Adult Model Makes Good

First, sorry for the lack of updates this past week. I've been in a profound funk. I still am. Personal shit.

OTOH, the pretty girl you're looking at is Sasha Grey. Sasha is a well-known adult model and performer whom I've photographed on more than a few occasions. Apparently, Ms. Grey is moving up in the world; the entertainment world, that is.

Reports say that Sasha has landed the leading role in Academy Award winning director, Steven Soderbergh's, newest film, The Girlfriend Experience. Soderbergh is best known for his films, Sex Lies, and Videotape, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, and Ocean's 11.

Here's an article from adult industry trade journal, XBiz:

NEW YORK — Hollywood director behind cult classic “Sex, Lies and Videotape” has tapped adult star Sasha Grey to star in his upcoming feature film.

Hollywood trade journal Variety earlier this year reported that Academy Award-winning director Steven Soderbergh planned to cast an adult film star as the lead in “The Girlfriend Experience.” The film is a low-budget feature film told from a perspective of a $10,000-a-night escort.

This week, several outlets reported Soderbergh decided to cast Grey as the lead in the Magnolia Pictures production. The film is now shooting in New York.

The film will be financed by HDNet label partners, Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner. It's the second in a six-picture deal with Soderbergh to direct low-budget films to be distributed in theaters, on cable TV and DVD simultaneously.

Sasha Grey was traveling and couldn’t be immediately reached.

Soderbergh won the ‘Best Director’ Oscar in 2000 for “Traffic,” a gritty depiction of international drug smugglers and the federal agents who pursue them. He was previously nominated for the award for “Erin Brockovich” and “Sex, Lies and Videotape.”

Good luck, Sasha! Break a leg and all that showbiz stuff!

Image of Sasha from a 10-day shoot last summer. It was Vivid Entertainment's remake of Deep Throat and Sasha was cast in the leading role. BTW, Showtime produced a reality series about the remaking of the most famous adult film ever which, I'm told, will begin airing sometime between this November and January. '09. If you catch it when it airs, I'm also told I appear in a fair bit of it. I should be easy to spot-- I'm the middle-aged, over-weight, photographer-guy pointing his camera at naked chicks.

A Couple of More Thoughts on Reverse-Engineering

Thanks for all the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments to my last post. I read them all with great interest.

I'd like to clarify a few things, leastwise in terms of my attitude towards reverse-engineering photos.

As a learning tool, reverse-engineering can be an invaluable process for photographers learning the craft. For example, for those learning to utilize artificial light, reverse-engineering helps photographers discover how various lighting techniques create great images. Hopefully, it also inspires the shooter to ask an important question: Why did the (original image's) shooter choose to light the model using that specific lighting approach?

Obviously, we're all influenced by the work of others. Sometimes our work seems indistinguishable from the work of those who have influenced us, i.e., from a technical point of view.

Hopefully, we find ways to stamp our own, personal, brands on our images even if they seem derivative or similar in their technical aspects to the images that influence us. How is this accomplished? Often, the difference between our own work and the work of some photographer who has influenced us is subtle. It comes, not so much from the techniques (lighting, composition, processing) we throw at the image, but in the ways we are able to get something different, something special, out of our subjects.

I've often written about the importance of gaining rapport with models. The more successful you are at gaining rapport, the more likely you will be at getting something out of your model others may have missed. As stated, it might be something quite subtle but it might also end up being something quite powerful.

For me, the greatest problem I have getting that extra-special something out of a model is when the model is very experienced. Often, we both end up going on auto-pilot, producing images that are just good enough. While the technical aspects of those images might be okay, the images themselves are shallow. Of course, in my line of work, most of my clients aren't looking for much emotional depth from the models I photograph. They're looking for something much simpler and quite primal. Fair enough. They are what they are and the resulting images usually produce the desired response.

But if you're looking to produce images that succeed on many levels, images that convey more than the obvious, you'll need to work hard at getting that out of the person in front of your camera. Successfully doing so is one way to set your work apart from the work of others.

Another shot of Jennifer up top. This was from last week. Jennifer did her own makeup and hair. I was seriously restricted in terms of where I could shoot and how much time I was allotted to photograph her. I quickly set two lights (a main and a side-light for accents and to separate her from the BG) and shot in front of that big window, working to avoid reflections.

P.S. Decided to go with an even darker grey for the blog's background. It's one shade greyer than black.

Rip-Off or Homage?

Recently, in an article on A Photo Editor, a lively discussion ensued when APE updated with something he called, Seen it Before vs Completely Original. It wasn't that APE's blogmeister, Rob Haggart, was sharing his personal views on the subject. Instead, he let quotes from two, separate, blog sources do his talking for him.

The second quote Haggart posted revealed that notable and celebrated photographer, Platon, had recently hooked up with The New Yorker as a staff photographer. That's fairly feakin' prestigious! (Not that, as a photographer, Platon is unaccustomed to prestige and accolades and all that good stuff.)

In APE's comment section, the first reader in the batter box mentioned that Platon was once an assistant to fashion and portrait uber-shooter, Richard Avedon. (How cool is that?)

A bit further down in the comments, someone wrote the following, referencing the comment about Platon making his bones at the feet of a true, photo icon like Avedon.

I see the first comment being a statement of exasperation on the accessibility of technique (Strobist, lighting seminar crowd) and inexpensive gear creating a vast number of rip off “artists” who figure out an innovators methods and use them with no consideration of what the (original or ripped off) image is communicating. They just “like the light” and don’t want to spend the time to come up with their own method of communicating through images. These are the same weekend (micro stock) warriors who are diminishing the quantity of “great” photography we see and replacing it with our current crowd sourced over saturated market. The result: Someone makes a great image. Another someone sees and dissects it. Two weeks later everybody with two strobes on Flickr has a set in that “new hot style”. So some give up, and stop looking for exceptional work, or stop taking the time to get upset with plagiarism.

As you've probably already guessed, that second commenter's words got me to thinking.

When people reverse-engineer a photo, regardless if it was shot by a celebrated pro or a weekend warrior, are they ripping off the source or are they paying homage to that shooter?

Popular site, Strobist, runs reverse-engineer-the-lighting posts often enough. Strobist is, essentially, a learning site mostly targeting hobbyists and, more specifically, those hobbyists wishing to learn how to light like pros but using small, inexpensive flashes and DIY gear and gadgets.

When people use those dissection and reverse-engineering skills they learn on sites like Strobist, or when they learn to shoot just like someone leading a workshop or seminar, are they then, later on, merely guilty of engaging in imitation is the sincerest form flattery violations or are they actually committing some form of artistic plagiarism? (i.e., when the images they produce look remarkably like the originals they've RE'd or that they shot in the (almost exact) style of a workshop instructor... sometimes with the same model, pose, etc.)

I'm just saying out loud here, folks. I don't really have the answer.

But here's what I do think: I think, as that guy who wrote that APE comment I quoted seems to think, those photographers whose goals are all about becoming great imitators, i.e., becoming just good enough to semi-convincingly imitate someone else's work, do not really pose threats to an original shooter's reputation, work, or his or her livelihood. And here's why: People can almost always spot the difference between an innovator's image and an imitator's image.

As that second commenter seemed to be saying, imitators are merely imitating and their work will almost always be lacking something. IMO, it won't just be lacking the ability to communicate with images, as the commenter mentioned, but it will be lacking something more important and something more ethereal. It will be lacking soul.

Personally, I believe people can spot soul in a photograph. (As well as a lack of it.) Viewers might not consciously see the soul in a photo but they see it nonetheless. They might laud the imitator's work for its lighting, its composition, its kick-ass post-processing, but they won't be moved by it. Soul is one of those things that can't be reverse-engineered. In fact, soul can't be engineered at all. It comes, magically, from the artist's and craftsman's own soul. You can convince yourself you've imitated the soul in another's work but there will always be some doubt nagging at you each time you look at your endeavor. Nope. You cannot RE soul. You cannot create it, leastwise, you cannot create soul in something that is not your own. Your own, that is, in most ways... in the important ways.

The pretty girl at the top is Jennifer from a couple of months ago. (As always, click to enlarge.) We were shooting in an impound garage: A dirty, greasy place where they store towed cars for varying reasons. I lit Jennifer with three lights: a main placed slightly camera-right and modified with a large Octodome plus two, highlighting, accent-lights, modified with small shoot-thrus, placed behind her, on either side of her, and pointed at her. Canon 5D, 28-135 IS USM, ISO 100, F/8 @ 1/60. (Slower than usual shutter to let a bit of the ambient seep in.)

P.S. As you may have noticed, I've slightly modified the blog's BG color from black to a dark grey. We'll see how that goes for a while.

More Stuff: Whether I'm Ailing or Not

I'm still on a bit of a gear kick. I don't really have any excess cash at the moment to be purchasing much of anything in spite of there being so much stuff I need want. Yep! So much stuff, so little cash to buy it. (Note: I don't do credit purchases for my Wish Lists... well, rarely.)

My last post netted some informative comments plus a few emails. For instance, people are recounting experiences that seem to bear out the flakiness of the JTL battery packs. The last thing I want to happen is to be on a location shoot counting on portable power and it takes a dump on me. So a reader, Eduardo, steered me towards the Tronix Explorer XT.

Here's the XT's overview as provided by its manufacturer, Innovatronix:

"The Tronix Explorer XT is a portable power supply (pure sine wave inverter) designed to power flash and power pack units for location shoots. Compared to other inverters, it uses a 24V power source and it is rated at 350 watts continuous power, 1200 watts peak power and recommended up to 2400ws. Equipped with two (2)12V, 7Ah sealed lead acid batteries and efficient circuit design that generates almost a thousand full power pops for 300ws flash units. It takes 3-5 hours to charge the unit."

The XT sounds pretty cool. Here's something even cooler about it: The Tronix Explorer XT sells for $349. That sounds like a great price for a power supply with the XT's output and charging time. Plus, it only weighs 18 lbs. That means I could schlep it around with little effort. I love the concept of "little effort" when it comes to schlepping gear around.

I've also heard some negative things about the Ray Flash ringlight adaptor. For instance, Steve, of Team Rockstar Images, says there were more than a few (media) shooters attending the recent Exxxotica Expo (in New Jersey) who, altho using the Ray Flash gadget, were decidedly unhappy with it. Steve says their grumblings included claims they were intending on returning the units to B&H (where they recently purchased them) and were going seek refunds. In another email, a reader tells me he's already seeing Ray Flash knock-offs on Ebay. I haven't taken a look at them yet but it certainly doesn't surprise me. What products don't get knocked-off these days? (Ahh! Those clever Chinese.)

BTW, I recommend you check out Steve's site, Team Rockstar Images, for some really cool and awesomely captured pretty girl pics. He also has one of the most verbally-colorful "About" pages I've read in a long time. It begins like this: "Screaming like a big block Camaro on a late night beer run, Teamrockstar Images has been unleashed on the world." That Steve is one clever wordsmith, no?

The babe at the top is Gianna from yesterday's shoot for Vivid Entertainment. Easy to look at, ain't she? I was in fairly close quarters so I put Gianna in front of a small brick alcove in the living room of the Arts & Crafts style home we were shooting at and lit her with two lights: A 36" square, transluscent, Larson Reflectasol for my main--the link doesn't show the specific unit I've been using but you'll get the idea off the one shown in the link--and I also worked a small, shoot-thru umbrella into the mix. I set the shoot-thru off to the side, camera-left and against the wall, for some added, side-kick highlights.

Here's a shot (shown right, click to enlarge) that better reveals the shooting environment. This one reveals the full-frame (no cropping) and is virtually unprocessed. You can see where the wall's paint blows-out in the upper-left near where the shoot-thru was placed. Essentially, there was no easy way to backlight Gianna in the normal sense, leastwise, given the immediate environment I was photographing her in plus the limitations of the gear I had with me coupled with the pressure of time. (Run-on sentence. Sorry.) So, I opted for the lighting configuration mentioned in the previous paragraph. As you can see, that Reflectasol spreads out a lot of even front-light which many of my clients prefer for the naked chick photos I'm providing them.

BTW, I didn't' open the shoot-thru-- just let it remain un-opened in front of the flash tube to limit it's spread and keep it a bit more controlled. (I do that sometimes.) All I wanted to do was provide some subtle highlights to better separate her from the brick alcove and to add some punch to the lighting without lighting up even more BG stuff with the kicker. (i.e., that my mainlight wasn't already illuminating.)

Course, the art guys will probably cut Gianna out of the BG so, ultimately, illumination of the BG won't matter much. But it matters to me, dammit!!!

I've been using that Reflectasol quite a bit lately. I purchased it sometime back at a monthly camera show that takes place in Pasadena, California. (Sort of a photography flea market.) It was new old stock, meaning it was still new in the box but was manufactured, I believe, back in the 70s. I really like the look it produces although it's a bit hot in the center. (I might mess around with affixing a small piece of diffusion to the center of the Reflectasol.) This modifier is a bit more cinematic in its lighting technique, i.e., it's a simple, flat piece of diffusion in front of a light source.

Gianna captured with a Canon 5D w/ 28-135 IS USM (my trusty, all-purpose, utility lens) ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 100th. Not much post-processing on the image. I probably should have added a tad more digital manipulations. But then, as I've often stated, I'm kinda lazy and that condition doesn't seem to be changing much. Besides, I'd rather work harder at getting things right when I'm engaged in the process of photography then when I'm engaged in the process of altering fixing the photography in post.

P.S. Question for you: A reader complained suggested I change the color scheme of the blog. He says it's difficult to read the text. I originally chose the current colors because the black provides better contrast to showcase the images. But I'll admit the white-on-black text (as well as the other colors on black) sometimes bugs me as well. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?

Stuff to Cure What Ails Me

Went to the movies yesterday and saw Lakeview Terrace. It was ok. Not great. I'm a Samuel L. fan which is why I went. Thematically, the story (and Samuel L's character) seems somewhat inspired by Denzel W's Training Day. Although Samuel L. is a cop in Lakeview Terrace, that's where the resemblance to Training Day ends in terms of the setting and storyline. Like I said, it was ok. I could easily have waited for this flick to come out on DVD.

Anyway, while waiting to see Lakeview Terrace, my date and I popped into Borders Books. (Borders is right next to the theater.) I went straight to the magazine section, picked up a copy of American Photo magazine, plopped myslef in a nice comfy chair under an A/C vent, and began thumbing through the rag.

There were some good articles with great photos. I especially enjoyed one particular essay, "Art, Sex, and Clothes: The Importance of Fashion." There's also a recent photograph by Klinko & Indrani, with some interesting "how they did it" text included, that I thought was pretty cool. It's a post-apocalyptic (looking) fashion image shot out in the desert near Palm Springs.

Then I came to the page with the editor's choices for new gear, gadgets, and gizmos and saw a couple of things I think I might buy.

The first is a gadget: The Ray Flash ringlight adaptor. It's not that I'm just now aware of this product. I've known about it for quite a while and have even held one in my hands. But now I think I need one. Why? Well, on a lot of the shoots I'm on, I'm usually required to shoot candid and action shots--in addition to the glamour pretty girl stuff--and in settings that necessitate either on-camera lighting or having me roll in a few stand-mounted monolights.

Personally, the look of on-camera strobes makes me sick, mostly because of the hard shadows they throw. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know all the tricks to make an on-camera strobe look better. I still, for the most part, ain't a fan of the look with or without the tricks applied. I also get my stomach twisted when I have to bring in bulky lighting gear, i.e., pulling it away from where I'm shooting the glamour stuff and onto another set or nearby shooting area, only to have to cart it back to the glamour shooting area a short time later. That's right. I'm lazy. So shoot me. This ringlight adaptor seems like a great answer to my, uhh... issues.

Here's what Scott Kelby has to say about this gizmo. I'm thinking I'd still wheel in another light for a backlight and let my on-camera, Ray Flash-modified strobe trigger it optically.

The next product potentially on my shopping list is JTL's Mobilight 301 AC/DC Strobe with Battery. Here's why I might buy it: PRICE!!! For about $300 that's a pretty cool deal. It delivers 120 full-power 300WS pops and it looks fairly light-weight and VERY mobile. That's not a lot of power but then I don't need all that much power most of the time. But here's why I might NOT buy it: I'm reading reviews that say the battery is flaky. Also, I've shot with JTL monolights before and my biggest gripe with them is recycle time. The recycle time on this A/C-D/C unit is 2 to 4 seconds. That doesn't sound like a long time to many people but its a freaking eternity when you're shooting and waiting for a light to recharge.

The nurse at the top is Angie from last week. Ahem... cough, cough... How about them uhh... lips, huh? Next time I'm sick, I'm hoping Angie stops by to nurse me back to health. In fact, sick or not, Angie can nurse me anytime she wants! (Medically speaking, of course.)

FYI: Exotic Erotic Ball and Expo

If you live in or near the Bay Area or plan on being there around the end of October, here's something you might want to jot down on your calender:

Perry Mann's 29th Annual Exotic Erotic Ball, the internationally acclaimed Celebration of Flesh, Fetish, and Fantasy, and -- according to E! Entertainment TV -- "The World's #1 Wildest and Sexiest Party!" is, once again, taking place.

And here's more: The promoters have announced they will also produce the largest-ever Erotic Arts Festival in San Francisco Bay history. The arts festival will become part of an "Exotic Erotic" weekend of themed entertainment scheduled for October 24 and 25, 2008 on Treasure Island.

More than 20,000 people annually attend the Exotic Erotic Ball and Expo. Exhibiting artists will be showcasing drawings, paintings, sculpture, photography, wood, glass, metal, mixed media, ceramics, and the impossible-to-categorize. If you're interested in exhibiting your erotically-themed art at this year's show, contact Emily Hansen at eroticartsfestival@me.com for further information.

The topless pretty girls up top are Angie and Persia from last week. (I'll bet you can figure out who's who by their names.)