Calling All SoCal Photographers!

If you're a photographer or someone who supports the rights of photographers, you should be interested in two rallies taking place this weekend.

On Saturday, June 6, at 6:30 P.M., a "Photographer's Rights" rally will take place at the Port of Los Angeles, in Long Beach, CA. The event is being coordinated by the National Photographers’ Rights Organization.

On Sunday, June 7, at 11:30 A.M., a second rally will take place at Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles. I'm planning to participate in Sunday's rally.

A protest rally! Like back in the day. I'm stoked!

For more info about these important events, like how to get there and stuff, as well as plenty of other information about your rights as a photographer, CLICK HERE!

The pretty girl at the top is Playboy, Penthouse, FHM cover girl, Tera Patrick, from a shoot last month. Tera captured with a Canon 5D, Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8, ISO 100, f/8 @ 125.

The Pretty Girl Shooting BEL Curve

Many photographers post their work on photography forums. Pretty girl shooters are no exception. Posting images on photo forums is a good way to get feedback and critique for your images.

It's been my observation that three components seem to trump all others when it comes to the responses a pretty girl pic might receive: Beauty, Emotion, and Lighting.

If I were a statistically-minded person, I suppose I could plot these components on a Bell Curve, in this case, a BEL Curve. But since I'm better with words than numbers, I'll stick to using an analogy between the traditional Bell Curve and my newly-minted BEL Curve.

Bell curves look like upside down bells. You knew that, right? All kinds of things can be plotted on the curves of the bell: Things that yield a picture of where it exists in terms of accomplishment or rating. Bell Curves produce visually digestible, easily understood, overall positive or negative rankings for whatever it is that's being plotted on the curve.

Teachers, for instance, use Bell Curves to plot grades. Many people refer to various skills, i.e., their skills at doing something, as moving one way or another along a Bell Curve, indicating their level of skill or proficiency at that thing. Bell Curves are easy to visualize and, as such, work nicely to illustrate many things. I know I'm oversimplifying Bell Curves but that's what I'm often about: Simplification... of my life, my work, my thoughts, so many things. I'm just a simple guy, I guess.

So let's look at the BEL Curve:

Beauty is the first and, quite often, the most important point to plot on the curve. Beauty trumps so many other aspects of a pretty girl photo. If a model is drop dead gorgeous, sexy almost beyond belief, those people critiquing your image of this "10" will be less focused on the technical aspects of the photo and mesmerized by the beauty and visual allure she portrays. Beauty is perfection. Beauty is something we are all drawn to in powerful ways. While beauty might be in the eyes of the beholder, there are beauties whom almost everyone will agree are just plain stunningly beautiful.

Emotion is another point that moves a pretty girl photograph along the BEL Curve. When a model is beautiful and she projects an emotion that strikes chords in the minds of viewers, exciting chords, she adds incredible "wow" value to the image, transporting her beauty to new heights. If you're not coaxing emotion from your pretty girl models, you're missing out on an important way of moving your images in the right direction on the BEL Curve.

Lighting is the frosting on the cake when it comes to photographing pretty girls. Lighting, like emotion, will move a pretty girl pic along the BEL Curve in powerful ways. Lighting highlights a model's beauty (pun intended) and underscores the emotion she projects. Without light, it's tough to visualize. Without visualization, fantasy becomes more difficult, most especially for men. And what's the point of pretty girl pics if not to feed the fantasies of their viewers?

So when you're going about the business of producing glamour photography, keep in mind the 3 major components of the BEL Curve: Beauty, emotion, and lighting. These elements will become the major benchmarks for viewers' perceptions of your work. Certainly, there are other components--things like composition, exposure, location or environment, makeup and hair, and more--that will move a pretty girl photo in the right direction on the BEL Curve. But beauty, emotion, and lighting are, IMO, the most important aspects of any pretty girl pic.

The pretty girl at the top is Lupe from a shoot last week. She's beautiful, she's projecting, in my perception, a subtle yet sensuous emotion through pose and expression. The lighting, while not particularly remarkable, dramatic, or stylistic, ain't shabby if I do say so myself. I think the photo would plot decently on the BEL Curve.

Lupe captured with a Canon 5D w/ 70-200 f/4L, ISO 100, f/8 @ 125. Three Profoto Acute heads provided the lighting: The main modified with a 7' Photoflex Octodome and the two kickers with small, shoot-through umbrellas. Here's another of the very sexy and sensuous Lupe:

Model Direction as a Second Language

It's always a challenge directing models who speak little or no English, especially if the model isn't overly experienced. It doesn't happen too regularly but it happens often enough that I've gained some experience doing so.

Yesterday was one of those days where I found myself, camera in hand, facing a model who spoke only a little English. Very little! Her name was Cindy (pictured) and she was fresh off the jetliner from Budapest, Hungary. Since I speak no Hungarian other than the word "goulash," and Cindy spoke very little English, other than words like "yes," "no," "hello," and "money," I knew I'd have to resort to hand signals, demonstrations of poses and expressions, along with a mini-crash-course in English-as-a-Second-Language.

First things first: Figure out what body parts Cindy could identify in English. What she didn't know, I'd teach her-- And get your minds out of the gutter, I'm talking about body parts like head, face, hands, shoulders, arms, legs, and belly button.

Belly button?

Yep. A very important body part in terms of model direction, that is, important in terms of directing where it should be pointed.

"Point your belly button at that light over there," is a a direction I often give English speaking models. Pointing belly buttons away from the camera, of course, twists the model's hips away as well. It's a simple posing technique to thin hips, shave pounds, and reduce poochy less-toned bellies. Often, I'll then have the model turn her shoulders back to the camera while keeping the belly button pointed away.

Once I've quickly taught non-English-speaking models the English words for a few body parts that I'll be having her move, turn, twist, and bend, I can then use my free hand to indicate where that body part should go. I'll hold my free hand up, for instance, say a word like "shoulders," and twist/move my hand one way or another to communicate to the model which way to turn her shoulders and how much to turn them. Simple, right? Works for me.

With non-English-speaking models, I generally show them images on the back of my camera more often than I will with English speaking models. In this way, I can point at various parts of her body and give her critical feedback--usually via pantomime, expressions, and gestures--in terms of how that body part is working (or not working) within the context of the pose.

Emotion and expression is a little more difficult to direct with newly learned words and hand signals. This is where I rely on demonstrating, with my own face, the expressions and/or emotions I'd like the model to convey. Yeah, I sometimes feel like a clown when I'm doing this but, more often than not, it gets the point across. Emotions and expressions are fairly universal across most cultures in their use and meanings.

It's often surprising how quickly a photographer and a model can get on the same page without the benefit of speaking the same language. I guess photography and modeling has it's own universal language: One that quickly replaces spoken languages. Too bad I can't figure out how to do a Vulcan mind meld. That would make things even easier when the model speaks little or no English... and might be kind of kinky fun too!

The goulash-scarfing pretty girl at the top is Cindy. I lit Cindy, on a white cyc, with 4 Profoto Acute heads: The main, camera-left, modified with a 7' Photoflex Octodome; a fill, camera-right, modified with a medium, silver-lined umbrella; two kickers, either side, above and behind Cindy, modified with small shoot-through umbrellas. Canon 5D, 70-200mm f/4L, ISO 100, f/10 @ 100th. Minimal processing.

Buying Gear That's Right For You

Recently, a PGS reader asked me to help him decide between a couple of lenses he was thinking of buying: Either a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L or f/4L. He also wondered whether he should cough up the extra bucks for IS (Image Stabilization) or not.

First thing I asked him, before pretending to be Mister Know-It-All, was what he was mostly going to be shooting with the glass and whether he shoots on a full-frame or cropped-frame dSLR? The second part of the question was in response to his query regarding how far away from his subjects he would need to be, with a 70-200mm, to photograph them in full body shots.

It's no accident that Canon manufactures it's "L" series 70-200mm zoom lenses in 4 different iterations. Yeah, part of the reason is the arrival of IS technology after already producing these lenses with two, different, minimum apertures. Or should that read, "maximum" apertures? I never get that right. Regardless, part of the reason, I think, is to make that lens available to photographers with both deep and shallow pockets. I'd also like to think that part of it is because each of those 70-200mm zoom lenses are appropriate for different applications.

I own a 70-200mm f/4L (non IS) version of the lens. When I bought the f/4 non IS version of this lens, doing so saved me a heap of dough while without compromising the quality of the images I regularly produce. You see, I'm a specialist. I shoot pretty girls. As a rule, I almost never photograph landscapes, weddings, sports, flora, or fauna, and I rarely shoot in low-light environments. Since I'm almost always working with strobes and I almost never shoot at an aperture of less than f/5.6, a non-IS, f/4 version of the lens suits me just fine. In other words, I get all the optical goodness of one of Canon's premier "L" series lenses... for less!

Hobbyists, for the most part, are generalists when it comes to their photography. For that matter, commercial photographers, wedding photographers, and others are a bit that way too as they routinely encounter (uncontrolled) shooting environments where a lens, for instance, with more capabilities, e.g., the f/2.8 IS version of the 70-200mm, might be the best choice.

While generalists might sometimes shoot pretty girls with strobes, many of them also shoot that other stuff I listed above... the stuff I almost never shoot. If a hobbyist (or one of those other types of photographers I mentioned) is considering purchasing a 70-200mm "L" series lens, they might do well to plunk down the extra dough for a f/2.8 (IS) version of the lens. If not, perhaps the f/4 IS version. Yeah, they're pricey. But for generalists and others, those versions of the 70-200mm will serve them well for all the stuff they photograph and in all the environments they find themselves shooting in.

So, when considering new gear, it's very important to consider what you'll be shooting with that gear. It's not simply about "The Best." It's also about what's best for you and for what you shoot. Don't just go with the hype and marketing! Figure out what gear will serve you best. Don't waste your money on more than you need. Don't waste your money on things you don't need. Don't waste your money on stuff that doesn't satisfy your needs.

The pretty girl at the top whose name I can't recall -- Sheesh! I'm getting senile! -- is from a shoot a couple of years ago. I do remember that she's from Brazil.

The Vendor Client Relationship

I've written about the photographer / client relationship a number of times, recounting my own experiences. But then Vancouver photographer, Ed Araquel, went and Twittered a link to the video (below) and, suddenly, I realized that nothing I've written (or might write) could do a better job of illustrating this relationship.

Click HERE to see the video.

And just so you don't think I have no heart, depriving you of a pretty girl pic in this update, here's another photo of Lupe from my photo shoot the other day. I call her Lil' Latin Lupe Loo cuz she's all of 4'11" in heels and probably weighs in at a hefty 80 to 90 lbs. soaking wet. Very minimal processing. (No Gaussian Blur or Diffusion Glow was abused in the post-production of this image.)

He Who Shoots Best Laughs Best (And Last)

Not too long ago, I lost one of my semi-regular gigs to another photographer. It wasn't over rates or availability or who knows who, it was because the other photographer's work trumped mine.

Hard to swallow.

Hard to accept.

Hard to admit to.

After finding out about my displacement, I'll admit to taking a peek at this other photographer's work. I was duly impressed. Looked like nice stuff. Really nice stuff!

But then, out of the blue, I received a phone call from my former (occasional) client. They wanted me back.

"What happened to your new shooter?" I asked.

"We decided to stop using him," I was told. "His work wasn't very good."

"What do you mean his work wasn't very good?" I said. "I took a look at it and thought it was pretty good!" I honestly added, probably foolishly, looking gift horses in the mouth and all that.

"Well, the work in his portfolio kicks ass," the client said.

I agreed.

"But the problem is," the client continued, "The pictures in his portfolio don't really represent his work."

"You mean he stole someone's work and called it his?" I asked, rather incredulously.

"No." The client told me. "It was all his work."

"So what gives?" I asked.

"Well," the client said, "The guy is one helluva Photoshopper. But as a photographer, he kinda sucks."

"He does?" I asked, again rather incredulously.

"Okay, maybe he doesn't suck." The client said. "But he's not that good. He knows how to Photoshop his pictures. He knows how to do that incredibly well. He probably puts lots of hours into each of his photos," the client added. "But that's about it. And that's not the kind of stills shooter we need."

Ya see, in my work, I don't process images. Someone else does that. Most others who do my sort of work don't process images either. Leastwise, not for our clients we don't. That's the job of the art guys. So if the art guys say someone's work sucks, i.e., the unprocessed, out-of-the-camera work that's handed in sucks (or really isn't very good) and needs lots of heavy post-production work to fix, that person is in big trouble, at least in terms of keeping their production gigs.

While someone can have, what looks like, a really great portfolio, sometimes most of what makes that portfolio great is more the result of Photoshop skills than photography skills. The people I work for want shooters with excellent photography skills. In other words, they could give a rats ass how well someone knows how to use Photoshop. They're more interested in how well someone knows how to use a camera and lights and all that stuff.

I'm not downplaying the importance of learning to use image processors, i.e., learning to use them really well! I'm just saying that mad Photoshop skills often ain't enough. Not if you want to score and keep many of those paid photography gigs.

So ends today's lesson.

Lupe, the pretty girl at the top, is from today's shoot. Photographed her on a white cyc. Snapped a few using some crepe paper for a prop and a fan to move the paper around a bit. I lit Lupe with 3 Profoto Acute 2 heads, the mainlight modified with a 7' Photoflex Octodome and the two kickers modified with small, shoot-thru umbrellas. Canon 5D w/70-200mm f/4L, ISO 100, f/6.3 @ 125th. MUA was Ashley. Mikey A. assisted, wielding the fan.