Archive for November 2010

The late cinematographer Conrad Hall (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Road to Perdition, and more) once said, "Contrast is what makes photography interesting."

The word, "contrast," in its simplest definition, refers to things set in opposition in order to show or emphasize their differences.

Beyond differences in levels of brightness between the light and dark areas of a photo, there are other ways contrast can be depicted in the content of a photograph: colors, forms, and lines can be contrasted as can dissimilarities between entities or objects.

I'm not 100% sure which aspect of contrast Hall was specifically referring to-- Perhaps all of them? It's likely, given he was a cinematographer, he was mostly speaking about the differences between the light and dark areas of photographic images. It doesn't matter if the photographic images are motion pictures or still photographs. Contrast is contrast.

Sometimes, when there's less difference (contrast) between the light and dark areas of a photo, the image may appear overly gray and dull. (Generally, not a good thing.) Other times, reduced contrast, in the form of high-key lighting, can be visually effective and help send specific messages to viewers.

How light and dark areas of photos are contrasted appeals to the emotions of viewers. When high-key lighting is employed and the contrast is purposely reduced, much of the image's light values reside on the bright (or white) side of the exposure. As a result, the subjects are often perceived as having light, airy, or upbeat emotional values. In contrast, low-key lighting, where much of the image's light values reside on the dark (or black) side of the exposure, produces more immediately obvious differences between the light and dark areas of an image and are often perceived as being dramatic, shadowy, or mysterious.

Another element (or product) of contrast is focus. The areas of a photo where the contrast is most reduced results in those areas having, what appears to be, softer focus. Conversely, the greater the difference between light and dark in immediately adjoining areas of a photo, the sharper the focus appears. When you use Photoshop's sharpening tools, for instance, the focus isn't actually sharpened or increased. Instead, the contrast between adjoining light and dark pixels are increased. This provides the illusion the image is in sharper focus. With many genres of photography, illusion is as important as reality.

In glamour photography, illusion and fantasy are more important than reality. When you're pretty girl shooting, using contrast in various ways is another way to help you and your model create the fantasy.

The low-contrast, high-key, pretty girl at the top is Rebecca. I used a 5' Photoflex Octodome as a main light and let the large, overhead skylight, as well as the white walls, provide the rest of my exposure.

read more

I received the new issue of B&W magazine in the mail a few days ago. This is the Single Image Contest issue that includes one of my photos, “Nude, Prince Edward Island, 2006,” that won a Bronze Award. My photo is on page 51 and can be seen above. You can see the cover below.

The issue, #80, is also available now in bookstores and on newsstands for those of you who may want to purchase a copy or just take a look.

That’s the good news. Now the bad: my photo was placed in the wrong category. The image was created as an in-camera double exposure on film, but it won third prize in the category called Digital Conceptualization. That’s right: digital! I work hard to use film and make prints in a darkroom, and pride myself on the fact that I don’t do digital, but now people will see my photo and think that it was something that I doctored up in the computer, rather than being a product of creative vision on location. That’s a real disappointment for me.

So, I wrote the following message to the magazine’s staff yesterday morning:

“Dear B&W:

I recently received my copy of issue #80, the special Single Image Contest Awards issue. As you had notified me, one of my photographs was given a Bronze Award (on page 51), and I want to thank you again for selecting my image out of the many that were submitted. I feel honored.

However, I am also writing to inform you of my great disappointment in seeing that my photo was placed in the wrong category, Digital Conceptualization. While I agree that the image is conceptual in nature, it is definitely not digital. Rather, it was made as an in-camera double exposure – something that I conceived in my mind with forethought while on location and not something that I assembled on a computer screen afterwards.

Actually, I take pride in the fact that I still use film which I develop myself and that I still make silver prints in a darkroom. The only digital work I do is to make straight scans from negatives to post on the web and to submit to competitions and publications such as yours. It is therefore quite upsetting that readers of B&W will see my photo and think that the image was something that was doctored up in a computer, which is something I would never do.

What is perhaps even more unsettling is that someone would simply assume that a photographic image is the result of digital computer manipulation without considering the alternatives or even trying to find out. Is this what photography has come to? When a fine publication such as B&W does so, it’s even worse.

You say in the contest prospectus that it makes no difference if an image was made via film or digital capture. If that is so, why only have a category for Digital Conceptualization? Why not have one for Analog (Film) Conceptualization as well? Think of the fine work that Jerry Uelsmann has done over the years using film and multiple enlargers. Think of the photographs that have been created in a darkroom using sandwiched negatives. Think of the work such as mine that were done as multiple exposures in the camera. All of these are conceptual in nature, yet none of them fall into the category of Digital Conceptualization. Is it fair that they should be excluded or wrongly labeled?

Perhaps a better solution is this: create a category that is simply called “Conceptual.” This way, it would encompass everything. Of course, people might still look at a film image and believe it was done digitally, but I much prefer that ambiguity to having somebody told outright that a photograph is the result of digital manipulation when in fact it is not.

Again, I want to tell you how pleased I am that my image was given a Bronze Award and I thank you for doing so. I just believe that your way of categorizing images could be improved and I hope you will consider what I have written. “

I wasn’t sure if I would get a response, but in fact I got two. One was from the staff of the magazine that handles the competition, and they thanked me for writing and for making suggestions for change. They wrote that they have also been thinking about the same things.

The other response was a phone call from Henry Rasmussen, the original publisher and editor of B&W magazine and now the person in charge of judging the magazine’s competitions. He left a message while I was out yesterday, but I called him back today and we had a nice discussion on the topic.

He apologized for the error and admitted that he could have been more diligent in determining the method by which my photo was made. As a film and darkroom user, I told him of my belief that for any category that is reserved for digital only, there should be one just for film users, too.

In the end, he told me that changes should be made that will hopefully prevent this type of error from happening again, so although I’m disappointed that my photo was put in the wrong category this time, I can at least have some satisfaction in knowing that I’ve helped to correct things for the future. As with my photo being selected for an award and getting published, I am happy about that.

(Now if only the producers of “Dancing With the Stars” will listen to my suggestions and come up with a system that will prevent someone like Bristol Palin from ever making it to the finals again. Until they do, I am not planning to watch.)

read more

A while back in an article in Digital Photo Pro magazine, long-time National Geographic photographer, Jim Richardson, admitted he snaps between 20,000 and 40,000 images for a given assignment. He does this, he says, in hopes of capturing a very small number of amazing photos.

Generally, Richardson's assignments take 8 to 12 weeks to shoot. A lot of those days are spent doing things other than capturing the twenty to forty-thousand pictures he mentioned. According to Richardson, about 20% of his assignment time is spent with cameras in his hands. The rest of it is spent on logistics-- planning, coordinating, researching, and more. Still, 20k to 40k photos is a whole lot of images to shoot then edit!

None of the above is intended to infer that photographers of Richardson's caliber are employed by businesses like NatGeo simply because they are sprayers-and-prayers. It isn't about luck and it isn't about how many pics he snaps. NatGeo doesn't employ proven photographers like Bill Richardson because the odds are in favor of him getting lucky and capturing a few great photos out of thousands. They hire him because he's good. Really good. And because they know he's going to deliver great photos, whether he shoots hundreds or thousands.

I would imagine many of the subjects Richardson shoots for NatGeo aren't "directable."

"Could you lower your head a bit and cheat your trunk to the left? I'd like to see both tusks in my frame."

In fact, the numbers of images Richardson captures for his assignments probably has lots to do with him being, as a photographer, more of an observer documenting what's in front of him than a photographer with much control over what's in front of him.

Someone like me, a glamour photographer, has plenty of control over what I'm photographing. That's why I don't shoot anywhere near thousands of photos for my assignments. I can control not only how my camera is capturing what's in front of me, I can also control what's in front of me... if that makes sense. You know, I can control my lighting, I can place the model where I want her, I can direct her pose, her expressions, her emotional projections... that sort of stuff. I imagine someone like Bill Richardson shooting for NatGeo doesn't often have those luxuries.

Still, I see and hear about photographers shooting models and capturing thousands of images during their time with those models. In other words, they're spraying-and-praying. When I've been in the presence of sprayers-and-prayers, I've noticed they tend to be shooters who communicate less with their models than someone who, well, who isn't a sprayer-and-prayer.

I don't know about any of you but I refuse to depend on luck or prayer to help me capture good images. Sure, sometimes I do get lucky and capture something with unintended elements and that unintended capture results in an amazing photo. But I can't count on that sort of thing happening with any sort of consistency or dependability.

Besides, most of the time I don't have time to capture thousands of images... not that I'd want to. Who wants to edit through thousands of images if you don't have to? I know I don't.

Glamour photographers have two options: Capturing excellent photos by design or capturing excellent photos by luck. The choice is obvious if you ask me.

The gratuitious eye candy on the stairs is Brook, captured in a location house near Los Angeles.

read more

From my ebook, Guerrilla Glamour: "You can have the best gear that money can buy and still shoot photos that suck. (That really sucks, doesn't it?)"

If you think better gear, make that the latest and most expensive gear, is going to automatically make you a better shooter, you've been misled by the marketing and advertising guys who make their livings hyping and pimping all that stuff.

There's only one thing, above all else, that will help make you a better shooter.


When it comes to enhancing and refining your photography skills, the latest-n-greatest cameras, the newest versions of Photoshop or Lightroom, those high-tech digital strobes married to nifty devices that trigger them while allowing your camera to "talk" to your lights, pale in comparison to the actual and oft-practiced experience of shooting.

Anything I write (or that anyone else writes) intended to help you reach higher levels of photographic excellence will do little to help you if you don't get out there and employ those suggestions by shooting.

There are many things in the world that cannot be skillfully and artfully learned from teachers and mentors, by reading books or articles, by viewing videos or listening to podcasts, by attending workshops and seminars, by building flashy websites, by blogging, by networking and meeting-up, or by Tweeting, MySpacing, or Facebooking. Photography is one of them.

I'm not down on better gear. I'm not marginalizing learning methods, traditional or otherwise. I'm simply saying if you truly want to improve your photography you need to get out there and shoot. You need to shoot often. It doesn't matter if you're shooting with a Canon 5D Mk2 or a little point-n-shoot. Any camera is capable of providing you with added experience that translates into improved skills.

Yes, post-processing can help make your photos "sing." Sometimes, it can even do so when the raw photo appears mute and incapable of visual music. But skillful production, later coupled with skillful post-processing, will make your photos sing loudly and beautifully. It will make them into music for people's eyes.

Okay. I just thought I'd kick Monday off with a little pep-talk.

The pretty girl on the pool table at the top, coming towards me like a sexy feline, is Penthouse Pet, Tori Black.

read more

According to Nikon, upgrading your camera body might be a thing of the past. As a possible solution, one that addresses the rapidly changing technology in digital camera sensors, Nikon filed a patent application (in Japan) for an interchangeable sensor.


If I were having coffee-and-a-convo with a Nikon camera marketeer (and assuming language wasn't a problem) one of my first questions might be, "Is sensor technology the primary reason most photographers opt for a new camera body?"

I'm all for modular cameras. That's why, probably like you, I shoot with cameras designed to accommodate interchangeable lenses. I mean, who wants to shoot with fixed-lens cameras? Well, I suppose that depends on the camera and what your goals are shooting with it. Plus, as Chase Jarvis often reminds us, the best camera is the one that's with you. The pros and cons of fixed-lens cameras as well as Jarvis's advice aside, many of us appreciate being able to swap out one lens for another on our camera bodies. Now, leastwise at sometime in the future, Nikon says we'll be able to swap out sensors as well.

It's true the Big Two camera makers regularly release new camera bodies. They do it so often, in fact, that (IMO) many photographers, myself included, are somewhat cautious about buying a new camera body because of the likelihood that something better (i.e., better for me or anyone else considering purchasing a new camera body) might be just around the corner. That's probably one reason camera makers tend to be so secretive about new cameras on the horizon: They don't want to hurt sales of whatever they're currently touting as their must-have camera. What's coming next is in addition to the more important question, "Do I really need a new camera body?"

Maybe I'm reading too much into this interchangeable sensor stuff? Perhaps Nikon is simply protecting their R&D investments with their patent application rather than heralding the dawn of the age of interchangeable sensors?

I don't know about you but a camera's sensor, interchangeable or not, is only one factor when deciding to upgrade my camera body. Beyond full-frame-sensor versus cropped-frame-sensor decisions, there are other attributes of any latest-and-greatest camera body that come into play when trying to make such decisions. Things like video capabilities, processors, auto-focusing technology, burst modes and buffers and more.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see where this goes.

The eye-candy at the top is Alexis. The schematic further below is the mechanical design for Nikon's interchangeable sensor technology. Personally, I'd rather examine Alexis' semi-naked form than Nikon's mechanical function. But maybe that's just me?

read more

I've been reading the book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," by Robert M. Pirsig. Many people read this book years ago but, somehow, I never did. Now, I am. Not because I happen to be a Harley-Davidson motorcycle owner/rider (I am) but, if truth be known, the book's title, all on it's own, has always beckoned me. Why it's taken so long for me to finally purchase a copy and read it is something I can't explain.

It's slow going, the reading that is. Not because I'm a slow reader: I'm no Evelyn Wood but I can read at a fairly speedy pace. It's slow going because so much of what Pirsig wrote truly resonates with me. It resonates in ways that makes me want to constantly ponder what he's saying. To use a much used phrase, it's thought provoking. (When I'm thought-provoked, I usually advance at much slower rates.)

Pirsig's book, of course, isn't intended as a guide to motorcycle maintenance. Motorcycle maintenance, while being an integral part of the story, is used as analogy and metaphor. There's even an occasional simile thrown in. Mostly, Pirsig's book is about life and how we perceive it.

If Robert Pirsig were a photographer, he could have easily titled his book, "Zen and the Art of (insert any genre) Photography. He could have used whatever genre of photography he enjoyed shooting most as the analogy for the topics he wrote about in his book. His book has a universally applied feel and appeal that way.

One of his discussions (he calls them chautauquas) talks about classical versus romantic perceptions. Pirsig says most people view things in one of two ways: either from a classical perspective or a romantic perspective. I think this is especially true for photographers.

Those who see things from mainly a classical perspective understand (or seek to understand) their underlying form. For photographers, it might mean they're most interested in the science of photography-- why, from a technical point-of-view, one picture works and another might not. If you, like me, often visit photography forums, you probably already realize that many photographers seem (almost obsessively) focused on photography from this classical perspective. (Gear, technique, etc.)

Romantic perceptions are more immediate and focus on the appearance of things and less on how that appearance was achieved. Romantic perceptions are, as Pirsig notes, "...primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive." Feelings, as opposed to facts, dominate romantic perceptions.

It seems to me truly great photographers find a unique balance between the classical and the romantic. They find a balance between the art and science of photography. They realize both are important, equally important. They know that no amount of classical thinking or classical application, as it's applied to photography, will suffice or will produce memorable results. They know great photographs must appeal, first and foremost, to the romantic; regardless of how that appeal was achieved or the underlying forms and functions which generated the romantic appeal.

I've thought about authoring another ebook, one titled, "Zen and the Art of Glamour Photography." It would mostly concern itself with the romantic side of photography and from more of a philosophical perspective. I'm not convinced, however, that many would be interested in reading such a book. I have no problem running apart from the pack. While the vast majority of photography ebooks concern themselves with the classical, technical, and science of photography (and less on the romantic, creative, and intuitive) I don't relish putting my heart and soul into something that doesn't produce tangible rewards... as materialistic as that might be.

Sorry if I've gone all philosophical today. It's a bit dreary outside-- overcast, drizzling, and chilly. (i.e., chilly for Southern California... which probably ain't that chilly for many people in other places.) These kinds of days often have this effect on me.

The pretty girl at the top is another from my set with Penthouse Pet, Tori Black, on a pool table.

read more

One of the big buying decisions photographers make these days is whether to purchase a full-frame or cropped-frame sensor camera. Back in the day, a 35mm SLR was a 35mm SLR.

Today, a small format, 35mm dSLR is one of two things: It either matches the frame dimensions of analog 35mm SLRs (full-frame) or it records a smaller portion of the traditional 35mm frame via a cropped-frame sensor. (APS-C size sensor.)

Often, the decisions of which to buy is decided by money: Full-frame dSLRs cost more than cropped-frame dSLRs. (D'uh.)

Some photographers, depending on what they mostly shoot, let their preferred genres be their big deciding factor. Someone who shoots a lot of nature (flora and fauna) might choose to go with a cropped-frame camera. Someone else who shoots a lot of nature (landscapes) might choose to go with a full-frame camera.

Generally, the kind of glass you mostly use helps make the decision. If you're most interested in shooting the flora and fauna side of nature, you might opt for a cropped-frame because you want to extend the reach of your long lenses. (You don't actually extend their reach, i.e., lengthen the focal length of telephoto lenses, but it seems like you do.) If you're most interested in photographing the landscape side of nature, you might opt for a full-frame because a full-frame lets you take full and best advantage of your wide angle glass.

With people photography, the decision to go with full or cropped-frame becomes a little less obvious. (Money aside.) For shooting glamour, I much prefer my full-frame dSLR. (A Canon 5D.) Since I shoot most of my glamour with a telephoto lens, i.e., anywhere from 85mm to 200mm as my focal lengths, using both prime and zoom lenses, I want to be able to utilize the full frame.

Even though I might be shooting full-body shots with a long lens, the 5D's full-frame means I don't have to back up as far in order to frame the model, head-to-toes, in my viewfinder. That's not to say, of course, that terrific glamour photography can't be produced with a cropped-frame dSLR. It can and often is! I'm mostly talking about convenience and efficiency.

For most portraits and headshots I don't care as much if I'm using a full-frame or cropped-frame camera. When I'm shooting headshots, for instance, using a long-ish telephoto lens, I'm only framing the subject's head and some portion of their upper torso. The frame-size characteristic of the camera, in this case, becomes less important.

There are other factors when considering full-frame versus cropped-frame cameras.

Full-frame cameras generally produce less noise than their cropped-frame kin. That's because camera-makers use smaller pixels on their smaller sensors. Full-frame sensors also record greater dynamic range. They "see" into shadows better and also have greater abilities to handle the details in highlights. (Dynamic range is also a product of pixel size.)

In a nutshell, what all this noise and dynamic range and pixel stuff means is that full-frame sensors will capture images with greater quality and resolution. This becomes more and more obvious as you enlarge images captured with either full-frame or cropped-frame cameras. The images from a full-frame camera will noticeably trump those from APS-C sensors as you make the images bigger and bigger.

I talk a lot more about cameras and glass and other gear in both my ebooks, Guerrilla Glamour and Guerrilla Headshots. I also talk a lot more about stuff that's even more important; more important than gear, that is.

The pretty girl at the top, the one demonstrating her butt-flossing technique, is Penthouse Pet Tori Black. I snapped Tori with my Canon 5D and an 85mm prime lens. Had I been using a cropped-frame camera, it would have been difficult to get as much of Tori into the frame (as shown) because, when I shot this, my back was nearly to a wall in the room where I was photographing her.

Tori captured at ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 125. Three lights plus lots of ambient employed: Main light modified with my 5' Photoflex Octodome, a couple of kickers, way behind her on either side, modified with small, shoot-thru umbrellas. There was lots of big windows in the room plus a large, overhead, clear-glass skylight so I was able to take advantage of all that ambient.

read more

I don't know about any of you but I truly enjoy watching excellently-produced documentaries about photography and, even more so, photographers.

This morning, I stumbled on a gem! A one-hour documentary (which, I believe, aired on the BBC) detailing the life and work of legendary British fashion and advertising photographer, Brian Duffy. It's titled Duffy: The Man Who Shot the 60s.

Duffy, along with famed photographers David Bailey and Terrence Donovan, were dubbed, The Black Trinity. To say their innovations changed the artistic landscape of fashion and advertising photography is an understatement: They melded high fashion, celebrity chic, and a healthy dose of Swinging 60s sex and counter-culture.

I love one of the comments made in the film by popular 60s fashion model, Joanna Lumley. Lumley was one was one of Duffy's favorites. " ...the photographers were the stars back in those days, not the models." (Of course I love that comment-- I'm a photographer!)

In 1979, Duffy suddenly retired from photography and the first thing he did was burn nearly all his negatives! Apparently, he was making a fiery statement reflecting his personal sense of feeling "burned out." Fortunately, because his neighbors complained about the smoke, some of his negatives were spared an inferno's fate.

Duffy didn't pick up a camera again for 30 years. In 2009, at the encouragement of his son, a reunion of Duffy and camera took place. That reunion is captured in the film. Brian Duffy passed away in May of 2010. (RIP)

If you're at all like me and you enjoy learning about iconic photographers who helped define this thing we do, this thing that represents one of the world's most-viewed arts (and you have an hour to spare) I'm confident you'll love this documentary.


read more

Okay. This Pocket Wizard AC3 Zone Controller system looks pretty cool. Especially for lazy photographers like me. And the lazier I get (which is by-the-day) the cooler this gadget looks.

But there's one little snag-- it's called my wallet. Let's say I buy an AC3 Zone Controller for $69. Since I don't already have more than one FlexTT5 transceiver -- I have only one of them -- It appears I'll have to buy a few more of those units to make this system work. You see, my other 3 Pocket Wizards are Plus IIs.

Unless I'm missing something here (which happens often enough) it looks like I'll need to buy 3 more Flex TT5s or 2 more TT5s and one TT1. (I don't think Mini TT1s will work as receivers mounted under the Speedlites... but I could be wrong.) Anyway, let's say I buy the three TT5s. That's another $229 x 3 which equals $687. Add to that the $69 AC3 and I'm well over $700. But hey! I'm lazy! So why not? Besides, if I buy them, considering I already have three Plus IIs, I'll have a total of 7 Pocket Wizards of various types! And dontcha know? I shoot with 7 lights all the freakin' time! And who wants to rely on optical triggers for any of them?

(Removing tongue from cheek.)

Let's say I shoot with, as an example, Alien Bees or White Lightnings. I don't but let's just say I do. If I don't already have them, I'll have to buy three AC9 AlienBees Adapters @ $62 each. That's another $186 to the well-past-seven-hundred-bucks I've already invested in my 3-Zone Controller system. Add tax, maybe shipping, and I'm at about a grand for this system, assuming I want to be able to remotely control three light sources with it and I'm using ABs or White Lightnings. (Isn't "white lightning" moonshine? Ya think Mr. Buff was thinking to emulate moonlight instead of sunlight? Nah. That would be dumb.)

I'm looking at the Pocket Wizard AC3 video again and I can't help but think-- Is well over $700 or nearly $1000 worth the three or four steps the photographer, perhaps most any photographer, would have to trudge to manually change the settings on their lights?

Anyway, I'm not down on this device. It's a very cool toy! Especially for gear heads. Personally, though, if I have a spare grand lying around, I'm spending it on glass or maybe my Harley.

The pretty girl at the top is Paris. In spite of my considerable laziness, I manually adjusted my three light sources.

By the way, a little birdie told me you can get 30% off Ed Verosky's ebooks if you buy two. That's two at 30% off. All you have to do is use discount code ANYTWO at checkout. (But you don't have to type it in red.) This discount sale started this morning and, the little bird added, is good for the next 48 hours. All Ed's books are only a click away. You can find those places to click in the right-hand column of this page.

read more

What's WoM Power? That's easy. WoM is Word of Mouth. How is word-of-mouth powerful? That's easy too: It's one of the most powerful ways photographers become working photographers or working photographers become photographers who are working even more.

I wrote a fair amount about WoM power in my latest ebook, Guerrilla Headshots. In it, the ebook that is, I wrote how word-of-mouth can score you work (and how you can create it) and how it was the spark that initially ignited my photography career.

Besides offering suggestions on how you can create WoM and take advantage of it when marketing and branding yourself, I also told the story, in the ebook's intro, of how WoM transformed me, approximately 30 years ago, from a hobbyist to a professional. Leastwise, a professional from the perspective of getting paid, regularly, to shoot a camera.

Sure, there's many ways to market yourself as a photographer. Some of them even work! Even some of the old school ways continue to work. But almost nothing, marketing-wise, will do more for you than positive word-of-mouth.

Today, WoM takes a variety of forms. It still involves other people communicating with other people about your work. But that talk isn't always from one person's mouth to another person's ears. Often, today, it's the results of one person's fingers on a keyboard reaching other people's eyes. WoM is alive and well on the internet just as it remains alive and well in many peoples' day-to-day, "real life," interactions. And, as always, it's as powerful as ever.

Sometimes, word-of-mouth works quite simply. You take a picture. Someone is shown the picture with accompanying positive words about you. The someone viewing the photo likes what they see and also what they hear and, consequently, decides you're the photographer for them!

Other times, the results of your work create positive WoM in even more powerful ways. In the example I'm about to share, it really doesn't matter whether your work is truly and directly (or indirectly) responsible for the results that create the uber-WoM. You still get enough of the credit for those results for it to create powerful marketing all on it's own-- marketing that costs you nothing yet is working for you in big, big ways!

Here's the example I mentioned above: You snap a pic of an actress. She starts using it as her new "Hollywood Headshot." After doing so, she suddenly gets cast in something. She tells all her other acting buddies about her good fortune. Somehow, right or wrong, the photo you snapped is given a fair amount of the credit for the actress getting the audition and suddenly becoming cast in something. WoM ignites! Your phone starts ringing with other actors wanting you to snap their headshots. After all, right or wrong, it seems the headshots you snap are headshots that get results!

That might sound like WoM depends on luck. Not so! While luck might create WoM at times, there are ways you can intentionally set out to create WoM even though it's true that WoM mostly works when it's created by others. You can toot your own horn till your blue in the face but, until others begin tooting it, it doesn't usually become overly powerful. But if you incorporate marketing strategies that encourage others to toot your horn -- almost, in a metaphorica sense, by putting the horn to their lips -- there's a good chance the tooting will yield terrific rewards! (Instead of using your horn as a spittoon which, unfortunately, can sometimes happen... especially if you're not working at having it play rather than gathering spit.)

The pic at the top is one that created just the right WoM: WoM that, subsequently, resulted in a whole lot of work for me. Why that pic? I don't know. Is it an incredibly memorable image? No, it's not. Not even close. It's simply a good glamour/tease pic. Leastwise, I think so. But I've shot plenty of good glamour and tease pics. (And plenty that suck too.) But that specific photo, singularly, was responsible for some very positive WoM that later resulted in a boatload of work for me.

There's been a number of individual photos I've snapped throughout my life as a photographer that I'd label "seminal images" from a business and marketing point-of-view. Perhaps it's been the same way for you? Images that became catalytic, in positive ways, regardless of the many others snapped and regardless if some of those other images might have been better photos. The few seminal or catalytic images I've shot did more for my career (always because of the WoM they created) than so many thousands of others I've snapped.

read more

I’ve just finished putting together and publishing my art nude calendar for 2011. I made calendars for 2008 and 2009, but I never got around to making one for 2010. Now, the calendar is back.

Please click here to take a look. Click on the preview link to see a full preview. The photos – 12 months plus the cover – measure 8.5 x 11 inches and are in glorious black and white.

The price of the calendar is $17.95, but I was able to order one at 30% off with the code EARLYBIRD305. You may be able to do so, too, but the offer expires tomorrow, November 15. For more information, click here.

The new calendar includes a selection of photos from outdoor, indoor and studio settings. The models depicted include Carlotta Champagne (cover), Candace Nirvana, Liz Ashley, Kat Love and Sarah Ellis.

read more

It hasn't happened yet but I'm confident, before long, I'll find myself on a set where the flick is being shot with the same brand and model of camera I'm using to shoot the stills.

I have mixed emotions about this and my mixed emotions have to do with money.

As adult video production continues in decline and budgets continue to nosedive and people (make that clients) demand more and more from the money they're spending on cast and crew, it's not hard to envision a scenario where something like this is said: "Hey Jimmy! As long as you're shooting stills with the same camera we're using to shoot the movie, why don't you shoot some video footage in between shooting the stills?"

Sounds reasonable? Yeah. I suppose. If they're paying me to shoot 2nd camera, that is.

But I'm guessing that's not how they're going to see it. (They being producers and directors and production managers and those sorts of people.) There's a good chance they're going to think, "Well, he's here anyway and he's lucky to have this job and he has that camera with him so why should we pay him to hang out at the craft services table or chat with cast members when he's not shooting stills?"

From their perspective, I suppose that does sound reasonable. And frankly, I can guarantee if I balk at adding 2nd camera to my job description (without adding a 2nd pay rate) there will be other shooters who will gladly do this for them.

Potentially, it gets worse, leastwise from my perspective.

Not only might they expect me to shoot 2nd camera without additional remuneration, they also might expect me to toss the use of my camera in without a rental fee. They will, of course, gladly pay a rental house for the first camera but, after all, I do have the 2nd camera with me anyway so it's not like I'm not already being paid (in a sense) for its use.

I'm also thinking that, since I might now be shooting 2nd camera for free plus tossing in my camera for free, I won't have much time to download images to my laptop and organize them into folders and do some quick editing. (In between, of course, visiting the craft services table or bullshitting with performers.) That means I'll have to take that part of my responsibilities home with me and put even more time into the job without further compensation.

Sorry if I'm on a rant here. I'm sure people in other industries and careers are experiencing or anticipating similar sorts of scenarios.

What a lot of this means is that while they, the employers, get more bang for their bucks, they also get less quality in the results. In the long term, lesser quality will, most likely, mean fewer sales. But then, American business has never been overly concerned with the long-term. It's usually about the short-term. Short-term attitudes have probably been in effect since well before instant pudding was invented.

Again, sorry for the rant. Sometimes, it helps to try and purge myself (with words, that is) of negative, depressing, or pessimistic thoughts.

The behind-the-scenes image at the top is from a Vivid Entertainment production. That day, we were shooting in the morgue of an abandoned hospital in Los Angeles. The former hospital is used as a production location for many Hollywood flicks, TV shows, music videos, adult films, and more. That's Sasha Gray on the table playing dead. BTW, I don't mean to infer that Vivid has ever asked me to shoot 2nd camera without additional pay. (I've shot 2nd camera for them often enough -- in addition to shooting stills -- and they've always bumped-up my day-rate.) This update, like many of my updates, can be classified under "just sayin."

read more

Just read a good article based on a convo the writer had with photo-attorney, Carolyn Wright: Top 10 Misconceptions about Photography and the Law: A Conversation with Attorney Carolyn E. Wright.

Far be it for me to tell anyone what to do with their time but, if you're a photographer, you might find this info worth reading. (Not to mention useful.)

I often hear photographers spouting the law. (As it applies to photography) Sometimes, I might even be the one doing some of the spouting. But, like many things, the best info often comes from the experts-- the experts being the best and most informed people to communicate information born of documented facts rather than speculation or opinion.

Check out the article! It might help you avoid a hassle later on.

The eye candy above is Maya. If her name represents her ancestry, I sure hope her ancestors didn't sacrifice any who looked like her. Lit her with a 5' Photoflex Octodome for my main and a couple of kickers, either side, from behind. Three point lighting: simple and effective. (ISO 100, f/5.6 @ 125 focal length of 90mm)

read more

I found out a couple of weeks ago that one of my photos has received a Bronze Award (third place) in the upcoming Single Images competition issue of B&W magazine. The issue, B&W #80, should be available on newsstands and bookstores the first week of December.

According to the message I received from the magazine, 555 photographers entered a total of 3,395 photos in the competition. It said that 15 people received Bronze Awards (one for each category, I believe) so with the Gold and Silver awards, that’s 45 images getting awards – or about 1.3 percent of the total number entered. I’m happy.

The initial message didn’t say which image was selected, but after inquiring, I was told that it’s "Nude, Prince Edward Island, Canada, 2006,” which should be the photo at the top here – an in-camera double exposure of Rachel.

I’ll let people know when the issue is available.

Today is Veteran’s Day here in the United States. As it happens, yesterday would have been my father’s 87th birthday if he were still with us. My dad fought in World War II as a paratrooper in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He used to fly in gliders, which he told me were given the nickname “flying coffins.”

A number of years back he gave me one of his glider wing pins, which you can see here. I’m just upset that his Eisenhower jacket that used to hang in my closet when I lived with my parents somehow got lost when my folks moved out of New York. I can’t imagine him wanting to get rid of it, but I have no idea where it is now.

Anyway, I salute all of the veterans – from WWII and earlier to the most recent – plus those men and women still in uniform, for risking all to protect us all. Thank you.

read more

Cat Woman Collection

Svetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman CollectionSvetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman Collection

Svetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman CollectionSvetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman Collection

Svetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman CollectionSvetlana Crnokrak - Cat Woman Collection

Model: Svetlana Crnokrak
Clothes: Astibo
Collection: Fall/Winter 2010/2011

Technorati Tags: , , , , .

read more

The most commonly-seen way photographers de-emphasize backgrounds is with aperture. By shooting at open apertures we reduce the depth of focus. Nothing wrong with that! It's an effective strategy forcing viewers' eyes where you want them-- on your model.

It's not the only way, however, the effect can be achieved.

Often enough, I've found myself in shooting environments where I can use a background element to de-emphasize whatever is behind the model. A sliding screen door, for instance, does a nice job of diffusing and de-emphasizing the background. It works even better when you can take advantage of sunlight behind the model.

When sunlight is behind the model, yet the model is inside and you're using a screen door as a background element, the screen will not only de-emphasize the background but will act as a scrim, knocking-down the natural back light.

Many videographers use screens in the background when shooting "talking-head" interviews. Video cameras, with their shorter focal length lenses, aren't always agreeable to reducing depth of focus optically when shooting at open apertures but with wider framing, that is, with the lens zoomed out. A screen behind the "talking head" can create an effect which helps videographers de-emphasizing the BG and keeping viewers' eyes on the person who is speaking.

Some companies make and sell collapsible screens, just like they do with collapsible seamless backgrounds, often in green or blue for making composite shots in post-production. ("Chroma Green" or "Chroma Blue" screen effects.) Often, these collapsible screens are on the large-ish side, in the 5' x 6' or 7' diameter ranges, so they can cover a fair amount of background space. Certainly, enough space for a nicely composed medium close-up that works well for interviews and/or on-screen announcers or narrators.

Photographers can also employ these same collapsible screens for shooting portraits and headshots. Or, a simple trip to Home Depot, Lowes, or any hardware store will yield inexpensive materials to make your own, DIY, background screen. All you'd need is some lengths of PVC and four right-angle corners, plus some of the same screen material you'd use to re-screen a door. Your PVC frame could easily be assembled when setting up for shoots. The screen material could be affixed to your DIY frame with A-clamps and the whole thing placed in the BG attached to a couple of light stands or some other way to prop it upright.

With the screen placed a nice distance behind your subject, focus on the screen is reduced even at smaller apertures. This means less chance the texture of the screen will be revealed. Instead, the screen remains, basically, invisible while causing the background (the background behind the screen) to be de-emphasized. It also allows the photographer to shoot at smaller apertures where critical focus is more easily maintained.

The pretty girl at the top is Nikki. I shot Nikki in a location house in front of a sliding screen door allowing me to still see through to the exterior flora, but that exterior is de-emphasized by the screen. Sunlight is providing the back-lit highlights on her hair and shoulders and a 5' Photoflex Octodome is modifying my monolight main light. It almost seems like an exterior shot but it's not. As you can plainly see, this technique really helps "pop" the model.

read more

Generally, the brightest area of a directional light source is at it's center. On a strobe, it's where the flash tube is positioned. As such, as you move away from that center (to the right, left, up or down around its perimeter) the intensity and efficiency of the light diminishes. In other words, the light begins to fall-off or gradually decline in brightness from its source or, in the parlance of photographers, feather.

There are a variety of ways to feather the light outside of its natural disposition to do so around its perimeter and extending outwards.

Beauty beauty dishes, for example, are specifically designed to fall-off, or feather, sometimes as much as a half-stop from the center of the dish to the outer perimeter of the dish. (That's how Mola beauty dishes behave.) Obviously, as you move even further away from the outer perimeter of the dish, the light will fall-off even more dramatically.

Using a Fresnel lens and focusing or unfocusing the light is another way to feather or produce a graduated fall-off around the perimeter of the lens. Focusing of Fresnel lighting instruments is accomplished by moving the lamp (or whatever is providing illumination) closer or further away from the Fresnel lens.

When you feather the light you'll notice a fall-off (or diminished exposure) from the brightest point made by the light to the dimmest. The more gradually or subtly the light falls-off the more aesthetically pleasing it often appears. The more pronounced the feathering, the more dramatic the image will sometimes seem. Feathering is another technique which belongs under the broader heading of Light Control.

If you're using a light source that is not designed to produce fall-off, like a beauty dish or Fresnel lens, you can still feather the light by angling it away from the subject. The degree to which the light is feathered will depend on the angle it is turned away from your subject or model, as well as the distance between the light source and model. A light source placed close to the model will produce light with the softer (or more subtle) feathering. The elements of angle and distance work in concert to produce more or less obvious feathering.

If you're using modeling lights, you should be able to see the feathering effect on the subject when you play around with varying degrees of angle coupled with various distances between the light source and the subject. If you're shooting digital, as most of you probably are, a quick review of the images will tell you how pronounced the feathering effect becomes as you adjust the position and direction of the light.

Large soft boxes are sometimes difficult to use when attempting to produce a noticeable feathering effect. Some soft boxes are designed to minimize brightness in the center (i.e., less of a center hot spot) by using a 2nd, internal baffle. They are also shaped to disperse the light evenly over a larger surface. In other words, the larger the source the more difficult it will be to produce a feathered effect across a small target area like a model's face. A smaller source, therefore, will produce more noticeable feathering. I sometimes use a a bare bulb with a small reflector (and with a small, honeycomb grid affixed in front of it) to produce more obvious fall-off across a small target area. By angling this light source and adjusting the distance to the subject, I can see the amount of feathering it's producing.

Next time you're model shooting and, while setting your lighting, try feathering one of your lights. You might like the results!

The pretty girl at the top is Margo. I used a single light source, modified with a Fresnel lens and aimed and focused on her face. You can see the feathering or fall-off of the light. To me, and beyond the model and her wardrobe, it helps give the image a retro feel-- Sort of like from a Hollywood "B" sci-fi movie. I expect to see a big, hairy, gorilla's hand coming in from somewhere off-camera to grab her.

read more

The annual Photo Review benefit photography auction is taking place tomorrow night, November 6, in central Philadelphia. You can get more information about it here.

As I have been doing for quite a few years, I am once again donating some photos to the auction.
One of them is the image at the top – a photo a of model made in a motel room in Los Angeles County in 2007. My unofficial name for it is “Banned by Kodak,” because Kodak refused to print up a book I put together because this photo was in it. (Apparently, Kodak cannot tell the difference between someone covering up her naughty bit, which is what she was doing, and some “touching herself,” which is what Kodak assumed she was doing).

As it happens, somebody liked the photo enough to buy it outright in the pre-auction, but I have decided to donate another print of the same image. You can bid on it here on the Photo Review website (ignore the “Sold” sign) or here on the Live Auctioneers site.

The other photo I’m donating is the one seen above here, that was taken on my first trip to Japan in 2004. It depicts an offering box (for people to throw donation money into) at the Meiji Shrine in Tokyo. I happened to return to this same spot on my trip to Japan earlier this year and I saw “no photography” signs posted there. I just wonder if the signs are relatively new or if I missed them in 2004 and did something I wasn’t supposed to.

You can bid on this photo here and here. If you’re in the Philadelphia on Saturday, you can come on down the auction, too.


In other news, I’m really upset about the results of the voting on Tuesday night. No, I’m not referring to the political, governmental elections (though I’m not happy about those, either). I’m talking about “Dancing With The Stars.” Can somebody please tell me why the hell Bristol Palin is still on? As I’ve written before, she should never have been on in the first place . (I guess we can blame the “liberal media” for her being on, right?)

Anybody who’s watched her plodding across the dance floor can tell that she should have been eliminated weeks ago. She wasn’t, but much better dancers like Audrina and Rick Fox have been sent packing instead. As one of the judges said, there is no justice in this.

I guess that if someone like Bristol Palin can be voted in to stay on the show, anything is possible – and that is a scary thought.

That scary thought came to life on Tuesday with the political elections. Well, now that the Republicans have a bigger voice in things, let’s see if they’ll put up or shut up. Will they try to do what’s best for the people of this country and try to work with the Democrats (and, of course, vice versa) or will they be obstructionist and do what’s best for themselves? So far, it does not look good for us as a nation.

I’ll just finish off my thoughts about the Republicans by saying that they’re a bunch of hypocrites. They say they want to reduce federal spending and the federal deficit, but why weren’t they saying these things when the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress took the budget surplus that Bill Clinton had given us and turned it into a huge deficit? I guess that when Republicans spend the taxpayers’ dollars such things don’t matter. (After all, it was Dick Cheney who said that the deficit is “meaningless.”)

They say they have a better way to fix the health care system, so why didn’t they try to implement it when they controlled the White House and Congress for six years? (Oh, yes, I remember now. They were too busy giving big tax breaks to wealthy people and trying to privatize Social Security to have time to make life better for the millions of Americans without health insurance. I guess that if you make less than a six figure income you just don’t rate in the Republicans’ financial playbook, do you?)

Enough said on this subject for now.

read more

I was really hoping this post wouldn't even mention ebooks. But just last night, I released my 2nd ebook, Guerrilla Headshots.

After working on it for nearly two months, how can I not announce that's it's now available?

Because it is.

Available, that is.

If you want to check it out, maybe even purchase it, you can do so by CLICKING HERE or on the banner I just put in the right-hand column.

BTW, if you have a few spare moments to read a review of Guerrilla Glamour by someone out there in the blogosphere, it's right HERE. I can barely fit my head through the doorway after reading that short review and I promise I didn't bribe the blogger. (Nor did I send him a free "review"copy of the ebook. Apparently, he bought one.)

Ok. I'll keep this announcement mercifully short. In fact, I'll end it right now. Thoughtful, aren't I?

The pretty girl at the top having a crazy hair day is Aurora.

read more