pantheon of Hollywood's major filmmakers. Okay. That's probably more realistic. Still, to have any modicum of success, you're going to need some amount of those things I mentioned above. Probably more of that stuff than you might think.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist or rain on anyone's parade but even offering video services to your existing photography clients will require some of the stuff listed above. Certainly it's going to take more than simply owning a dSLR that is video-capable. And most certainly, assuming you want to offer those video services with the results being better than someone simply holding and pointing a camera and pressing a button, you'd best develop some skills doing so.

Still photography and motion picture photography, while having much in common, remain worlds apart in many ways, requiring different skill sets to achieve outstanding results. My advice would be to figure out what those differences are and to learn and develop the new skills necessary before going out and claiming you're a filmmaker or offering video as an add-on service. Assuming you hope to be successful at it, that is.

The two young ladies playfully engaged in Sapphic shenanigans for my camera are Ashley (l.) and Katie (r.)

Apps 'n Tips 'n Kibbles 'n Bits

2011-07-02T13:32:00.000-07:00

Kibbles 'n Bits has crunchy kibbles plus real meaty bits dogs love! Apps 'n Tips has techy apps plus real simple and usable tips photographers love!

I'm not saying the thousands of apps and photography tips I see so many people posting every single day on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere reminds me of packaged dog food, but...

...on second thought, I guess that's exactly what I am saying.

I know, I know, here goes old Mr. Cynical again, sneering at the new "instant pudding" generation of photographers. But frankly, these days, it seems far too many photographers are mostly interested in the many methods they can use to automate or make their photographic pursuits no-brainer and less uniquely creative rather than focusing on, learning, and discovering what truly sets great photography apart from snapshot status. That is, from pedestrian and commonly-seen approaches to it (which most apps 'n tips are designed to achieve... make that enhance, I suppose) rather than the things that constitute a truly terrific, unique, creatively-captured and memorable image.

Now don't get me wrong. I recognize that a lot of my own photography is pedestrian and commonly-seen. I don't deny it. And a lot of it is that way by design... my clients' expectations and all that. Personal excuses aside, what does turning photography -- an art form with a long and distinctive history of creative achievements -- into such a near-complete automated process have to do with artistic and creative fulfillment?

IMO, nothing.

In spite of all the supportive barks and yelps and happy howls one might receive on Facebook or wherever a photographer might receive kudos (warranted or not) for their latest snapshit which was rendered cool or artsy by some app or via a "cheat" tip, do people who nearly always use these things really get some sense of creative satisfaction from the results achieved and compliments received?

It's like this-- Your photo, the part of the finished photo that's actually of your personal, creative making, might not always be very cool or artistic but is it truly satisfying to get those ego strokes because it suddenly seems cool or artistic (mostly to untrained eyes) because a computer algorithm (i.e., an app) or quick-tip cheat automatically and non-creatively made it that way with very little human intervention? Where's the you, the human, the photographer, in that equation? You know, in terms of YOU being the LARGEST part of that equation.

I just don't get how people can actually take creative pride in a photograph that is ten parts automated and one part (or less) creatively and humanly produced.

I'm not saying there aren't times when using or applying these many apps or taking advantage of the myriad of helpful quick-tips isn't appropriate. But for these things to represent the lion's share of one's photography? That seems fairly empty and unrewarding to me.

Just sayin, as usual.

The young lady grasping her butt-cheeks at the top is Nautica. She's certainly not a female I'd ever think to feed Kibbles 'n Bits to.