Summer's Here! Get Out and Shoot!

Technically, summer doesn't begin till the Summer Solstice, June 21, but for all intents and purposes, it's here, now, with Memorial Day weekend heralding its arrival. My summer advice? Get out and shoot!

While many of you live in places where moderate weather isn't a year-round perk, like where I live in Southern California, summer is photography season for almost everyone everywhere.

Yep! Now is the time you don't have to worry so much about finding a cool interior location to shoot your pretty girl photography. Now's the time you have so many more places to photograph all those beautiful women who are just waiting for someone to immortalize them in sexy, seductive, glamour images. And that someone is you! Well, it could be you.

So how do you find those pretty girls who want their egos stroked by a guy with a camera?

As many of you know, it's not always so easy.

Two of the most useful places to find models to grace your viewfinders are OneModelPlace and ModelMayhem. If you're not a member of these sites and you're a serious pretty girl shooter, or hope to become one, you should get yourself a photographer's membership to both of them.

One of the really helpful ways to find models on these sites is to search for those of them who live in your geographic area. Both sites offer search functions that allow you to use search criteria by zip code.

When making contact with models on these sites it's really important to present yourself in a professional manner. Be concise and direct in stating what you're hoping to capture with your photography. Pay attention to the models' profiles. Don't ask them to go beyond the content limits they've stated. If a model indicates she's not interested in nude modeling, accept it, deal with it, and move on. (Assuming nudity is something you're looking to photograph.)

It's also important to prepare yourself for rejection. While many pretty girls love presenting themselves as models, it seems some of them enjoy the idea or notion of being a model more than getting out there and actually doing some modeling. Once again, accept it, deal with it, and move on.

I often read, on more than a few photography forums, a lot of griping about models who want to bring escorts along with them. If you're insistent the model shows up without an escort you're increasing the odds she won't show up at all. Sorry. But that's just how it is. Yeah, I know, those escorts can be distracting and, sometimes, outright obstacles to getting that shot you're looking to capture. What can I tell you? If having some pretty girl you've never met (and who has never met you) show up, alone, at your designated shooting location is what you're insisting on, you've diminished the odds she'll show up at all. And if you're also expecting, once there and alone with you, she'll get naked for you and your camera, you further increase the odds she won't show up.

Accept it, deal with it, and move on if getting the model alone and naked with you is your insisted-upon goal. I ain't saying it ain't do-able. And I ain't questioning your motives. I'm just saying.

I'm also not trying to dampen your enthusiasm (and hopes) for capturing pretty girls with your camera, naked or otherwise. I'm just trying to offer a dose of reality.

By the way, I've noticed many photographers don't think twice about dropping some serious dough on gear. But when it comes to offering some cash for a model they act like it's some violation of their artistic code of ethics.

Photographers please! Just like you might hope to make money with your photography, many models (and would-be models) hope to do the same with their modeling. Yeah, many models haven't yet paid their dues (qualifying them to earn) but then many photographers haven't done so either.

I know you might feel like you have a bigger investment, what with the cost of a camera body, glass, and other gear, and you bring more to the "free shoot" than the model--after all, all she brings is herself and maybe some wardrobe and makeup--but again, it's the nature of the beast that the photographer, if anyone, is the one who is going to cough up a few bucks to make the shoot happen. I'm not talking about accomplished shooters who, rightfully, should be paid for their time, especially when photographing novice models who are hoping to build a great portfolio, I'm talking about the average hobby shooter working with models with little experience.

Money talks. And offering even a small remuneration for a model's time--some $$$ to cover her travel expenses and make her feel more like a pro--will increase the chances of getting that model in front of your camera. If the model already is a pro, you're more than likely gonna pay for her time.

Bottom line: You'll get more models in front of your camera with a good portfolio and a Ben Franklin than you will with a good portfolio alone.

Accept it, deal with it, and score yourself some pretty girls to add-to, or build, that good portfolio you're looking to assemble. Who knows? Maybe even a great portfolio?

The sexy pretty girl at top is Tory from a shoot this past April.

Memorial Day From a Porn Star's Point-of-View

First, thanks for the great response to my Begging For Pennies campaign. Pennies become nickels and nickels become dimes and dimes become... well, you get the idea. Keep clicking on those Google ad links! (Below, right-hand column.) I feel positively re-energized writing for pennies rather than writing for free. By the time I'm 100, I might have some serious coinage collected!

Today is Memorial Day: A day we honor our fallen heroes. I was gonna write something about it but then I came across an essay written by a porn star (no less) on the subject of Memorial Day. No, they're not just breast-enhanced bimbos with marginal IQs and an It's all about me! mental. Leastwise, not all of them.

Anyway, here's the essay penned by Atlanta-based model, exotic dancer, and sex performer, Lindsey Lovehands, whom I've neither met nor photographed:

I know that today is a day where most people will be out in their backyards or at campgrounds or at lakes and rivers on their boats, partaking of adult beverages as they grill their favorite carnivore treats. This is true for all except those of us who live in Atlanta, since we have been drenched for the last week with no end in site. I’m spending my Memorial Day sketching plans for my Arc. But amongst all the picnics, air-shows, back-yard BBQ’s and fun on the water I hope that everyone takes a minute to contemplate the REAL reason we celebrate this holiday.

I have been to Arlington National Cemetery and stood in absolute awe as the acres upon acres of gently rolling landscape safely ensconced the remains of those souls who gave their ALL, their mind, body and SOUL, so that we may sit in our backyard on a lawn chair made in China, drinking beer made in Holland whilst cooking steroid-laden chicken from who knows where.

As is the case with many of our national holidays, as the years go by there seems to be an ever-widening generational-gap when it comes to actually comprehending the reason these holidays exist in the first place. Now there are a variety of reasons this is true. There is a definite lack of historical perspective in today’s world of Blackberries, high-speed internet and 24 hour cable news. People today find it very difficult to think about anything that happened last week, much less last year or a decade or four decades ago. While Memorial Day outings traditionally provide us with countless “YouTube moments” of drunken, middle-aged, out-of-shape men reliving their high school football “glory days” as they scream “..hey, check this out…” there is a deeper meaning that seems lost on the younger generations.

This holiday is, or at least it should be, about more than a day off from school or work. There are far greater and more meaningful things we should be celebrating than 60 calorie beer. I may be a girl that likes to be naked and have sex in front of, and with, groups of people but I do have a sense of historical perspective.

If you are a parent, please do this for me. Please let your child know the truth about all those brave and self-less men and women who have served and protected us for over two-hundred years. Let your child know that there have been many true “heroes” who have unselfishly given their lives so that we may eat, drink and be merry….while playing our PS3. Educate your child that Kobe Bryant is NOT a hero but that the young man or woman he sees in the airport in uniform lugging their duffel bag as they prepare to board a plane to Iraq, Afghanistan or some other perilous place IS in fact a REAL hero. And parents, thanks to those same heroes YOU have the freedom to look at my cooter…in high definition no less.

If anyone is suddenly feeling especially thankful for those who gave their all for us, you might, in addition to clicking for Jimmy's pennies, also click the Help Our Wounded Warriors link and make a donation. It's located a few links above the Google ads, also in the right-hand column.

The pretty girl at the top is December, 2008, Penthouse Pet, Tori Black. I shot Tori a month or so back at a location house in the Hollywood Hills.

Some Good News And Some Less-Good News

Before I begin writing today's babble, do me a flavor: If you have a moment or two, click on one of those Google Ads. (Below, right-hand column.) Gotta be something there that looks remotely interesting to you. Google pays about a penny a click so, if you click, I get some pennies. If you do that, I'll feel all peachy cuz, suddenly, I'm writing and working for pennies rather than for free.

Thanks.

Okay, having now begged for pennies and selling myself quite cheaply to The Man, here's a brief update regarding a couple of projects I'm involved with, namely the reality show, Porntourage, and the Pretty Girl Shooter photography DVD.

On the good news side, besides acquiring a distributor, a sponsor (i.e., a paid advertiser) has come aboard the PGS DVD project!

What this means is a manufacturer of photography-related gear is purchasing advertising/informational time on the DVD. That translates to a two-to-four-minute informational "spot" that will run at the head of the DVD and will also be available as a DVD menu option. Don't worry, we're not going to hire Billy Mays or the ShamWow Guy to shout and pimp this advertiser's gear. (We couldn't afford them anyway.) And while this might represent another example of me selling myself to The Man, we'll try our best to produce the spot as entertainingly and informatively as possible.

The sponsor will also have full use of the "spot" for trade show, marketing, web streaming, and whatever other uses they deem fit. The sponsor segment will be separately produced as a stand-alone "spot" from the rest of the program. We're selling two sponsor slots for the DVD and one of those slots is now taken. I'm not naming names until the deal memo is signed by everyone involved. That should will happen in the next week or so.

On the less-good, good news side, The Hollywood guys report that Showtime passed on the reality show.

Showtime, we're told, decided it too closely resembles their series, "Family Business." And, after weeks and weeks of back-and-forth phone talks and face-to-face meetings, A&E decided the show is too "racy" for them. Although this all sounds like bad news, the Hollywood guys say they and their agents are fully committed to this project and they, the Hollywood guys, will produce it in one form or another: Either in association with a cable caster or as an independent project financed with investor funds or their own financing. I say, "in one form or another," because the Hollywood guys have even mentioned producing it as a theatrical-style feature documentary--or mockumentary which probably better describes it--instead of a reality TV series.

The pretty, plaid-clad, girls at the top are Louisa, left, and Morgan, right. The photo is another sample from a set I shot last week and posted in a recent update. This time, I thought I'd post a photograph sans their white blouses... not that anyone is interested in viewing pretty girls without their tops. I'm just illustrating a different "look" from the set.

Louisa and Morgan captured with a Canon 5D w/ Canon 70-200mm f/4L. ISO 100, f/16 at 200th. Two modified front lights battled the harsh, mid-day, sun. The B&W conversion was via the Channel Mixer method. I also applied a small amount of the "Midnight" effect from Nik's Color Efex Pro filters.

For Pretty Girl Shooters, Cameras and Glass Ain't Always Enough

Obviously, this doesn't apply to all genres of photography but, if you're a fashion, glam, or tease shooter, you probably need more than a camera and glass to best photograph the models you hope to immortalize on film or on a sensor. You probably also need lighting equipment (lights and lighting modifiers) and, to make best use of that lighting equipment, grip gear.

Grip gear is a catch-all phrase that includes, amongst many things, quite an array of equipment: Most notably, stands and arms and other grip gear that allows you to attach and place (set) your lighting sources and modifiers where you want them. Many things in the world of grip gear could be replaced with humans, i.e., humans hand-holding your lights and modifiers but, assuming you're not some "A" list uber-shooter, like I'm not, how many people are usually with you when you're photographing pretty girls?

Even if you prefer natural light for all your pretty girl shooting endeavors, you'll probably find that reflectors and bounce boards will enhance your efforts. And how will you most effectively place or set those reflectors and bounce boards short of having assistants perform the tasks? Grip gear, that's how.

For the most part, grip is gear is decidedly low-tech. Leastwise, when compared to your camera, glass, and lights. And because it's low-tech, it's generally less expensive than its high-tech, photographic, distant-cousins. Grip gear ain't always cheap but, compared to the price of a good camera body, lens, or monolight, it provides very helpful gear for a reasonable price.

In addition to lights and modifiers, I carry a fair amount of grip gear in my SUV. (Which doubles as a grip truck.) The gear I carry includes a variety of stands, from normal photo stands to C-stands to gobo arms to sand bags and other things to safely and securely attach and set lights and modifiers. It's all designed to make my job easier (except for the part where I have to schlep that gear into a location) and keep, at a minimum, the number of people it takes for me to competently capture the images I'm hired to shoot. That number, BTW, is usually "3," i.e., me, myself, and I.

Yesterday, I hooked up with a gaffer friend and bartered a well-used Norm's C-stand w/head and arm for a Manfrotto stand w/10' boom arm. It's an older Manfrotto model which means it's heavier and sturdier and the boom arm doesn't telescope. The 10' boom arm sits, via a junior pin, on a (fairly) heavy-duty stand that rises to 6'. There's a baby pin on one end of the boom, a pivoting boom clamp that allows me to set the angle of the boom relative to the stand, a counterweight, and some geared controls at the other end of the boom that allows me to pan or tilt whatever is attached to the business end of the boom. The pic (above) isn't exactly the Manfrotto model I traded for--for one thing, mine doesn't have wheels--but it's close enough to illustrate my new (old) boom.

I'm already thinking about the new lighting options this piece of gear now easily affords me. For grins, I attached my Mola Euro beauty dish and a monolight to the boom just to see how it would handle the weight. No problemo. That made me smile.

The pretty girl at the top, from a recent shoot, goes by the name Princess. I captured this easy-on-the-eyes Princess in a studio on a white cyc with a couple of pieces of furniture placed on it. Used three Profoto Acute heads to illuminate her royal semi-nakedness: The main modified with a 7' Photoflex Octodome plus a couple of kickers behind her on each side, modified with small, shoot-thru umbrellas. Princess captured with Canon 5D w/Tamron 24-75, ISO 100, f/8 @ 160. I think I might have driven the sharpening a bit too much after doing my less-than-stellar B&W conversion. Like I wrote in my previous update, I ain't a pro when it comes to image processing. No Gaussian Blur was abused used in the post-production of the image.

My Photoshop Skills, i.e., My Lack of Them

Yesterday, one of my Twitter peeps, Almus, of PlayVice Photography, asked, "Do you ever do any blog posts on your processing technique? and/or before/after samples?"

I tweeted back: "Don't consider myself much of a PS processor. Certainly not enuff to spout expertly on my blog."

And it's true. I ain't a Photoshop expert. I barely consider myself above-average and/or professionally competent when it comes to PS image processing. Yeah, I know how to do a few things in PS. And I spend a fair amount of time attempting to increase my PS knowledge. But expert? Not even close. That's why, for the most part, I don't write much about my Photoshop endeavors. I ain't qualified. It's as simple as that.

It's also why I don't overly process my photos. Sometimes I do a bit more and sometimes much less. But if, as a rule, I heavily processed my work, for the most part I'd muck it all up!

In my line of work, leastwise in terms of what happens to my pics after I snap them, processing the photos I make is a job (best) performed by someone else: Someone who actually is a PS expert and who has mad skills when it comes to image processing. BTW, that "someone else" is usually some professional graphic designer (who I rarely get to meet) who takes my pics and works them into DVD cover art, marketing and advertising materials, magazine and web art, etc.

In a sense, I work for those graphic designers. At least, partially I do. No, they don't write or sign my checks. But if their jobs are to make my photos sing, my job is to deliver the best I can give them when I'm in production.

The "best I can give them" includes good focus and exposure, picking appropriate places to shoot the images, directing and encouraging the models to "sell" the goods, framing and composing and lighting in ways that gives the art guys some latitude and options, and more. Call me old school but I consider myself a photographer first and, sometimes, an image processor second.

The faux schoolgirls in the nothing special diptych at the top are Nicole on the left and Krista on the right. I shot them this past Tuesday at the same location house in the Hollywood Hills shown in yesterday's update. Per my Twitter friend's request, I provided before and after examples.

The photo on the left is right out of the camera. I did, of course, resize it for the blog. The image on the right is the same pic but after I performed some minimal processing on it. That processing included cropping, some tweaking of the levels, contrast, and color, some very minor burning and dodging, a small amount of sharpening and that's about it.

Whether you process your own images or someone else does it, my best advice is to do your best to get it right in the camera. Don't rely on post-processing to frost a turd!

As a side note, besides photography, I've also spent a fair chunk of my career as a video editor. (In addition to my work as a photographer and/or as a video shooter.) I always cringe when, while editing something, I hear some off-camera-asshole say, "Don't worry. We'll fix it in post." It makes me look around the room for the person connected to the voice. But guess what? The only one there is me! Somehow, the "we" in "we'll fix it in post" always turns out to be a big fat freakin' lie! I'm the person who ends up having to fix it in post! And I know enough about shooting and production to also know it wouldn't have taken much work to do it right in the first place, rather than counting on the editor--i.e., making the editor work harder--to "fix it in post."

Sometimes, Things Are What They Are

Sometimes, I get hired to make seductive, crafty, escape-from-reality, photos of gorgeous, alluring, beautiful, women. Other times, I get hired to make less-crafty, more obvious, the-message-is-clear, pics of cute, pretty girls that say, fairly clearly, where things are going.

Yesterday was one of those days where the latter was the order of the day.

It's no secret the schoolgirl genre appeals to many men. It is what it is and things are what they are. Men are sexually drawn to youth. I suppose women are drawn to the same. I say, "I suppose" in my observation about women because I'm not a woman and, as a realistic sort of guy, I don't pretend to know what goes on in the minds of women.

To deny the sexually-provocative appeal of youth, i.e., youth in it's sex-appeal prime, is absurd. It's part of how we're wired. It's built into the design. For most men, young and old, it's a very basic instinct. And because of that, products are marketed and sold, sometimes obviously and sometimes less obviously, that exploit that instinct.

It's not just sexually-explicit adult products that prey on men's and women's attraction to youth, but hordes of products in the mainstream as well. Youth, beauty, and sexual allure are used to sell just about everything and anything. Sex sells! Youth sells! And sex, coupled with youth, often sells even better!

Sex and youth are also used to sell products aimed at our personal hopes and desires to reclaim our own youthful appearances and sense of being. Think everything from skin-care products to fashion to Viagra to, well, to almost anything else.

Morality-driven people struggle and battle against this sex-and-youth stuff. In fact, they often rail against almost everything where sex and sexually-provocative content is used as the carrot. IMO, they're fighting an eternally losing battle. People are what and who they are and all the morality in the world isn't going to change their basic instincts. Leastwise, not in the private domains of their personal thoughts and imaginations. The Thought Police don't have a prayer, as well they shouldn't.

Hey! I'm just saying!

I also had a chance yesterday to try out a new piece of glass I've recently added to my camera bag: A Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM.

I know, I know... I should have bought the IS version of the 70-200 f/4L. Better yet, the f/2.8L IS version.

Frankly, I can't remember the last time I shot any pretty girl photographs at f/2.8. In fact, I rarely use an aperture wider than f/5.6. And since I almost always use strobes, IS becomes significantly less of an issue. For those occasional times I'm using reflectors only, I'll put the camera on sticks if the 70-200 f/4L (non IS) is in use.

For me, money spent on gear is always something I carefully consider, i.e., in terms of how much, and on what, I'm willing to spend. This stuff ain't hobby toys for me. They are the tools I use to fatten my wallet. Whenever I can buy a tool for less, i.e., a tool that gets the job adequately and effectively done for less, it means my wallet is that much fatter. I've said it before, I ain't a gear elitist. Plus, I haven't won the lottery... yet.

Yep! Being a practical and frugal guy, I tend to buy tools that closely match the job; my job. In this case, the f/4L (non-IS) should do me just fine when I need those focal lengths, especially considering how much less this lens costs than its higher-priced siblings.

The pretty, plaid-clad, 18+ schoolgirls at the top are Morgan, left, and Louisa, right. Image captured under the mid-day sun, right around noon, in the backyard of an upscale home high in the Hollywood hills. Those white blouses were tough to keep under control in that environment and I wasn't as successful at doing so as I would have liked to have been. Yesterday's client demands very bright, evenly-lit, images (they don't much like shadows) and prefers them shot in daylight exterior locations. That kept me walking a fine line with exposure, driving it to the slightly overexposed side.

I used a Canon 5D w/ Canon 70-200 f/4L at ISO 100, f/16 @ 200th for this image. I also used two, modified, front lights, set at 45s either side of me, to battle the sun and background ambient. I should have leveled that horizon line a bit. Oh well. Sometimes, I guess I get a bit myopic and don't notice things like that until after I've processed the image... and then laziness kicks in.