Summer's Almost Done (Thankfully!)

I know many of you live in places where summer rules. But here, for me, in Southern California, where summer lasts practically the year round, summer represents ridiculous heat, increased energy costs, and too much time on my hands because there's not much work. Leastwise, that's how it is for me.

In the industry where I ply my photographic trade, summer represents a yearly Great Depression. From a "bookings" point-of-view, July and August are the worst months of the year. For seasonal lack-of-work, they are followed closely by December and January. (Those mid-winter months also suck, but for different reasons: Holidays and trade-shows and more.)

There are more than a few reasons why summer work for photographer guys like me goes into the toilet. Too many to list. Just accept my word that it does. And it does in a big freaking way!

Summer 2008 has been especially brutal! The heat? Not ridiculously bad. Energy costs? Well, yeah. Lack of work? Precisely.

Thankfully, September, my birth month, is about to arrive. I already have more work booked for September than July and August combined and, well, it's not even September yet. A good omen, I hope. October should follow suit. (Assuming history repeats itself which I expect it will.) In fact, I'm expecting October to trump September. It always does.

If I were smarter and more fiscally responsible, I'd save for the summer doldrums. But I don't. The optimist in me always believes each new summer will beat the odds and not present the same financial challenges it presented in summers past. It never does. Nope. Apparently, I don't learn from previous mistakes.

Because summer sucks, July and August are usually the months I make resolutions. Forget about New Years Eve: Making resolutions on New Year's Eve might be traditional but, since necessity is the mother of invention, I find the need to search out new inventions to meet my necessities means summer is the time to strain my brain for ways that will insure future summers won't suck.

Sounds reasonable.

Maybe my resolutions, born of July and August, 2008, won't go the way of previous resolutions made in summers past? Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

Okay. I'm done whining.

A commenter in my last update, LSC, asked it I could post a few more pics of Kori. So, that's what I did. Kori up top and below, snapped and processed back in the days when my PS skills were sorely lacking and somewhat heavy-handed. (Not that they're so great now.) I suppose I could re-process these pics but it's still summer. In fact, today's an especially lazy summer day. My energy level is always influenced by lazy summer days--and not necessarily in good ways--and today is no exception.

A Guide to Taking Sexy (Arty) Photos

Richard Kern is a photographer, writer, (former) underground filmmaker and, in the minds of a few (perhaps more than a few) a pornographer. The 50-something Kern traded his North Carolina country-bumpkin roots for the mean streets of New York and has made NYC's East Village his home for a number of decades.

As a photographer, Kern shoots fashion for Purple, smut for Hustler, and a whole lot more. (Who says art, porn, and couture can't all get in bed together?) The UK's Asylum website recently ran an interview with Kern where the photographer talks his way through a Guide to Taking Sexy (arty) Photos.

Worth the read, methinks, whether your pretty girl shooting skills are neophytic, well-seasoned, or somewhere in between.

The caged pretty girl is my friend, Kori, from a couple of years ago. It was the second time she'd ever modeled. Here's another from that set, sans the B&W treatment.

Lighting Sacrilege? *UPDATED*

I had a feeling I might provoke a Strobist with my post, Reflectors: The Other Way to Light. (Oh well. At least it gives me something to write about-- "something to write about" being one of the hardest things about maintaining a blog... for over three years now.)

Anyway...

As a result of the aforementioned update, someone named "Anonymous" commented: "I would agree that some of the Strobist lighting "look" is repetitive, but you have to remember, yours is already SO much so. To me, it's boring."

Although I went out of my way to praise David Hobby and his Strobist site--his site is, after all, one of my faves and I admire David greatly--I still made a comment that was slightly critical of, what seems like, an oft-seen, generic, Strobist lighting style.

Sacrilege? Hell, I don't know. Dishing a dis? Certainly not intended.

You see, it seems that more than a few Strobist readers follow the lighting doctrines and gospels of David Hobby with near religious fervor. Nothing wrong with that. As a result, many formerly average and pedestrian snapshot takers are now producing images of exceptional quality. Personally, I think the world is a better place with less "photographers" who suck at photography. Go team!

But we all know what happens when you question, even question in such a minor way, a religion's beliefs... even a religion whose precepts are all about photographic lighting-- Often, it ain't pretty.

Perhaps some of you might be thinking I'm overreacting to the comment made by the anonymous reader? Well, perhaps I am. Or, perhaps I'm just in a pissy mood today. (It happens.) But I think I've written confessed, numerous times, that my work is often repetitive and boring, i.e., because I shoot the same shit over and over and in similar ways.

The difference between so many Strobists and yours truly is that my livelihood depends on me shooting much of this stuff in that same boring and repetitive manner the anonymous commenter mentions. My clients don't pay me to try out new approaches to pretty girl shooting. They have specific uses for the images I capture and they want them captured in a specific way. My clients continue to hire me for the CONSISTENCY of my work. They're not interested in gambling or risking their money when they hire me. They know they're going to get what they're paying for, namely, competent, glamour and tease images of pretty girls in sexy poses with and without wardrobe and shot in a dependably CONSISTENT style... boring as that style might be to some.

You think shooting in a consistent style isn't a paramount reason so many working fashion and commercial shooters are hired, over and over, by the same clients? Photographers, please. As a rule, clients want to know what they're going to get before they hire a specific photographer. Clients don't like surprises unless those surprises are exceptional and exceed their expectations and, frankly, most photographers aren't willing to risk an ongoing client relationship to experiment on someone else's dime. You want to try out something new? Try it out on your own dime. And then, take the results to your clients and see if they like it. If they do, great. If not, they still know you can shoot in that old, dependable style that they're counting on you to deliver... plus sometimes , as a bonus, with a few of those tricky secrets of the pros [sic] tossed in.

BTW, if a client were to suddenly materialize and hire me to shoot some B&W art nudes--however unlikely that might be--you watch how freaking fast my shit looks different, way different from what you see here. And guess what else? My B&W art nudes won't look like experiments. They'll look like I've been shooting that stuff for years. How so? Because I'm confident I could take all the crap I know about lighting and composition and exposure and adapt it to other genres. That's called experience.

If I were a hobbyist and/or new to photography (like so many Strobists are) I would be trying out all kinds of different approaches to my work. I would develop different styles. My work wouldn't look consistently familiar and, once I knew I could competently shoot using newly learned techniques, I'd be moving on to other new techniques. But I'm not a hobbyist. And I'm not new to photography. I make my entire living with cameras in my hands. And I'd like to keep doing so.

Let's say I were a guy working on the auto assembly line in Detroit. (Perhaps there are a few Strobists who make their livings that way?) I don't think it would go over real well if I walked into work one day and decided to make a different car than the one my employer was paying me to make. If I did so, I probably wouldn't last long on that job. Besides its obvious statement, does this analogy also hint at me saying I'm more a mechanic than anything else? I suppose it does. My clients don't pay me to create art or to deliver images that don't look like the images they expect. They pay me to create a specific make and model of pretty girl, if that makes sense.

Does all this mean I'm content making repetitive and boring pictures of pretty naked women? Nope. And I'm fairly sure I've written about that as well. I will mention that I'm always looking to expand my photographic horizons. I'm always looking for new and different opportunities. And I'm convinced I'll reach some of those other goals. But, in the meantime, I need to keep food on the table and a roof over my head so, as banal as it all might be, I'll continue making repetitive, boring pictures of sexy women until I can earn my keep making some other sorts of pictures, hopefully, of the non-boring variety.

The boring and repetitive pretty girl image at the top is Kat from a year or so ago.

*UPDATE* Wow! A few hours after blogging this post and, suddenly, I have a Google Content Warning on the site! Over three years of posting my babble along with my pics and now Google has a warning posted which, BTW, takes someone filing a complaint for that to happen. Religious and other moral zealots, a.k.a. asswipes! Just what the world needs LESS of.

My Pics Show Up in the Darndest Places!

It seems the folks at Claviné (pronounced kla-vin-nay) have both good tastes in sexy, celebrated women, as well as pretty girl photography.

Claviné selected the Goddess of Glam, Ms. Tera Patrick, as the U.S. spokesperson for their herbal male enhancement pill. ("Europe's #1," they say.)

Claviné also selected one of my pics of Ms. Patrick for the product's packaging. That's so cool! And even if they did choose a pic with a cliché, finger-in-the-mouth thing going on, it's STILL cool! Besides, what do I know? Maybe Tera's just demonstrating where the pills are supposed to go when people use them? You know, showing they're to be taken orally and not, uhhh... never mind. Whoa! Waitaminute. I am probably wrong here. Tera showing people how to take the pills by putting her finger to her mouth wouldn't be too complimentary to the average group-IQ of Claviné's consumers. Insulting your customers ain't the best way to brand and market a product. So, yeah, I guess I am wrong about why they chose the finger-in-the-mouth pic. Maybe they just thought its a sexy image of Tera?

What really tickles me are all the photos of the Claviné Car: A Smart Car "wrapped" with my pic of Tera. They're like "tears on wheels." Check 'em out!

Not that I need that male enhancement stuff or anything (*cough* *cough*) but I wonder if I can get my hands on some free samples of Claviné? I am the product's packaging photographer after all. I might even be willing to do a testimonial! Maybe I'd even be willing to drive the Claviné car while doing the testimonial? Better yet, maybe I could demonstrate, in the backseat of the Claviné car, that the product works? Wait. Do those Smart cars have backseats? Regardless, there has to be some way to try out the promised effects of Claviné in or on that little car.

Later on--much later cuz that's how I'd probably roll on male enhancement pills--and while kicking back behind the wheel, smoking a cigarette, and cruising around town with my demonstration partner, I'd pull up somewhere and do the testimonial while parked and smugly sitting in the Tera-wrapped Smart Car. How's that for marketing? Here's a more important question: Would I get to choose a hot-model/co-star for the demo/testimonial? Maybe they could hold auditions? I've got some free time.

Reflectors: The Other Way to Light

When photographing people during daylight in the great outdoors, it's important to remember that those people you're photographing aren't two-dimensional, cardboard, stand-ups. That means various parts of their faces and bodies will produce shadows.

Shadows, of course, can be very cool and are often effective for producing mood, showcasing a style, and more. Some photographers have built their entire portfolios on creative use of shadow. Often, though, especially when shooting people, shadows aren't always what you're looking for, especially when the work is more of a commercial nature. So, in order to reduce unwanted shadows you need to provide fill light, i.e., light that fills in the shadows. (Duh.)

One of my favorite blogs, David Hobby's wildly popular Strobist is dedicated to using small, inexpensive, off-camera strobes. There's more than a few articles there that talk about using these small, highly-portable lights during daylight conditions and, I might add, using them to great effect: As mainlights, as fill lights, as accent lights. Hobby, in many ways, has had a big impact on photographers, new and used. The term, "Photo Hobbyist" has taken on a whole new meaning. He and his blog have almost singlehandedly raised the artificial-lighting consciousness of a new generation of photographers, especially those who are new-ish to the craft and who use the web to learn and refine their skills.

I'm confident David doesn't dismiss the use of reflectors (to bounce sunlight) in favor of ALWAYS using small, portable strobes. His blog, however, has created something of group-style amongst many of his fans. As an example, if you peruse the Strobist Flickr site and search out the many images where strobes were used to overcome daylight, you'll see a lighting style that is often dramatic, effective, and memorable but, in some ways, is already becoming repetitive to see.

I'm not ashamed to say that, in many ways, I'm an old school shooter. That doesn't mean I prefer to shoot the way photographers of yore shot their stuff or that my work looks like it was captured 20, 30, or 50 years ago. Leastwise, I don't think it does. Instead, it means I embrace many of the basics, the tried-and-true stuff, when it comes to photography and especially when it comes to lighting. New approaches to lighting are great but, sometimes, the classic styles are just as effective.

One of the old-school ideologies I subscribe to is the less is more way of doing things. Included in those less is more lighting techniques is the simple, low-tech, reflector. In fact, whenever I can get away with simply using a reflector to finish off what the sun and the ambient are already providing, I'll go that way rather than depending on using strobes. Reflectors, of course, are only effective when there's suitable light to reflect or bounce. (Duh again.) And yeah, I'm still talking about sunlight, not artificial light.

There are many types of reflectors and I've probably used them all. Some of them are a bit pricey and some are quite cheap. The best reflector for the job is what I try to use, even if it's a piece of white styrofoam. I've used white reflectors, gold reflectors, silver reflectors, and even black reflectors. I've used reflectors made of paper, fabric, metal, and glass. I've used reflectors for fill, for highlights, and for accents. I've used single reflectors and multiple reflectors. Sure, there were many times I could have gone the Strobist route or even the expensive packs-and-heads route... and I have! But there's plenty of times, for one reason or another, I opted for using reflectors.

The image at the top is from a fashion shoot last spring. It was lit with the sun and two reflectors. That's it. No strobes, either of the Strobist variety or the expensive variety. Just a couple of reflectors.

Here's another (below) from the same shoot. We were shooting at a bus-stop near a train station. The sun was low in the sky and behind the bus stop. (Not Golden Hour low, but still, late-ish in the afternoon low.) A couple of reflectors, artfully wielded by assistants, were all that was necessary to bring a nice glow to our models and to fill the unwanted shadows. As I recall, I chose gold reflectors for the image at the top and silver for image below.

Sorry about the models being clothed. It was a fashion shoot after all. Also, these pics were the first ones I came across while searching my hard-drives for images that illustrate what I'm writing about. Models are Faye at the top and, uhhh... Damn! I forget the pretty young lady's name at the bottom. My bad! MUA/Hair by Jennifer Jackson.

My Other Blog

What? You didn't know I had another blog? Neither did I. Until today, that is.

Yep. It's official. I've lost my mind. So, in my good-sense-challenged current condition, I've decided to start up another blog. But this time, instead of concentrating on all things related to pretty girl shooting, I thought I'd venture into deeper waters. Well, maybe not "deeper" waters. Let's just say "new" and "different" waters.

Uh-huh. You guessed it. My new blog is going to cover the photography-beat in greater depth including much more than glamour and tease photography! I will, however, try to stay away from photo-subjects I know little about which, I suppose, will make this "photography-beat in greater depth" stuff quite a bit shallower. But there's still plenty enough to write about and discuss and to craft another blog with.... At least I think there is.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned, probably an ad nauseum number of times, that I have other photographic interests besides naked women. I know, I know, "Jimmy!" You say. "Say it ain't so! You're killing us here!" But there it is. Sometimes, I shoot other stuff; other than disrobed, sexy women, that is. Sometimes they even pay me to shoot this other stuff and, of course, sometimes not.

So there you have it. I'm writing yet another photography blog. (Obviously, I DO have too much time on my hands.) And I'd appreciate your support for this new undertaking. I'll be writing about some of the same stuff, lighting and interacting with subjects and all that, but applying those discussions to other genres: Genres like portraiture and fashion and family and event photography and more. I'll also be writing about subjects that just don't seem to match up with the general topic of this blog. Oh yeah, I suppose I should let you know where my new blog resides. Well, it's right HERE.

The photo at the top is Cindy from a couple of years ago. I call this picture, "Insanity." Shamelessly, I'll just go ahead and mention that it won a no-big-deal award or two. (Patting self on back.) I'm posting this image because it kind of represents how I'm feeling right now about this new blog-project I'm embarking on.