If you read my last update, "A Big Fat Minus for Google+," you might be having reservations about Google's new social media endeavor. Minimally, you might be concerned about Google's TOS and what it means to photographers or, more importantly, any photos photographers might post on Google's new social media website.

But I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy. I like presenting more than one perspective on stuff like this. My last update was based on a blog post by well-known photographer, Scott Bourne, who obviously has heartburn with Google over their TOS. I never knew heartburn was contagious but, after reading Bourne's blog post, it gave me heartburn as well. So maybe it is? Contagious, I mean.

While Bourne may be 100% correct about Google's TOS, there are other ways to look at this issue and, in my never-ending quest to provide all of you with more than a small amount of good info, make that enough good info to help you make good, intelligent, informed decisions about whatever the hell the info is I'm posting on this blog, (i.e., when whatever it is I'm writing about might include some decision-making) I think you might also be interested in a different perspective on this Google+ TOS thing.

So, with that in mind, I give you another talented and skilled photographer's POV on this issue. It's a good read. CLICK HERE TO READ COLBY BROWN'S POV

The pretty girl at the top with the pouty expression is Cytherea.

There's been a lot of buzz, positive buzz, about Google+ in recent weeks. And a lot of that buzz might be for some very good reasons.

Not that I'm necessarily counting it as one of the reasons for the buzz, but if anyone might eventually dislodge Facebook as the social media site of choice for many, many people, Google just might be the one to do it. Frankly, if Facebook went the way of MySpace, I sure wouldn't shed a tear or lose any sleep over it.

Having said that, I spend a lot of time on Facebook. It's almost always open in one of my windows. While I might be doing other things like authoring blog entries, writing for my ebooks, editing photos and more, I can easily and quickly monitor my Facebook page for updates, messages, etc. That's why some of my friends think I spend most of my life on FB. While it might appear that I do, appearances can be decieving. BTW, I also usually have my Twitter feed running as well.

Facebook has definitely given me heartburn on more than a few occasions. Usually, it's been when they've deleted my photos because they claimed those photos somehow violated their TOS. (Terms of Service.)

I've only once violated FB's actual stated TOS with a photo. I posted a candid photo of a model who was holding a bong. But in all the other cases of FB deleting my photos, I've not violated their stated TOS. Still, not only did they delete my photos, but two or three times they suspended my ability to upload photos and threatened to banish me from FB forever. GFY, Mark Zuckerberg, you and your morality police.

Now, along comes Google+ in a quest to dislodge FB from the social media throne. That's cool. Competition is a good thing. It keeps people and companies on their toes and, hopefully, also keeps them looking for ways to make their service or product or whatever better or more attractive or less expensive or current and so much more.

When it comes to photo sharing, Google+ wants to make the experience superior to FB's photo sharing capabilities. Cool! I'm all for that. But Google+, like Facebook, also wants to have free reign with users' photos. For many people who simply post snapshots taken with their cell phones or point-n-shoots, that might not seem like a big deal. But for anyone who makes their living, wholly or in part, with cameras in their hands, it's a big freakin' problem. I know I have a big fat problem with it.

Check out this article on the Photo Focus blog: Google Plus - Read the Fine Print Before You Sign Up. If, like me, you're someone who makes their living with photography, even if it's just part of your living, you might want to think about this before signing up or, if you already have signed up or plan to do so, before posting pics to your new Google+ account.

The pretty girl at the top is Nautica busting a fairly silly pose and expression. I exaggerated it by employing some wide-angle distortion. Trust me when I tell you that, normally, Nautica's photos reveal her as quite the beautiful, exotic, and sexy young thing.

Some photographers lay claim to an identifiable personal style. Others depend on viewers of their work, from Facebook or Flickr friends to clients to photo editors even to art critics, to describe their style for them. Many other photographers say they're still in search of an identifiable personal style or that their style is dynamic and ever-evolving.

Whether a distinctive personal style, static or dynamic, is more appropriately described by the photographers themselves or by viewers of his or her work, I'm really not sure. I'm not sure it matters who does the describing. The thing that does matter, I suppose, is that your style is well received by others.

For some, I suppose, having a style, well-received or otherwise, doesn't really matter. You see, some of those folks are photographers who claim they're simply and exclusively doing this thing for themselves and themselves only... which then begs the question, "If that is so, why do you bother sharing your photos with others on forums and elsewhere?"

I should note that I'm not writing today about the merits of having a recognizable, distinctive, and identifiable style, regardless of whether that style is subtle or obvious or common or unique. I think most will agree having a recognizable style is, for the most part, a good thing. More so if that style resonates positively with viewers. For shooters like me, those who make a living (or some part of it) with photography, having a recognizable style is even more of a good thing if that style resonates well with the people who write checks, a.k.a., clients. That includes established clients and, probably more importantly, potential clients.

How are many photographers' personal styles described?

I think describing or defining a personal style mostly begins by categorizing some very important aspects of the work including how that work is created. This is probably truer now, in the digital age, than ever before. If there's two, major, categories that often define, in whole or in large part, today's breed of photographer as well as their styles, it probably revolves around whether their overall style is mostly captured with a camera or is mostly created in post-production.

Some of you might disagree with the above statement. Still, I think it's true. Style-related discussions are often seen on a few of the photographer/model forums I frequent. In many of those discussions, it's obvious it can often be a sensitive subject.

Some shooters seem to feel the need to aggressively, sometimes angrily, defend their methods when questioned (in polite or sometimes not-so-polite ways) regarding how they arrive at their finished photos. It's been my observation that those people, the ones who get angry or defensive, are most often those who rely more heavily on post-processing than production to achieve their work.

Many photographers, of course, simply and unemotionally share their methods. Still others prefer to remain elusive and mysterious about it. My opinion? Whichever way you choose to express yourself, well, that's your business. In the grand scheme of things, it's really unimportant and matters little. If it makes you happy to rant about how your way is the right way, then go for it. If you don't care to share your techniques, oh well. The sun will still rise tomorrow regardless of what you or anyone else says or doesn't say on a photography forum or how you make your photos.

It's likely that some, perhaps many of you, believe your style is achieved through fairly equal doses of production and post-production. Personally, I disagree. From the many, many images I regularly view, it's often obvious (to me) whether a shooter's personal style is mostly a product of what comes out of the camera or is, to a much greater extent, created via post-processing. (I'm talking style here people, not every element of your photos.)

Style is an intangible factor. Still, i think I can assess a shooter's style, in terms of it being mostly camera-related or mostly post-related, with the 80/20 rule. As with many things, the 80/20 rule often applies. Why not apply it to photographic styles? At least in terms of how a given style is arrived at. So, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to apply the 80/20 rule when categorizing the personal styles exhibited, and how they're arrived at it, by many if not most digital photographers.

Yep. It seems to me most shooters' styles are either somewhere around 80% shooting style and 20% post-processing or visa versa. These days, of course, I see plenty of the visa versa styles. But that's not to say there's anything inherently wrong with the way the visa versa people, i.e., those whose work is about 80% processing and 20% production, go about making their photographic imagery.

Please also note that while I might have a personal bias regarding which way the 80/20 should be divvied in terms of which way most often resonates best with me, my bias does not necessarily convince me that one or the other is automatically superior. Fortunately, it's still a free country, leastwise when it comes to having opinions or employing photographic techniques. So, while I have an overall opinion in this matter, plus I have my own ways of arriving at whatever it is that makes my personal style, "my personal style," I don't necessarily believe my opinions or methods are any more valid than the opinions or methods of others. (How's that for being diplomatic?)

Applying the 80/20 rule to style seems especially appropriate in the digital photography age. When photography was analog, the style exhibited by nearly all photographers was mostly a product of their shooting techniques, their aesthetics, and their "eye." In other words, their styles were incorporated into the pictures, for the most part, the moment they snapped their photos.

Sure, there were exceptions. Back in the analog day, some well-known photographers exhibited big chunks of their styles as a result of work performed in a darkroom.

Famed glamour photographer, George Hurrell, comes to mind. I'd put a 50/50 ratio on Hurrell's work. His camera work and lighting was certainly distinctive but the work he did in the darkroom was equally distinctive. When it comes to shooting, coupled with darkroom work, I'd also probably slap a 50/50 ratio on Ansel Adams' work. For the most part, though, the great majority of analog photographers captured their personal styles with their cameras, more so than via work performed in a darkroom.

Looking at a few of today's notable photographers, I'd say Annie Leibovitz's style is mostly captured in the camera. Conversely, the stylistic work of celebrity photography team, Klinko & Indrani, seems more a product of post-processing than out-of-the-camera style. Remember, I'm simply referring to style. Style is just one component of terrific (or crappy) photography.

Here's my advice: Once you've determined or admit to which camp you mostly fall in -- the shooting camp or the post-processing camp -- and regardless of which camp mostly seems to best reflect the way your personal style is achieved, I think it's important to fully embrace your style-related methods of capturing or creating your images rather than worrying about whether one method is superior to another. If, like me, you depend more on things like camera work, lighting, exposure, and interaction with the model to achieve some sort of style, that's cool. If you depend more on Photoshop or some other image processing software, well, that's cool too. Whatever floats your boat, right?

BTW, whatever your style might be or however you arrive at it, if it doesn't seem to be working out for you, that is, your personal style isn't generating the kind of responses you believe (or hope) it deserves, how about instead of aggressively defending it, you know, playing the "art card" or whatever, you consider re-thinking how you approach your photography in terms of your personal style and how you get there. After all, a terrific and well-received photographic style, like beauty, is most often reflected in the eyes of its beholders, not the images' creators.

The pretty girl at the top is Katrina. I've posted this pic before but I think it's a good example of a style I try to incorporate in many of my glamour photos: one where, while using commonly-seen lighting and compositional styles, I also try to include poses and expressions that are on the emotional side, whatever that emotion might be or one I might decide to try to capture.

Perhaps like many of you, especially in these financially tight times, I generally keep an eye open for things I can do to make a couple of extra bucks.

As you might guess, I've set some self-imposed restrictions on the things I'm interested... make that willing to do. They cannot A) steal too much of my time; B) require ridiculous amounts of effort; C) take me too far off-course from the course I've set for myself.

What sorts of things do I either keep an eye open for or both of them shut to? Well, I'm definitely not looking to work part-time at WalMart as a greeter or do anything of that nature. Actually, I won't do much of anything that isn't, in some way, connected to shooting cameras or is photography-related or involves helping others learn, develop, and enhance their shooting and production skills. All of that, of course, is in addition to shooting gigs, whether they're inside or outside the genres I most-often work in.

Oh yeah. Speaking of won'ts or don'ts, I also don't and won't shoot weddings. That's not meant in any way to dis those who do shoot weddings. In fact, my hat's off to you. Weddings are hard freakin' work. Oftentimes, with incredible pressure attached! (Bridezillas, little control of the event or its subjects, no chance of re-shoots if the pictures suck.) Not for me, thank you very much.

Just recently, I noticed someone on Twitter posted something about a photography site looking for guest bloggers; make that PAID guest bloggers.

Cool! Right up my alley.

Or so I thought.

When I visited the site, there was, as Tweeted, a page announcing they were looking to pay guest bloggers to write about photography. Specifically, the aspects of photography they were looking for bloggers to write about were as follows:

1. Photoshop
2. Lightroom
3. Digital Asset Management
4. Lightroom and Photoshop Add-Ons
5. Hardware
6. Business of Photography
7. Social Media and Social Networking

Wow! I've been making a big chunk of my living doing this a long time but I'm not really qualified to write about any of that stuff. Yeah, I could touch on some of it but, for the most part, I don't know what I'd blog about within those subject ranges, leastwise in ways that might be compelling enough or informative enough to appeal to too many readers. I did think it interesting that, other than the hardware and business stuff, you wouldn't need to go back too many years to find that all of those other things would barely register on photography's version of a Richter Scale or Geiger Counter, if at all.

Even more interesting, to me at least, was that they (the site) didn't seem interested in having anyone write about shooting pictures. You know, the part of photography where a photographer picks up a camera and shoots photographs. It made me sit back and wonder if the photography part of photography has become the least important aspect of photography in the digital photography age?

If so, no wonder photography is such a tough business these days!

Besides there being way too many shooters all reaching for a piece of the pie, a pie that hasn't gotten any larger and might even be smaller, today's photographers have to learn and understand so much more! They need to know about all kinds of software applications, workflows, storing and managing pictures on computer devices, social media and cyber-networking, all kinds of crap! Much of it having little or nothing to do with actually picking up a camera and shooting some kick-ass photos. Now I know why so many of today's new breed of photographers seem more interested in apps and quick tips for making the shooting part of photography the part that's easiest and most automated.

It used to be all you needed (to kick off a career as a photographer) was some gear, the ability to shoot good pictures with that gear, and some basic business and marketing savvy. Incredibly, make that incredibly sadly, I can almost visualize a time, probably not too far distant, when learning and practicing the art and craft of photography becomes the least important part of being a photographer.

Actually, it sometimes seems like we're already there.

The sexy lady at the top is Kimberly. I was going for a subtle, retro-bordello look... not that I know anything about bordellos, retro or otherwise. (Click it to enlarge it.)

It wasn't enough that just about everyone became a pro-status photographer once dSLRs took hold. Now, with the addition of HD video to many dSLR's capabilities, it seems many of those same people are now also filmmakers, albeit digital filmmakers.

And why not? New technologies have put digital film-making into just about everyone's hands.

Once upon a time, it was incredibly difficult to become the next Steven Spielberg. These days, becoming a Spielberg or a Lucas or a Cameron or some other well-known "name" from the ranks of A-list directors might seem a somewhat more realistic goal, within everyone's grasp.


But is it?

Nope. Not even close. Not even remotely close.

Here's some 4-1-1 about becoming a successful, commercial filmmaker:

It takes talent. Plenty of it.

It takes luck. Plenty of luck.

It usually takes being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people and so much more.

It takes money. Plenty of money. Owning an HD video-capable dSLR, some lights, digital editing software, sound equipment and other gear is a good start for any fledgling filmmaker but it's not enough. Not nearly enough.

It takes more. So much more.

Let's say your film-making aspirations fall way shorter than joining the pantheon of Hollywood's major filmmakers. Okay. That's probably more realistic. Still, to have any modicum of success, you're going to need some amount of those things I mentioned above. Probably more of that stuff than you might think.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist or rain on anyone's parade but even offering video services to your existing photography clients will require some of the stuff listed above. Certainly it's going to take more than simply owning a dSLR that is video-capable. And most certainly, assuming you want to offer those video services with the results being better than someone simply holding and pointing a camera and pressing a button, you'd best develop some skills doing so.

Still photography and motion picture photography, while having much in common, remain worlds apart in many ways, requiring different skill sets to achieve outstanding results. My advice would be to figure out what those differences are and to learn and develop the new skills necessary before going out and claiming you're a filmmaker or offering video as an add-on service. Assuming you hope to be successful at it, that is.

The two young ladies playfully engaged in Sapphic shenanigans for my camera are Ashley (l.) and Katie (r.)

Kibbles 'n Bits has crunchy kibbles plus real meaty bits dogs love! Apps 'n Tips has techy apps plus real simple and usable tips photographers love!

I'm not saying the thousands of apps and photography tips I see so many people posting every single day on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere reminds me of packaged dog food, but...

...on second thought, I guess that's exactly what I am saying.

I know, I know, here goes old Mr. Cynical again, sneering at the new "instant pudding" generation of photographers. But frankly, these days, it seems far too many photographers are mostly interested in the many methods they can use to automate or make their photographic pursuits no-brainer and less uniquely creative rather than focusing on, learning, and discovering what truly sets great photography apart from snapshot status. That is, from pedestrian and commonly-seen approaches to it (which most apps 'n tips are designed to achieve... make that enhance, I suppose) rather than the things that constitute a truly terrific, unique, creatively-captured and memorable image.

Now don't get me wrong. I recognize that a lot of my own photography is pedestrian and commonly-seen. I don't deny it. And a lot of it is that way by design... my clients' expectations and all that. Personal excuses aside, what does turning photography -- an art form with a long and distinctive history of creative achievements -- into such a near-complete automated process have to do with artistic and creative fulfillment?

IMO, nothing.

In spite of all the supportive barks and yelps and happy howls one might receive on Facebook or wherever a photographer might receive kudos (warranted or not) for their latest snapshit which was rendered cool or artsy by some app or via a "cheat" tip, do people who nearly always use these things really get some sense of creative satisfaction from the results achieved and compliments received?

It's like this-- Your photo, the part of the finished photo that's actually of your personal, creative making, might not always be very cool or artistic but is it truly satisfying to get those ego strokes because it suddenly seems cool or artistic (mostly to untrained eyes) because a computer algorithm (i.e., an app) or quick-tip cheat automatically and non-creatively made it that way with very little human intervention? Where's the you, the human, the photographer, in that equation? You know, in terms of YOU being the LARGEST part of that equation.

I just don't get how people can actually take creative pride in a photograph that is ten parts automated and one part (or less) creatively and humanly produced.

I'm not saying there aren't times when using or applying these many apps or taking advantage of the myriad of helpful quick-tips isn't appropriate. But for these things to represent the lion's share of one's photography? That seems fairly empty and unrewarding to me.

Just sayin, as usual.

The young lady grasping her butt-cheeks at the top is Nautica. She's certainly not a female I'd ever think to feed Kibbles 'n Bits to.