dSLR Rigs

Thanks to digital technologies, it seems like everyone's a photographer these days. Now that many dSLRs are also HD video capable, many of those newly-minted photographers are also, suddenly, filmmakers as well.

Being a filmmaker, of course, requires some additional skills; not that special skills stopped too many people from being extra-special photographers, capturing all those special moments with specially designed cameras that practically shoot themselves via auto-everything. (Isn't that special?) Be that as it may -- Oh, man! My Dad used to say that a lot, "be that as it may." I'm afraid I'm at that age where I'm turning into him... Anyway -- the skills required for good film-making generally go beyond the skills required for capturing still images.

You're also probably going to need, besides new skills, some new gear. That really nice collection of strobes you paid a mortgage payment or two for aren't gonna do squat for your film-making endeavors. (Unless you're now also an SFX (special effects) guru and you want to experiment with stroboscopic motion capture.) Also, beyond the nifty camera and awesome glass you'll be using to capture imagery rivaling anything the likes of Vilmos Zsigmond ever shot, you're probably gonna need some sound gear to record decent audio with your pictures that are now, suddenly, in motion, perhaps even with models or actors who are (gulp) speaking!

There's also a whole slew of other products, beyond the stuff you'll actually need, that will help make, for instance, someone's journey from Soccer Mom to Pro Photographer to Steven Spielberg a rousing success. Here's one of them in the video below.

(P.S. There's still time to get 25% off either or both of my ebooks. Click my ebook links in the right-hand column and use discount code JUNESPECIAL when purchasing.)

Oh... Almost forgot to mention: Kayla is the model at the top lounging in a very un-lady-like manner. Besides sometimes being un-lady-like (in good ways, I might add) Kayla's great to work with. As you can see, she even adjusts lights.

Small Flash Economy?

I watched a behind-the-scenes video this morning wherein a pro photographer took viewers on a short, guided tour of his lighting set-up. In the video, the photographer was employing Nikon SB-900 small flash instruments. He was shooting in a somewhat small, location "studio" (a room at his client's facility) and had set up a white seamless as a backdrop.

The photographer's lighting set-up included a main source consisting of three SB-900s (a "tri-flash" he called it) mounted behind a 60" shoot-thru umbrella with a reflector set below it and angled up for a bit of fill coming from below. He also set a medium-sized softbox on the fill side using another SB-900 as the light source. On either side of the seamless, he employed a couple of more SB-900s to light the seamless. Finally, he boomed an SB-900 from behind which was set for a hair light. All the SB-900s were powered by batteries, albeit external battery sources, possibly Quantums, even though the "studio" had A/C available. In all, seven SB-900s with external battery packs were being used to light his models.

Let's do some arithmetic: B&H sells SB-900s for $499.95/ea. I'll round that off to $500/ea. The Quantums go for about, I believe, $200 each. With seven SB-900s (plus power sources) being used, the photographer was employing $4900 worth of small flash lighting sources. Since some tax or shipping or something more was probably spent purchasing that gear, I'll round that off to $5,000.

$5,000.

Someone explain to me how small-flash photography (leastwise, the way many shooters seem to use this gear) rather than using monolights or packs-n-heads, is the economical approach to shooting models? (Especially in an interior location where A/C is available.)

Sure, it's certainly easier to schlep that small-flash gear around but, frankly, I could have used two or three "plugged-in" monolights (at about $500/ea) or heads plus a couple of reflectors and achieved nearly the identical results, altho I'll admit the photographer in the video got more light on his background seamless than I could using only two or three light sources. And we all know how incredibly important it is to get that white seamless brightly and evenly lit because, in spite of all the processing most shooters perform in post, getting that white seamless perfectly exposed in production is absolutely critical to the final images. (Not.)

Reminder: There's only one week left to purchase either Guerrilla Glamour or Guerrilla Headshots (or both) for 25% off using special discount code, JUNESPECIAL.

The pretty girl with the rhinestone outfit is Cytherea, captured in my studio a few years ago.

Cropping Pretty Girls

Basically, there's three ways to crop your photos: In the camera, in post, or a combination of both. (D'uh, right?) Like most photographers, I prefer the latter. More specifically, I try to capture a close-to-finished crop in camera and then I fine-tune that crop in post.

As a rule, I avoid relying solely on post-production cropping. Doing so has a lot to do with maximizing my camera's resolution abilities. If I didn't care about maximizing resolution, I'd simply shoot my models in full-body shots (or even more loosely framed) and then, in post, crop to taste.

For me, cropping mostly conforms to the 80/20 rule: About 80% of my crop happens in camera, 20% in post. That's probably true for many shooters, perhaps most?

To cover my ass, crop-wise, I often shoot the same pose using two or three different in-camera crops. I might shoot a full body shot, move/zoom in for the same shot but with a 3/4 crop, then I might move or zoom even closer for a 1/2 to 1/3 body shot. I don't always shoot all of those shots, of course. Most often, I shoot the 3/4 crop and then the 1/2 or 1/3 crop. Sometimes, I might also shoot a headshot as a 3rd or 4th choice. (None of what I just wrote is necessarily in any sort of order of doing things.) By doing this, I give myself more choices in post while taking better advantage of my camera's resolution because, whatever additional cropping I perform in post will, for the most part, retain 80% (or more) of the out-of-the-camera image I captured.

I've mentioned before, here on the blog, that most of the model photography I shoot ends up being processed by others, usually retouchers and/or graphic designers. Since those people are, in addition to those who write me checks, people I need to satisfy with my work, I've found that giving them more choices while still retaining the best resolution quality I can capture, is a good idea. (That doesn't mean I always shoot RAW. More than a few of my clients have me shooting large, fine, jpegs. Also, none of this means I increase the total number of images I capture by a factor of 2, 3, or 4. What it means is I've learned to be more selective and discriminating regarding the poses and angles that I do shoot.

Sometimes, too many choices, from the perspective of editing, is not a good thing.

The pretty girl at the top is Tera Patrick, captured last year in her home in Los Angeles. (Click to enlarge.) Just a reminder: If you haven't taken advantage of it already, there's still a few weeks left in June to purchase either or both of my ebooks for 25% off using the special discount code, JUNESPECIAL, when ordering. Just click on the links to my ebooks in the right-hand column and use the code when making the purchase. Your discount will be automatically applied to your final purchase price.

June Special on eBooks!

As I continue writing towards the completion and release of my 3rd ebook, Zen and the Art of Glamour Photography, I thought it might be cool to offer a discount on my first two ebooks, Guerrilla Glamour and Guerrilla Headshots. So that's what I'm going to do! (Since I like doing cool things and all.)

From now till the end of June, 2011, you can purchase either or both of my ebooks for 25% off their already low price of $9.95. I suck at math but I figure that means you'll end up saving about $2.50, plus or minus a penny or two on each ebook. Such a deal!

If you've thought about purchasing one or both of my ebooks but needed that extra little nudge to get you to click on the "Add to Cart" button, now's a good time to do just that... click the "Add to Cart" button, that is. If you're new to me and my work and/or my writing, well, I can tell you an awful lot of people have already bought my ebooks and I haven't yet had anyone complain. Not one! (Thanks and knock on wood.)

All you have to do is go to the or site where I sell my ebooks, Guerrilla Glamour or Guerrilla Headshots, and after clicking the "Add to Cart" button, use discount code JUNESPECIAL.

After entering this special discount code, your 25% discount will be automatically applied to the purchase price. This discount is good from now till the very last second of June, 2011. (P.S. You can also click on the banners in the right-side column to get to my ebook sites.)

The pretty girl crouched almost cat-like on the purple-felt pool table is one I snapped of Penthouse Pet, Tori Black, last year. (You can click it to enlarge it if you're so inclined.)

There Are No Hard 'n Fast Rules For Hard 'n Fast Rules

A lot of shooters are fond of quoting the rules: both the (supposed) hard 'n fast rules and the not so hard 'n fast rules. As a rule, the rules for rules aren't any more hard 'n fast than the rules themselves. They are soft and unfixed... perhaps "subjective" is a better way to describe them?

Don't get me wrong, I think rules are helpful, often appropriate, and important! Maybe not all rules but certainly photography's rules. (As for other rules, well, I've always been, to varying degrees, somewhat outlaw-ish. Probably no surprise there.)

While rules -- hard, fast, or otherwise -- aren't generally intended to be rigidly followed, certainly not to the letter, they do provide a foundation for any shooter's understanding of photography, i.e., what works and what doesn't work. After all, if you don't know what works, how are you going to know if what (often) doesn't work suddenly works? If it works, that is, in a given instance as a unique approach to a specific image. (If that makes sense.)

I do have some favorite rules. They tend to be amongst the more common, simple and basic rules. (The Rule of Thirds comes immediately to mind.) While I don't always religiously apply the rules or use them in hard 'n fast ways, I do often use them in my photography; sometimes obviously, other times subtly. (Sometimes, in ways that aren't much more than barely perceptible "nods" to an established rule.)

Unfortunately, there are no rules for deciding when to apply the rules. (Or rules for deciding to purposely break rules or for ignoring them.)

The lack of rules for applying rules is sometimes a confounding thing for photographers. Many photographers, especially new-ish photographers, are grateful and enthusiastic being told exactly how to do things, photography-wise. That includes applying rules! That's why so many "How To" books and other learning media are so popular. And it makes sense.

Many books and learning and training programs, like knowing the rules themselves, are necessary for growing and expanding one's skill, efficiency, and quality of craft. Understanding and applying the rules, as well as learning exactly how to do so many other things, is often discovered when they're laid out for us, step-by-step. That's a helluva lot easier than blindly searching for that "how to" knowledge or hoping you accidentally stumble upon it. All this kind of stuff is very important to becoming all you can be as a photographer... unless you're some kind of photo-prodigy, which most of us ain't.

There is one rule, however, that's always hard 'n fast: With photography, the learning never stops. I don't care how experienced or successful a photographer might be, there's always more for them to learn, whether they believe that or not.

Personally, I think the never-ending learning process is one of the things that makes photography so cool! Doing so, continuing the learning process that is, keeps your photography fresh, vibrant, and exciting. Learning inspires! Learning is a muse! Course, so are things like beautiful, naked chicks in front of your camera but that's not the subject of my babbling today.

Speaking of beautiful, naked, chicks, the model at the top (who mostly fits that criteria) is Layla, snapped a few months ago.

Sometimes, Access is Everything

Ever look at celebrity photos or other stuff that gets lots of play and think, "That picture isn't all that good" or "I could shoot that just as well."

Me too.

Often enough, we're probably right. The photo isn't all that good or it might be that we could shoot it just as well. Other times, of course, it is a really good, stand-out, photo and you or I may or may not be able to equal or best it.

What is it that makes some photos and some photographers really stand out? In a word, access: They had access to the subject and the subject is often someone or some thing most shooters simply don't have access to.

In my ebook, Guerrilla Glamour, I briefly mentioned that, often enough, the single most important element to snapping a hot pic of a hot model is having a really hot model in front of your camera. (No surprise there.) I didn't put too much emphasis on that observation because I didn't want others thinking they won't ever snap great photos of models unless the model is exceptionally hot. That's not the case. I've seen terrific photos of models who are not, in most viewers' estimations, all that strikingly hot. (I'd like to think I've shot a few of those photos myself.) Still, the simple truth is the subject of a photo is often the most important element in terms of garnering attention and getting the most positive reactions from viewers.

Earlier today, a fellow photographer on Facebook brought forward the notion of access being so important when he mentioned (and linked-to) some great photos of Navy SEALs snapped by small-flash guru, Joe McNally.

McNally's photos are, as usual, impressive. But I couldn't help but think that if those photos were simply of some random and anonymous Marines or other members of our armed forces, they'd be considerably less memorable. More so since Navy SEALs were recently in the news after stamping "The End" on Osama bin Laden's ass. You see, Joe McNally was given special photographic access to Navy SEALs which, frankly, most photographers, myself included, will probably never experience.

The same holds true for photographers who have access to celebrities, other important and notable people, or incredbily hot models. How well would David LaChapelle's images of people like Madonna and others be remembered sans, as an example, Madonna in the photos? That's not to say LaChapelle's visions aren't cool or executed skillfully. But the fact remains: his images of Madonna, for instance, are even more memorable because, well, because Madonna was the subject of his vision.

As usual, I'm just sayin.

The pretty girl at the top is Charmane, lit and snapped with plenty of contrast to add some photo-aesthetic value to a model who really doesn't need all that much help being perceived as a hottie.