Intent, Skill, and Consistency

Read an online article today about Photographic Standards. I'll rephrase that to "Photographic Standards of Excellence."

In a nutshell, the article recounted the three, major criteria Time-Life used when selecting photographers for its "Great Photographers" volume of their Time-Life Photography series. There were ten factors considered, but these three were foremost in the minds of whoever selected the shooters: Intent, skill, and consistency. (You might want to read the article, linked above, to read about all the criteria used.)

In the world of glamour shooting, intent is fairly obvious: To capture the allure of the model. This, of course, differs from most fashion work. In fashion, the intent is to capture the allure of a product, often with the help of an alluring model. Glamour is all about the model. Fashion, for the most part, is all about the product. In most fashion work, if the model upstages the product it's not considered a good thing, leastwise, traditionally and for the most part. That's one reason why fashion models don't often make eye contact with the camera. (Not saying there aren't exceptions to my observations. Just saying that's how it is for the majority of the work.)

Skill is fairly obvious: The photographer's skills should be evident in the photo. That includes everything from exposure to composition to lighting and beyond. I'm often harping, here on the blog, on developing your production skills first and your post-production skills second. You should note that post-production skills aren't even mentioned in Time-Life's criteria-- Not in their most important three factors nor any of the ten factors also mentioned.

Consistency is the third factor. What this means is it's not enough to occasionally snap a great pic. (By design, by accident, or by serendipity.) What is important is whether you, as a photographer, can consistently snap great photos, i.e., can you deliver the goods on demand each and every time you shoot.

In the professional world of glam shooting, consistency is everything. Clients want to know that, as a minimum, the photographer can capture good images--hopefully, great images--every time they're hired. A photographer might be hired based on the wow-ness of a single image in his or her portfolio. That has certainly happened to me on more than one occasion. But you're only as good as the last time you shot for any given client. That means you have to deliver, at a minimally acceptable level, each and every time you shoot for your client. And it's the client who decides what constitutes those minimally acceptable levels. That's why I mostly strive to exceed my clients' expectations. If I screw up, leastwise in my mind, the screwed-pics still usually meet the clients' minimal standards.

Well, there you have it. Whether you're hoping to someday be selected by Time-life's editors for inclusion in their "Great Photographers" book or not, I'd highly recommend trying your best and doing whatever it takes to achieve intent, skill, and consistency in your photography. And doing so in ways that are recognizable in your photographs.

The pretty girl at the top is Katarina, snapped in 2006 at a non-descript location in down-town Los Angeles. I'm not always in love with my own work, in fact I beat myself up over it often enough, but I do love this photo. Although it's a simple, no frills image, it remains one of my personal, all-time-favorite, pretty girl pics. Leastwise, of the stuff I've shot. Go figure, right? I wouldn't categorize it as glamour. I don't know what I'd call it. How about "whatever."

Observations From the Model Show

Yesterday's Women of Perfection convention was a great success! Congratz to my friend, Moses Marquez, and his crew, for putting together a terrific event. The big room with all the models and attendees was packed! Somehow, I never managed to go into that room. Go figure, right?

The workshop I hosted, I think, went quite well. Those who attended seemed to be having a good time and, hopefully, I passed on some tips and advice that will help them with their pretty girl shooting. Moses, the event's promoter, provided us with an awesome model, Maureen Chen.

Here's a couple of observations:

First, the majority of the photographers in attendance were hobbyists. The majority of those hobbyists also appeared to have better gear than I do! Leastwise, when it comes to cameras and glass and speedlites. What's with that???

I discovered I really enjoy running a workshop. It has re-invigorated my goal to start producing them. I was even semi-prepared! I had an outline AND a two-page handout! How's that for being a quasi professional instructor? While I didn't snap a single image--didn't want to horn in on the shooting time of those attending--I thought I played the role of photo-coach (during the shooting portion of the workshop) fairly well.

Anyway, thanks again, Moses! Had a super time. Looking forward to the next one.

The gratuitous eye-candy at the top is Devon from some time back. Snapped it at a location house in Huntington Beach, CA. Keeping platinum blonde hair from blowing-out is always a bitch. Just sayin.

Reminder: SoCal Model Convention Today

If you're in Southern California and you're a pretty girl shooter, or hope to become one, stop by the Ultimate Celebrity and Model Convention in Torrance, CA, for a thoroughly enjoyable, eye-candy-filled experience.

Beautiful, barely-legally-clad, glamour models, struttin' their stuff, plus an opportunity to learn some pretty girl shooting tricks from an old photo-dog. (That would be me, "Bow Wow!") What better way to spend a leisurely Sunday afternoon?

Visit the Women of Perfection website for details:

Survival of the Fittest

Whether you subscribe to Charles Darwin's theories or not, you've no doubt heard of him and his ideas.

One of the best-known of Darwin's theories is "Natural Selection." In a nutshell, natural selection says that species who do the best job of adapting to their environments have the best shot at surviving.

Some people attribute the term, "survival of the fittest," to Darwin. Sorry. Darwin didn't coin that term. Herbert Spencer, a philosopher, coined it. Interestingly, Spencer was writing about economics when he came up with his four-word, oft-quoted, phrase. Spencer did, however, read Darwin's theories on natural selection and, it is said, was heavily influenced by them. Hence, Herbert Spencer's term, "survival of the fittest," was born.

I don't need to tell anyone the world of photography has dramatically changed in the last few years. Today, the environment photographers find themselves in is, in many ways, unlike any we've seen in a very, very long time, if ever.

First off, within many photographic environments, there exists more competition than ever before. Way more!

Darwin recognized the impact of competition between individuals of a single species. (Yes. Photographers are a unique species. Leastwise, from my POV.) Darwin theorized that, within a given population, the individual with, for example, the sharper beak, the longer horn, or the brighter feather might have a better chance to survive and reproduce than other individuals.

What do feathers, horns, and beaks have to do with photographers?

Perhaps not much, unless you're a nature photographer.

Or, possibly, a lot.

Brighter feathers can be related to standing out from the crowd with one's work. If you're shooting stuff that looks the same as much of what everyone else is shooting, there might be less chance your work will attract mates... I mean clients. Sure, sometimes clients expect results that look like what everyone else is shooting. But when it comes to attracting new clients, it's the work that resembles bright feathers, not dull, that often scores new gigs.

When I think of longer horns, I'm not thinking that shooters with really long, white, lenses are better able to survive. (Again, unless you're a nature photographer. Sports photographers too!) I am thinking that, with all the competition, longer horns relates to greater ferocity. In today's world of photography, being fierce will take you a long way.

Sharper beaks might be analogous to better skills and tools. Good tools, e.g., cameras, glass, lighting gear, and more, give many photographers an edge when competing in their photo environments. Whether those environments are wedding and event photography, nature and sports, commercial, editorial, or glamour, the right tools for the job will take you further. Skills are self-explanatory. Honing ones skills, like sharpening ones beak, will give most any photographer an advantage.

So if you're thinking it's getting more and more difficult to survive in today competitive photography world. (Something I think about constantly.) Maybe it's time to sharpen your beaks, grow those horns out, flap your wings and puff your chest with the brightest feathers you can make. Doing so might not automatically prove Darwin's theory... then again, it might. It might even help make you a buck or two.

I think Darwin would agree, the two pretty girls at the top, Charmane and Kita, wouldn't have much trouble surviving in many human populations and environments.

Are You a Better Shooter Than a 13-yr-old?

On a photo forum I frequent, a member posted a quite good landscape pic his 13-yr-old daughter snapped. His daughter, he said, has very little experience with photography and used his Nikon d200, for the first time, to snap the photo. The Dad explained that he did insist his daughter read the camera's manual. (+1 for that.)

What made the girl's image notable and interesting--it's a shot of a weather vane atop a tower--were its compositional elements: Interesting angle, leading lines, diagonals via a Dutch angle, negative space, a nod to Rule of Thirds.

The Dad later asked his daughter how she went about composing the image, i.e, what was going through her head and did she think about the diagonal lines and such?

His daughter looked at him quizzically, shrugged, and responded that she composed it in such a way that it "looked neat."

As impossible as it might be to get into the head of a 13-yr-old girl, or a 30-yr-old woman for that matter, I'm going to assume looking "neat" means it looked balanced and right, artistically right, and in an interesting and evocative way.

Which is exactly how her photo of an otherwise less-than-exciting subject looked.

Composition might be the hardest thing to teach/learn. Some people, whether they're young or old, seem to have a natural, intuitive, eye for it. Others have to consciously work to develop their composing eye, using rules and conventions to pave the way. Still others, unfortunately, struggle with composition; sometimes remaining relatively clueless in spite of occasionally and accidentally stumbling their way to snapping a well composed shot.

It's not enough to capture technically good images. Exposure and that stuff, i.e., the things that fall under the heading of the Science of Photography, are important aspects of the craft. But the artistic aspects, composition among them, are equally important and can take your photography from the Realms of Good to the Pantheons of Great!

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating. Good use of composition doesn't automatically mean your images reach a lofty status, but good and interesting composition will certainly make most any photograph more appealing and appreciated by viewers.

So next time your lining up that pretty girl in your viewfinder (or anything else for that matter) and working the angles and composing the shot, think to yourself, before you snap the shutter, "Does this look neat?"

The monochromatic eye-candy at the top is Aurora from a few years ago, snapped in a friend's studio. The background is crumpled black foil.

Photography Then and Now

Thought some of you might get a laugh out of the pic on the left. That's me, about 25 years ago.

I look like Guido the Photographer.

I was shooting my cousin's wedding. One of only two times I've ever shot a wedding. (The second time being about 6 months ago... for friends.)

No disrespect to wedding photographers but that's two times too many from my POV. (Obviously, it's why I look so thrilled to be there in the pic.) My thoughtful daughter, btw, posted the pic on her Facebook page.

But it did get me thinking about what I've changed in terms of shooting techniques, i.e., shooting film versus shooting digital.

For the most part, the answer is "very little." In fact, almost nothing.

I still stalk light in much the same way. I compose most of my shots similarly. There's little difference in the way I interact with subjects. I might know more than I knew then but that knowledge, while often helpful, hasn't fundamentally changed my approaches to my photography. In other words, photography is photography regardless of the medium, film or digital, used to capture pictures.

Most importantly, the instant pudding character of digital photography, coupled with the easily-achieved fix it in post capabilities of digital post-processing has done little to effect my production techniques.

Why am I mentioning this?

Probably to, once again, underscore the importance of learning the front end of photography, that is, developing good photography skills versus simply or mostly focusing on post-processing skills.

I used to often hear a popular saying, "You are what you eat." In photography, your photos are what you shoot, not what you digitally manipulate.

I'm not bashing post-processing. I'm bashing the notion that post-processing trumps production when it comes to good photography. While digital re-touching can often achieve remarkable results, they aren't often transparent results. Leastwise, when it comes to the finished product.

As usual, I'm just sayin.

Just to prove I'm not cold-hearted, only posting that silly pic of myself, here's one of a semi-naked pretty girl I shot some time ago. Model is Missy. Lit her with my 33.5" Mola "Euro" beauty dish, camera-right, for the main, with a strip box, camera-left, highlighting from behind, also using a small box, boomed overhead and behind, for a hair light.