Editing: Another "Other White Meat"

It's late in the afternoon. The sunset is striking. I'm sitting, alone, outdoors, at a coffee house near home. They have free WiFi, here, at "Its a Grind." Starbucks should take note.

As beautiful as it is, the sunset makes me melancholy. Mostly, I suppose, because I’m sitting here... alone.

But that's not why I'm writing.

Instead, I thought I'd write about editing. No, I'm not referring to PS touch-ups and/or other post-processing techniques. I'm writing about editing, i.e., the ability to select the best images from your photo shoots: Those images that you plan to share with others.

Like shutter speed, editing is a less-talked-about consideration, certainly in terms of it being a "hard" photographic skill. There's SOOOoooooo much written about lighting and exposure (mostly aperture, as discussed in my last) and, of course, post-processing. On the flip-side, significantly less is written about editing. That’s why, once again, I'm using the (clever?) pork, "other white meat," analogy. Or is it a metaphor? I'm always getting those two things screwed up.

I spend a fair amount of time on photography forums, mostly those forums where pretty girl shooters congregate. You know which boards I'm talking about.... the boards that hold glamour, beauty, even fashion and other genres of pretty girl shooting near and dear to their cyber-hearts.

While perusing and participating on these sites, I always take time to view plenty of images. You can’t help but doing so. Almost every thread features someone’s work. Usually, because of the specific boards I frequent, I'm seeing images of pretty, sexy models captured beautifully and, unfortunately, not so beautifully. Partially because of this blog, and possibly the fact that I'm one of those guys who manages to make some sort of a living shooting pretty girls, I seem to have a fair amount of juice on these boards. When I comment on someone's image, whether my comment is critically positive or not, its usually perceived as an of "expert" opinion. So often when I comment, a special "Thanks for commenting, Jimmy" follows.

As a rule, I'm not much for handing out "attaboys." If I think an image is pretty good, I'll rarely comment. When I think an image is not so good, I'm more likely to comment. Because of this, I think I sometimes come across as a harsh critic. Oh well. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the freakin' kitchen. (Not that my ego is immune to pain but I enjoy the solace of still getting paid even when I shoot crappy images of less than expected quality.)

When someone takes personal exception to my criticisms and informs me of this, I'll usually take time to write to them and explain, in more detail, whatever it is about their image(s) that I'm not too impressed with. I often try to offer suggestions for improvement. Of course, so much of this stuff is purely subjective. My opinions aren't any more valid than the opinions of anyone else, regardless of my "juice" or professional experience in the matter. In fact, not only are my opinions not any more valid than other people's opinions, I often mention (to those I'm writing to) that I don't think my photography is any better than their photography. The truth is, there are many, many shooters out there who are better shooters than I am, whether they're shooting pretty girls or anything else. But here's where I think I sometimes have an edge over many of those people, not all of them, but many: Editing.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's this: Don’t fall in love with any image I capture because, nine times out of ten, there are plenty of folks who will disagree about the quality and impact and usability of that particular image. Fortunately for me, many of the people who make those kinds of judgments about my pictures do so for a living, e.g., photo editors, graphic artists, etc. And since I've often had the opportunity to ask those people why they've selected one or more of my images over others (for publication or for a poster or an ad or the cover of a DVD or whatever) I've positively benefited from a real-world education that few hobbyists are given the opportunity to participate in. Except, perhaps, when they participate on photo forums. But then, who's making the judgments on those boards? Well, it’s usually not people who make those kinds of calls for a living.

Editing is supremely important. It’s as important as your shooting skills, your lighting skills, your skills directing models, and your post-production skills. It's as important as using the right tools for the job. No matter how hard you try, you can't (always) frost a turd. Underneath the frosting, it's still a turd. Even those images that aren't turds, but are simply not so good, are difficult to hide-- that is, to hide the fact that its simply a mediocre image.

Keen, professional, eyes will almost always ferret out a sow's ear from the silk purses no matter how heavily or carefully or competently post-processed a pedestrian image might be. Or, how hot, sexy, beautiful, and alluring your model might be. That's what those people do. They get paid for having a discerning eye. Not so much a photographer's eye but an eye for spotting quality and noticing flaws and detracting elements and other things that take an image down, leastwise, that take it down in terms of it being a suitable image to use for a story, an ad, a poster, a DVD cover, just about any commercial use. Sometimes those flawed elements are very obvious. Sometimes they're quite subtle.

My experience with people who judge my pictures, i.e., judge their usefulness for whatever their intent might be, has afforded me the ability to more effectively remove myself, as a creator of the image, and to grow something of a third, closer to impartial, eye. No, I can't always dismiss my personal preferences or the emotions that I might attach to a particular image but, with the help of the people I've mentioned, I've been able to hone those skills fairly well. At least, in my opinion it has.

Working with those folks, those third-party, professional, image appraisers, has (I think) made me a better judge of my own work and, perhaps, a fairly good judge of other people's work. Its given me the ability to (not only) spot the obvious, but to focus in on the subtle things that make one image less, uhhh... special than another. It's not that I have a natural ability to do this--some people do--but it's been this experience, this educational process, that has helped me edit my own work and to be a fairly decent judge of the work of others. Leastwise, in terms of the commercial elements that make one picture, *the* shot. And it's mostly because, as opposed to hobbyists, I so often benefit and get chances to learn from the judgments of others who, I'll say it again, make those judgments for a living.

I don't know what I can recommend to all you shooters who don't, ordinarily, have the luxury of getting feedback, editing feedback, from pro editors. I guess all I can suggest is to listen to what others tell you and figure out how to use some kind of emotional Luffa sponge to scrape your ego's skin a bit thinner. And if you keep hearing the same sorts of comments about your work, especially when those comments are seemingly negative, realize that all those people saying the same or similar things probably aren't wrong. Instead of getting all "butt-hurt" over it, do something about it. Learn to spot those flaws and quit trying to frost turds or pass off pedestrian work as something more. Once you've developed some good shooting and processing skills, there's almost nothing more important than developing your editing skills. Nothing.

Once again, I can't remember the name of the model at the top. Maybe I'm getting model's-name-Alzheimers? The picture isn't a turd, per se, but I doubt it would ever pass muster with someone editing my pics for a men's mag or an ad or whatever. Sure, she's hot. She's sexy. She looks good. But, she doesn't look as good as she could or should. Can you spot the elements of this image that take it down too many notches for it to be used? And I ain't referring to the wannabe-artsy B&W conversion.

The Art (and Trickery) of Motion Blur

My favorite little photo forum, SuperShoots.net, is hosting a "Beauty in Motion" challenge. Cool! SuperShoot's challenge is to capture a person or thing, while depicting movement, with extra credit given for effective use of motion blur.

I asked JT, the Yoda-like administrator of SuperShoots, if that extra credit would be awarded for in-camera creation of motion-blur or something achieved in post? He responded that, assuming viewers could tell the difference, creative use of in-camera trickery would be given more weight.

The SuperShoots challenge reminds me I had planned to write a review of a book I recently purchased: Bryan Peterson's Understanding Shutter Speed: Creative Action and Low-Light Photography Beyond 1/125 Second. (Also shown in my Recommended Books links in the right-hand column.)

Shutter speed sometimes seems like pork: You know, pork being the other white meat. While the creative use of aperture is more often discussed, shutter speed almost feels like it suffers from Rodney Dangerfield syndrome. But that's far from the truth. Creatively, appropriate shutter speed is as important as aperture and other variables for capturing images that reflects the photographer's vision for those images.

We all know that fast shutter speeds freezes action. Leastwise, we all should know it. Fast shutter speeds are, quite possibly, the most commonly-seen creative use of shutter speeds. Sports photography often depicts the use of fast shutter speeds to capture all those competitive, decisive moments or to freeze a moment that, otherwise, would fly right past our abilities to see. Peterson's book certainly spends quality time on the subject of fast shutter speeds.

Where the book really sings is when it discusses slow shutter speeds, i.e., shutter speeds used for low-light photography or to infer motion. Anyone who hopes to successfully participate in SuperShoots challenge, but who has had little experience using slow shutter speeds, will be better equipped--knowledge equipped--with some help from Peterson's book. I don't mean to only focus on slow shutter speeds to produce a sense of motion. Photographers hoping to sharpen their skills shooting in most any low-light environment (night shooting, etc.) will benefit from Peterson's book. In fact, anyone who wishes to expand their photography skills awareness, especially in the area of creative use of shutter speeds (for all sorts of applications) will benefit with the purchase of this book. Best of all, it's very moderately priced at $16.47.

Peterson's Understanding Shutter Speed: Creative Action and Low-Light Photography Beyond 1/125 Second is well illustrated with many photographs which depict the use of the techniques he writes about. It's aimed at photographers of all levels of experience.

If, like me, you already own Peterson's Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (Updated Edition), this is a natural companion book for your photography-related library. "Understanding Exposure" is also value-priced at the $16.47 price-point and is a book I've already reviewed, in a positive way, in a previous update.

I would have loved to post an image depicting beauty in motion, illustrating the creative use of shutter speed in my pretty girl photography but, alas, I don't seem to have such an image in my files. You'll just have to make do with another gratuitous picture of a pretty girl, sans clothing, to accompany this post. Had I captured the lovely Hannah on that Harley while it was moving, I might have taken a shot attempting to depict motion blur. Unfortunately, leastwise prior to reading Peterson's book, I doubt I would have been too adept at doing so. Maybe that's why I bought his book?

And Now For Something Completely Different

Well, different from what I've been lately writing about. I think an update that speaks to the art and craft of pretty girl shooting is overdue. You know, some words that might help a few of you improve your game or consider stuff you haven't thought much about before or are unsure about. An update that speaks to the craft, rather than talking about what Jimmy has been doing or what he hopes to accomplish. (I just love writing about myself in the third person. Makes me feel so muy importante... not.)

Composition.

One of the first and most basic choices a photographer makes, just before clicking the shutter and as it applies to composition, is about aspect ratio, i.e., whether to snap an image with the camera oriented to capture the subject with, what's commonly called, a portrait aspect ratio or a landscape aspect ratio. Simple choice, right?

As I look at many pretty girl photos, it's obvious that the majority are captured utilizing a portrait aspect ratio. Makes sense. People--and pretty girls are people--are generally longer than wider. That makes filling a frame often seem appropriate with the frame being vertically longer than horizontally wider, especially since we so often have the models standing or kneeling or in positions that remain more vertical than horizontal. Many print applications also suggest using the portrait aspect ratio: magazines, posters, DVD packaging inserts and more are mostly printed on paper stock that, when properly oriented for viewing, reading, whatever, are vertically longer than wider

Sometimes we have the models lying down or in other positions where the orientation of their bodies is more horizontal rather than vertical. Using a landscape aspect ratio often seems to make sense with these sorts of poses.

But it's not always so simple. Sometimes, choosing an aspect ratio that is in opposition to the orientation of the model's pose makes sense. It can add interest to an image. It can come off more creative and lesser-seen. Especially when framed using other compositional techniques, you know, like the Rule of Thirds, or when the model is in an interesting environment and, when capturing the model in that environment, it would be more effective using an aspect ratio that opposes the orientation of her pose and makes the environment, and her place in it, a more interesting photograph. Sure, you can crop in such a way that changes the aspect ratio in post but, often, we don't allow enough space in our framing to effectively accomplish that.

So here's a really super-simple bit of advice that might help you improve your game: If you're not sure whether to shoot using portrait or landscape aspect ratios, shoot it both ways! After all, most of you are shooting digital, right? What is capturing an image both ways going to cost you? A few seconds? Whoop-dee-doo. Even if you're shooting film, it isn't going to cost much to snap a few extra frames, re-orienting and re-composing your image to a different aspect ratio.

Speaking of film, and to get back to Jimmy (Oh no!), I received my Canon rangefinder yesterday or the day before. I bought a few rolls of Kodak Pro BW400CN at Walmart. (That's B&W print film that gets processed with C-41, i.e., color processing chemicals.) Right now, I only want to insure the camera is functioning properly. Plus, since that's all I'm doing with it for these first few rolls, using this particular film allows me to get the processing done, cheaply and quickly, pretty much anywhere... you know, like at the same Walmart where I purchased the film stock.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say I can't remember the name of the pretty girl at the top, captured with my camera oriented to produce a landscape aspect ratio image.

Guerilla Glam?

Thanks for all the comments and private emails re my last update. Some great advice and words of encouragement included in them! One reader, Willt, suggests, "As long as others are throwing their advice into the ring, I'll do the same: Chop your list to a single item, and then do at least one positive thing toward its completion each day."

Good advice, Willt, I think that's exactly what I'm going to do. To that end, I'm focusing most of my energies towards the production of the DVD.

Quite some time ago, I asked people (here and on various photo-forums) to input what they'd like to see in such a DVD. The majority of them wanted me to keep it focused on stuff they can accomplish without needing too much in terms of higher-end lighting and grip gear. A big chunk of my target audience doesn't have a lot of gear, leastwise lighting and grip gear, yet they still want to make great pics. I want to show them how to do that. I want the DVD to focus on, what I call, a "guerilla-glam" approach. In fact, I'm thinking I might title the DVD, "Pretty Girl Shooter: Guerilla Glam."

The obvious way to go with this DVD, and one that I've considered, is to simply demonstrate various lighting techniques in various environments. But I'd like to make the DVD less predictable in terms of it being a purely how-to-take-great-pics piece. I'm thinking it might be slightly weighted towards a documentary-style approach that includes the "how-to" stuff but in a less obvious way. After all, I want it to be entertaining as well as informative. I don't want it to be simply a series of demonstrations that I expect people to mimic. There's already plenty of that stuff available on DVD and on the web.

I also want to do some things that are different and less-seen in programs like this. One of the things I'm considering, for instance, is somehow rigging a very small (video) camera that attaches to my back and looks over my shoulder, recording some of my hand, a bit of the camera and lens and, of course and most importantly, the model. An "over-the-shoulder-cam" if you will.

Recently, photographer and PGS blog reader, Kenn Ellis, generously sent me DVDs of a BBC series called, "The Genius of Photography." He also included a documentary about photojournalist, James Nachtwey, called "War Photographer." Thanks again, Kenn!

In the Nachtwey doc, a micro-cam was used, one that looks over Nachtwey's shoulder, revealing what was in front of the photographer (along with his hand and camera) as he clicked away. This is an extremely effective (video) camera angle to cross-cut with the primary action. For sure, the over-the-shoulder "action" we'll be shooting in this DVD won't be as intensely dramatic as much of the imagery captured by the war photographer's micro-cam, but it should be visually effective (and instructive) nonetheless. Sure, I could simply hand-hold a video camera and, with a graphical overlay simulating what I'm seeing, make like the viewer is also looking through my dSLR's viewfinder. And I might do some of that as well. But I think the over-the-shoulder-cam is a more interesting and effective camera angle. Hopefully, I can pull it off.

The DVD, of course, will include plenty on lighting and posing and all that sort of stuff and with ample demonstrations. It will also include gear explanations and how to use the gear to its maximum effectiveness. Some of it, very simple gear like foamcore, C47s (clothespins), gaffer's tape, gels, and stuff like that.

I don't want the DVD to come off too academic, too "talking head-ish," or too classroom-like in its approach. I also want to focus on things like the interaction between the shooter and model, the shooter and the MUA and others, and the importance of gaining rapport with all involved... especially, the model! I also want to get into those peoples' heads, learning how they approach their crafts and what they expect from the photographer.

The pic at the top is a behind-the-scenes image of a Tera Patrick shoot from some time ago. Hmm... still had long hair and a pony tail when that pic was snapped. Image by Leesa J. I'm hoping to get Tera to appear in the DVD.

An Inconsequential Milestone

I noticed that, a few updates ago, I passed the 400th post mark. Not that it means much, but it surprised me to realize I've authored over 400 posts on the PGS blog! So, I'm raising my big, blue, Crystal Lite-filled Bubba Keg to myself for the effort.

Alright. Enough with the patting myself on the back.

But you know what? Milestones, even those that are as inconsequential as this one, sometimes cause one to pause, reflect, and try to figure out what it means and where things might go. Sort of like making resolutions on that annual milestone we call New Year's Eve.

What it means? It means I've spent more than a few hundreds of hours writing and maintaining this blog over the past few years. It also means I've managed to attract something of a small but loyal following readership. Leastwise, according to my stats I have. (So far, for 2008, the PGS blog has had nearly a quarter of a million page loads from well over 150,000 unique visitors... whatever all that means.) But more importantly, it means I've made friends and contacts and my name gets out there, not that my name getting out there has gotten me any work, but it gets out there... somewhere out there. Example: A while back, I attended a photographer/model event, sort of a model expo, and I was surprised how many people knew who I was. Not so much models but photographers. And they knew me from this blog. I guess wearing one of those stick-on name tags with "Hi! I'm JimmyD" written on it helped. I also guess I'm not the only one who spends way too much time on the freakin' internet.

Where things might go? Well, although I'm sometimes capable of being a world-class procrastinator, I'm not much of a prognosticator. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't read tea leaves, palms, or Tarot cards either. But here's the things I still want to do:

1. Produce a Pretty Girl Shooter DVD. Yeah, I've been talking about this for quite some time. I get plenty of emails asking me to do this and telling me that, once such a DVD is available, the person writing will buy. Yep, I receive quite a few emails telling me this. In fact, I get one or two almost every week. So here's what I've done: I've put my son-in-law on the case and I'll tell you why. Kyle, my son-in-law, is one of those guys who puts blinders on when things need to get done. Unlike me, his often-procrastinating father-in-law, he gets things done! And he gets others to get things done. He will question me daily on what I've accomplished towards producing the DVD. If I say, "I'm working on the outline." He asks me every day how the outline is coming and when he can see a copy. Actually, he's been doing that for about a week now, ever since I told him that's what I've been doing. He's even put together some production people, an MUA and a camera operator and editor, to commit volunteer their time to the production. And now those people are also calling me and asking what's going on! Expect to see a DVD in production in the not-too-distant future... in spite of yours truly.

2. Produce/promote some workshops-- Another thing I've spoken about in the past. And it's another thing I regularly receive emails about. Unfortunately, I'm not a very well-organized, detail-oriented kind'a guy so this has also been difficult to get off the ground. So here's the deal: If some of you want to write me or comment on this with some suggestions or words of encouragement or otherwise, I'd love to hear from you. I don't really want to do a workshop in L.A., although I'm not tossing that idea out. I'm thinking of Las Vegas or perhaps somewhere else... somewhere even more fun and/or exotic or possibly better located for potential attendees. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. BTW, occasionally someone writes and inquires if I'd be willing to do some private instruction. They're willing to cover my travel expenses and put me up. But so far, I've always politely declined. It's not that this doesn't appeal to me, it does, I just think if I'm going to spend a couple of days out of town, privately instructing someone, sharing all those so-called Secrets of the Pros, I should be getting something more than a free trip out of the deal. You know, like getting paid for the effort. So, if anyone, or any small group of people, would like to have me do a private instructional thing, let me know. I won't ask for an exorbitant fee, probably something in and around my day rate plus expenses. Trust me, I ain't the highest paid pretty girl shooter on the block.

3. The TV show-- I've been dragging my heels at getting my agent to quit dragging his heels. I still think there's a great idea for a TV show in what's been put together. And my agent agrees. It's just a matter of me being more determined and getting him to be more determined. Things were really looking good for a while but that VH-1 show, "The Shot," kind of screwed things up. Especially since "The Shot" didn't do well. Had it been a hit, it would be easier to pitch this show. (Tv development people aren't, as a rule, too daring. They love to mimic what's already proven to be successful.) But just because audiences weren't too impressed with "The Shot" doesn't mean they wouldn't be happy with the show we've pitched--which is considerably different from VH-1's show--and should still be pitching.

There are a few other things I'd like to put on my plate (or put back on my plate) but I don't want to overwhelm myself. Often, I'm an easily overwhelm-able guy.

Pretty girl at the top is Jamie from last Spring. Guess she was hungry although I can't imagine that stripper's bra was very tasty. Canon 5D with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 100th.

New (Blogging) Kid on the Block

Fellow pretty girl shooter and all-around ace photographer, Bob Marcotte, has kicked off his own blog: Studio Marcotte.

Bob says his blog is there to "...Inform, Instruct, Inspire..." I don't know about any of you, but I can always use plenty of that in varying amounts.

Bob alerted me to his new blog and I wrote him back with this:

I don't know whether to congratulate you or pass on my sympathies. Writing a blog can be rewarding, to be sure. It allows us to share, to build some "street cred," and to channel our angst. There's a lot of positive things associated with it.

But...

It can also be like a big fat monkey on ones back. As if life doesn't dish enough stuff that needs doing -- stuff that weighs us down and nags and begs for attention -- a blog can (especially once its garnered an audience) be like a child that constantly needs attention: Attention that, I often wonder, could or should be directed elsewhere, at things that would seem to advance our careers and put some $$$ in our pockets.

Regardless, you have an engaging writing style that cuts to the core of many aspects of what we go through, trying to get ahead as snappers.

Well, if Bob is going to take the time and expend the effort to blog--and don't say I didn't warn you about what you're getting into, Bob--the least we can do is support his efforts. Bob's first few articles already contain some genuine pearls of wisdom so it's not like it's a waste of time surfing over to Studio Marcotte for a quick read and to check out some of his work. He even crosses swords words with Fluffytek's mistress in one of his articles.

In other words, I give Bob's blog the official PGS Seal of Approval. (As if that actually matters and not because he philosophically disagreed with Fluffytek's chief, resident wordsmith, Lin, on a specific issue.) And BTW, just because a blog links to me--like Marcotte's does--doesn't mean I'm automatically gonna link to them. (Monetary and select, pre-approved, other bribes accepted and excepted.)

The gratuitous eye-candy at the top is Jana, from a while back, shot in my studio.