Photography / PotD

Shooting For Exposure

June 9, 2015

Through Different Lenses (2011)

“If you follow the rules, it’s your own fault.” ― Marty Rubin

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Life is busy for everyone and it is quite nice that we have at our disposal now a variety of tools and applications to help ease just a little bit of the strain here and there so we can better focus on the truly important aspects of whatever it is we’re doing. One of the applications I have installed assists me with catching common grammar errors. More than just spell checking, it looks for proper subject/verb agreement, makes sure the verb conjugation is correct, and that I’m putting the most appropriate punctuation in place. When I’m typing quickly, and especially early in the morning when I’m still on my first cup of coffee, the tool saves me a lot of time going back and proofreading, especially since I’m really lousy at proofreading.

There’s a problem with this application, though: it doesn’t like the Oxford Comma. Personally, I quite like the Oxford Comma and find that the meaning of some word lists changes significantly depending on whether the comma is used. If I have a sentence, or thought, or fragment, or phrase such as this one then I am going to use the extra comma every time. Unfortunately, the application marks it wrong every time and attempts to correct the matter. I end up having to take extra steps, and time, to keep the comma in place and assure that the list is going to infer exactly what I intend.

Image processing software is no different. Applications such as Lightroom and Photoshop are full of little guides and measuring devices to provide photographers and graphic artists with multiple checks and balances so as to, hopefully, prevent errors that might result in bad print. However, none of those tools is accurate 100% of the time and relying on them too heavily can sometimes result in even larger errors than if they hadn’t been used at all. Certainly, the tools are helpful and are included with the best of intentions, but in the end there’s no substitution for pulling a hard print and going with what your eyes tell you is best.

Today’s image is a perfect example of the tools not always being the best judge. This is also an example of just how much the appearance of an image can change from one computer monitor to another. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]When I shot this image in 2011, I processed it using the most current version of Photoshop, but on a Frankenstein computer I had been carefully rubber-banding together since 2005 using a monitor that dated even older than that. While the monitor was calibrated to the best of its ability, I knew from experience that what I saw on the screen was not a true match when pulling a print. So, I tried making adjustments as best I could and most of the time I was at least within the ballpark.

The primary challenge of this image is one of exposure. The model’s hair is jet black, to the point that one has to dramatically open the shutter to even begin picking up any highlights. Without a high level of exposure, her hair would appear to be nothing more than a black mass sitting on her head. In a studio, that problem is easily resolved by putting a light specifically on her hair. We’re not in a studio, though. We’re using natural light and even with a reflector there wasn’t enough natural illumination to pull out the highlights in her hair without risking over-exposing the entire left side of the image. I made specific choices and was pleased with the result.

Then, a couple of years ago, I got a new computer and monitor and loaded newer software. Going through the archives to see what needed to be revised, I brought up this image and it instantly showed a warning that the left side was over exposed. I tried correcting the image to what the software said was appropriate, but doing so left the photo flat and dull. Finally, I had no choice but to pull a print and, wouldn’t you know it, the over-exposure was still within gamut (barely), and the image looked fine.

Exposure can be a very tricky thing at times and while generally running highlights out of gamut is a no-no, there are times, arguably including this one, where the risk is worth the effect. Are we going to make mistakes? Yes. Is everyone going to agree with our choices? No. But again, what matters is whether the image generates the emotion the photographer intended. At the end of the day, perhaps a little too much light is better than not enough.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Guessing At The Rule Of Thirds

June 8, 2015

A Moment of Sun (2012)

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]In a strange, almost psychotic social twist, “breaking the rules” has possibly become more admirable than following them. For every person out there yelling and screaming about something not following one rule or another, there are two applauding that the rule has been broken. Breaking rules, regardless of where they’re found or to what they apply, is seen as a measure of one’s independence; a willingness to stand out from the crowd and break away from the status quo. Those who create new technologies or build huge businesses from scratch are often said to have “broken the rules,” either of business or technology, in achieving their goals. Adventurist billionaires such as Sir Richard Branson or Elon Musk are widely considered to have gotten where they are by breaking all the rules.

So, do rules exist only for the purpose of being broken? What good is it to have a set of guidelines if no one is going to follow them? I know one of my most frequent non-photography pet peeves is matters of grammar and improper spelling on social media; not those committed so much through acts of “fat-fingering” or victims of auto correct, but those intentional misdeeds such as substituting U for you and R for are, along with other idiosyncracies of what is commonly referred to now as text speech. While such abbreviations appear to me as a lack of attention and most likely diminished intelligence, more than a few linguist have decided that such rule breaking is part of the natural, continual, evolution of language. If breaking the rules is actually just evolving the rules, then why is anyone worried about rules in the first place?

Sociologists tell us, as do those of severe moral convictions, that without rules society decays into chaos. We must have a system of laws, rules, and guidelines that set the standard for acceptable social participation for society to have any meaningful cohesion. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not try passing off a Bruce Springsteen tune as your own. Where we have rules, we typically have people assigned to enforce them: policemen, teachers, court systems, and government agencies come to mind. Photography, and creative media in general, doesn’t have any official authority reprimanding or punishing those who break rules of art. Does that mean we’re doomed to chaos?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image, for example, breaks the rule of thirds. The rule of thirds, for those not familiar, relates to how an image is framed. An image is theoretically divided into thirds both horizontally and vertically and the four intersection points are considered the strongest areas of the image. If there is a horizon, for example, it should occur on either the top or bottom line. Whatever the primary focal point is, it should be positioned on one of those imaginary lines with other content placed as to guide the flow of vision from one intersection to the other. The rule of thirds is so basic and fundamental, that software tools such as Photoshop offer guides to help position an image along the correct lines.

But this image just won’t fit. The young woman in the picture should be positioned along the left vertical line; her bust and her hips, ideally, would fall along the horizontal lines. If this were a painting, those issues would be easily resolved. This isn’t a painting, though, and we are limited by a couple of issues that are immutable. First, this image is part of a series that, for the sake of visual continuity, all have a canvas of the same size (reduced to 1200 x 900 pixels for use here). Cropping the image differently just to make it fit the rule of thirds would have made it awkward and interrupt the visual flow of the whole set. Second, there was just behind the model an open and rather unattractive space that would have altered the aesthetic had it been included. So, expanding the frame to fit the rule of thirds is not a solution either.

What ultimately matters is whether the image works and, to a large degree, this one does. While I might not submit the image for adjudication, I still find it quite lovely and would have no problem with it bring part of a gallery presentation. Breaking the rule, in this case, isn’t so much a matter of innovation as it is necessity because of the constraints. Are we plummeting into chaos? No, not at all.

We must be our own guides. Not every rule should be broken. Not every image should try breaking them. What every photograph should do is make us feel, and if we’ve done that we have found success.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Life’s A Blur

June 7, 2015

Watch Me Hoop! (2011)

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. -Richard Branson

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Photography has enough rules to choke a mule. There are rules about exposure. There are rules about depth of field. There are rules about framing and composition. There are rules about color, rules about black and white, and rules about mixing the two. Rules here, rules there, and there will always be that social media troll who wants to argue that you didn’t follow this rule or that, therefore your image is flawed. I have even seen student photographers carry around and religiously consult notebooks full of rules, making sure with each shot that they weren’t breaking any of the important ones. I don’t think any of those students ever actually made it as photographers.

While rules are certainly there for a reason, and the greater majority of the time actually do make sense, photography is not about rules. It can’t be. When photographers set out to only play by the rules, they get photos that may be technically correct but are emotionally lacking in anything resembling passion. Photographs without emotion are pointless. Why capture something that doesn’t make us feel, that doesn’t stir something inside us, that isn’t worth remembering? We take enough flak already from those who say photography is too automated, too reliant on technology, to be an art. If all we are doing is following the rules then we prove our critics right: the results are not art.

So we are devoting a full week of #POTD to breaking all the rules. Well, okay, we won’t have time to break all the rules. After all, there are only seven days in a week and just about any photographer can come up with at least ten rules that govern their specific style of shooting. So, I’ve chosen rules that I, personally, am likely to break most often; the ones where, for me, passion and creativity are more likely to outweigh the need to observe the rules. Young photographers, please note: when I break a rule, I almost always do so intentionally and with a specific purpose in mind. This isn’t arbitrary, except when it is. Totally.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]The obvious error in today’s image is the amount of blur, not just in the hoop, but the little girl as well. We talked about motion blur just a couple of days ago, so click the link and read that piece first if necessary. I won’t repeat much of it here. One can easily argue that the motion blur of the hoop is like the effect of water in a stream: the picture just wouldn’t look right without it. That part isn’t really breaking the rules. The question comes in whether I should have used a slightly faster shutter speed to stop the motion of the little girl. My answer, obviously, is no.

Children are, themselves, a constant blur of motion, especially when they are between the ages of two and three. I love being at the playground with Kat’s little ones and seeing all the motion, and with it an equal dose of emotion, coming from all these tiny creatures who are having the time of their lives. If children are so naturally given to motion, shouldn’t their photos reflect that reality? Sure, we can make them sit still momentarily for a portrait, but when one is trying so very hard to show me, with incredible amounts of pride, just how well she can hoop, just like momma, to not include the motion of her little body would have been absolutely criminal! She was gyrating so fervently as to involve every muscle she has.

So, we break the rules about motion and blur. We still managed to capture that look of determination on her face and all the colorful richness of that early summer morning. She’s framed well and the background isn’t overwhelming. We still have a very good picture. What’s most important, though, is we have a picture her mother cherishes. This little girl just finished kindergarten and is growing, as children tend to do, with more speed than a parent wants. She’s beautiful. She has a little sister now and I’m guessing by this time next year she’ll be trying to teach her how to hoop as well. Capturing the joy of these moments is more important than following a set of rules. [/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Of Highlights and Shadows

June 6, 2015

The Other Side (2010)

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I chose today’s quote quite carefully and with deliberate intention. I’m not sure anyone has ever understood light in relationship to photography quite as thoroughly as did George Eastman. When a friend suggested he make a photographic record of a trip he was about to take, Eastman found the wet plate camera and equipment so bulky and difficult that he ended up never taking the trip! Born from that frustration, though, were innovations such as fixed-lens cameras, rolled film, and a chemical development process that was significantly less likely to kill the photographer. Eastman saw what photography could become and then took the steps to make sure it got there. The bulk of his contributions to our profession are unparalleled and quite likely will never be surpassed by any one person.

Eastman knew, among many other things, that photography needed to be accessible, that people needed to be able to capture all the moments of their lives, not just those for which people had time to sit and impatiently wait. When he introduced the Brownie camera in 1900, it sold for a mere one dollar and while a dollar was still of significant value at that time, Eastman’s invention put cameras in the hands of more people, and made it possible to capture more images, than anything or anyone had done prior. In his opinion, Eastman felt that there was absolutely nothing, no single aspect of the human existence, that was not worth photographing.

One of the challenges Eastman faced, though, was the fact that many of the people buying these new cameras of his had absolutely no concept of what photography was, how it worked, or how to take a good picture. Those early Brownie users had no idea that a subject sitting fully in the sun was likely to be over-exposed, while those sitting in the shade were going to be quite in the dark. A very high number of unrecognizable pictures could have very easily caused the new inventions to fail in the market. One of the most under-recognized aspects of Eastman Kodak amateur film was its ability to balance out some of those lights and shadows so that errors of ignorance would be less severe.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Over time, we’ve come to understand more about highlights and shadows and how to manipulate the two so as to achieve different styles and tones and ranges of depth in our photographs. We are able to meter with relative position the best camera settings for images such as today’s photo. Our highlights are high enough to be bright, but not out of gamut. Our shadows have nice, measured gradients that gently define curves and muscles. Eastman would have unquestionably been amazed by the ability of contemporary cameras to translate and manipulate highlights and shadows to such accurate levels.

Highlights and shadows are not only part of photography, though. They are part of business and they are part of life. Eastman Kodak has struggled to adapt and find its way in a digital world. The company that once defined photography for a large number of people around the world is now but an afterthought and many younger photographers don’t even recognize. George Eastman had his own shadows as well. Faced with increasing pain from a spinal disease that made it difficult to walk, on March 24, 1932, Eastman penned a short note:

Dear friends —

My work is done.
Why wait?
GE

He then shot himself through the heart, ending an era of some of the greatest innovation photography has ever seen.

Natural light is an amazing tool and certainly the more we understand light better able we are to create stunning photographs. We do well, though, to mind the highlights and shadows, to use them effectively and be careful to keep them in balance, both on camera and off.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Riding The Wave of (e)Motion

June 5, 2015

Removing the Afternoon (2010)

I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse. – Diane Arbus, On Photography by Susan Sontag

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]When I first started taking pictures, holding so tightly onto a Canon F1 to the point it couldn’t help but shake, motion blur was my most common menace. Figuring out how to work the combination of f-stop and shutter speed with whatever ASA film I was using (usually 400) so that I wouldn’t get blur was a severe obstacle for me to overcome. I don’t even want to think about how many potentially great pictures were lost, or how many rolls of film I wasted, simply because I could not, for the life of me, keep the damn camera still. The bad news: I still can’t, even though it’s for much different reasons now. There are days when having a tripod, even for simple shots, is a lifesaver.

What has changed over the years, though, is our attitude toward motion blur. While there has always been some acceptance of the error under very limited circumstances, such as pictures of flowing streams of water, it is generally considered a mistake. The most common one I caught then, and still often have problems eliminating, is that the subject will move, just a hand or maybe shift a foot, right as I’m clicking the shutter. I hate having to count aloud before taking each shot, but there are some people who cannot stand still for more than a split second, and some toddlers who can’t stand still at all. For them, warning exactly when the shutter is about to click is the only way to get a clean shot in environments where one can’t work with a super-high shutter speed. Otherwise, you’re throwing away the frame.

Today, we’re more forgiving of certain kinds of motion blur, such as in today’s photo. We are more likely to understand that the motion is necessary to communicate the story of the photo effectively. Capturing just the right amount of blur confirms for us that the subject isn’t just posing for a picture, but that something is actually happening; that we’ve captured an event as it was taking place, something that will never happen exactly the same way ever again.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light indoors makes motion blur practically inevitable. Shooting natural light indoors always requires a higher ISO (we used 800 for this shot) to capture the light, and a slower shutter speed/f-stop combination (we were at f/2.8, 1/125 for the series from which this shot is taken). If we put the camera on a tripod, which is generally what I would suggest, then those settings are probably workable for most portrait situations. But if you’re not shooting portraits, if there is actually something happening in front of you, then blur is inevitable. That puts the photographer in the position of asking themselves, “Is it worth the blur?”

Honestly, when I took these shots, I fully expected that it was the fringe on her top that was going to give me the most problem, and there’s not a shot in the set where every strand is staying still. Could I have fixed that on camera? Sure, but doing so would have left us with a much less emotional image. With the motion, we have a greater sense of what is going on. We are closer to understanding the story (or creating our own) and connecting to the energy of the image. Without the blur, especially in her hair, this picture comes off bland and a bit boring.

This is an example of natural light sometimes giving us what we don’t know we want. Experimenting, being willing to risk some mistakes, knowing from the start that nothing you’re about to shoot may be usable, is one of the things that makes photography exciting, and that excitement becomes part of the fabric of the resulting image. Motion blur still isn’t something we want to see too often, and the majority of images do better without it but, don’t be afraid of the emotion that comes with a little bit of blur; it may just make the whole picture worthwhile.[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

Best Thing Next To Being There

June 4, 2015

Morning Dance (2010)

Any photographer who says he’s not a voyeur is either stupid or a liar. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]We, photographers, like to talk and behave in public as though we’re all about the art. We’ll extol the virtues of natural light as though it is the holy grail of photography. We’ll compare our work to that of truly great artistic masters as though anyone will actually give a damn about our work once we’re dead. We try to take an academic approach to what we do and find some philosophical justification for every shot we take whether it actually exists or not. To talk to some photographers, one might think that it is possible for a photograph, the right photograph, to solve all the world’s societal problems.

What really makes me laugh is when a young photographer who never had a chance to actually meet him attempts to invoke the name of Helmut Newton as though they were good buddies. It almost always happens during a conversation about natural light, and how they’ve “studied” his work and apply his “philosophy.” I value the time I had with Helmut, whether working or just having lunch, like no other. He certainly had much to teach and opinions about everything. But, you know what? Helmut was every bit as real as you and I and the exact same struggles and challenges we face were those he had to tackle. Want to know what Helmut was really like? Try this on for size:

I say to a person, I want to see you naked, and in my head I say, Well I would like to fuck her but the reason I don’t is because I’m scared to gets AIDS or something…

Helmut really struggled with finding the line between what was socially acceptable and what wasn’t. He tended to blame his German upbringing. Even though he contributed to Playboy for some twenty-odd years, he had a tendency to sometimes go too far, to be too provocative for even a men’s magazine. He claimed (magazine publisher) Hugh Hefner once told him to shoot something nice, not that “kinky stuff you do for French Vogue.” Helmut also despised anyone calling photography art and one might want to duck if they even uttered the words “good taste.” Those were two things that would get his temper up in a hurry.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Want to know the real power of natural light photography? It gives the viewer the feeling that they’re actually present. Art nudes may be popular with the intellectual crowd because of the studies in form and light, juxtaposing muscle and tissue with highlights and shadows. Let’s not pretend, though, that there isn’t a salacious element to what we shoot, especially when we do it in color and especially when we do it with natural light. While I may want to proclaim the artistic value of today’s photo, and I do believe it has more than a little of that, don’t think for one moment that I’m not aware of the base appeal found in the fact that it is ultimately a picture of two people who, as far as we can tell, are fucking.

Stop and think critically for a moment. When digital photography started putting “real” cameras into the hands of more people, why was it so much popular among young men than it was women? There have been many women, such as Eve Arnold and Annie Leibovitz and Diane Ackerman and Diane Arbus, who could shoot circles around any male photographer. Why didn’t more women jump at the chance to pick up a camera as quickly as did young men? Easy: young men were less interested in the art and more interested in the possibility that a camera might be an easy way into a young woman’s pants. The same answer explains why more men give up on chasing a photography career after two or three years. A camera is not an aphrodisiac.

After 30 years of this mess, I still love photography and still prefer natural light but don’t think for one moment I don’t consider how “sexy” a photo is before I post it. I watch the statics for these pages carefully and you can be sure I’ve noticed how much more attention is paid to a nude photograph versus a non-nude. Tuesday’s photo, as lovely as it is, received less attention than any image the past 30 days. I’ve all but stopped posting landscapes because they’re often ignored altogether. What makes natural light photographs popular? Because they’re the best thing next to being there.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

A Casual Intimacy

June 3, 2015

All Wet (2012)

It doesn’t matter if you use a box camera or a Leica, the important thing is what motivates you when you are photographing. What I have tried to do is involve the people I was photographing. To have them realize without saying so, that it was up to them to give me whatever they wanted to give me… if they were willing to give, I was willing to photograph. – Eve Arnold

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Good photography isn’t about things. It’s not the cameras, the studio, the auxiliary equipment, the makeup, or the wardrobe. While all those fun things are nice to have, they do not make the picture. What’s more important are the relationships. Inviting someone to come and shoot with us is an unexplainable cross between having someone over for tea or coffee and a therapy session. Please, have a seat. I hope you’re comfortable. Now, tell me about yourself, your past and your present, your hopes and dreams, difficulties and disappointments, achievements and failures, challenges and success. Oh, and did I mention that I want you to do that without verbally speaking? Let your face, your posture, and maybe your wardrobe, or lack thereof, be the means for communicating.

One of the great aspects of working with natural light is that it is not pretentious. One does not have to create an environment for the photograph that is daunting, fearful, or incites anxiety. Many people get quite nervous enough the moment I pull my camera from its bag. For those people, there’s almost always an instance in their past where someone has criticized how they looked in a picture. The comment, at the time, may well have been innocuous, but the emotional effect was lasting. Other people, though, see the camera and come alive in ways we might not have expected. That seemingly shy, quiet person steps in front of a camera and has suddenly found a voice no one knew they had.

Working with natural light enhances communication by allowing one to feel more comfortable about expressing themselves. Studios too often have a sterile, business-like feeling to them and that is certainly appropriate for some situations. But when one is looking for a photograph that communicates, that implies a story, that tells us something about the subject, the best setting is that which is most natural to the subject: a barn, a living room, a kitchen, a field, or any other number of places that are not a studio.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Photographers cannot make great photographs of people who are unable, or unwilling, to communicate. Expression is key. Consider today’s picture. Fresh out of the shower, still dripping wet, the series of which this image is a part runs a gamut of emotion from fear to questioning to relaxing. But to deliver those poses, to say those things in a strictly visual context, was up to the model, not the photographer. I could have suggested things (but didn’t need to), and even given precise direction had I wanted. I rarely do either, though, because I prefer to see what is natural versus what is forced.

I firmly believe that taking pictures, especially portraits, in natural light gives people more freedom to open up and express themselves, but how the photographer responds is just as critical. People begin communicating with their bodies the moment they walk through the door and it’s the photographer’s job to watch and interpret that non-verbal message. If a person is excited then plug into their anticipation and run with it. Where we see anxiety requires a more careful, less hurried, and cautious approach. It is up to the photographer to introduce the subject to the light, to let them become acquainted and comfortable with how it feels. Take your time. Find this is a safe place with no judgment outside your own. Now, talk.

By the end of a productive session, the photographer and their subject have created a sort of casual intimacy; certainly not as deep as lovers, but at least slightly more than passing friends. We have shared a moment of expression, perhaps one that the person we’re photographing has not expressed before, and may never do so again. The photographs capture a special moment that do more than present an image, but preserve a story. Natural light helps those moments feel real and fresh every time we look at the pictures. Nothing fancy required. Just light.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

But Soft! What Light …

June 2, 2015

Comfortable With Here & Now (2010)

When I say I want to photograph someone, what it really means is that I’d like to know them. Anyone I know I photograph. – Annie Leibovitz

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Shakespeare may not have been a photographer, but he certainly understood the emotional impact of a subject bathed in soft, natural light. Juliet, caught in the rays of a full moon, quickened the heart of the smitten Romeo to the point of tragedy. Dinner is most romantic when a couple has only the softness of candlelight illuminating their meal. Sitting on the porch in the soft light of a fading sunset may be the perfect end to a summer’s day. Light can take many forms, but when it is at its softest is when it makes us look the most beautiful.

Painters have known for centuries the benefits of a soft, natural light and how to achieve such without needing special equipment. While not appropriate for action shots perhaps, portraits benefit from the softest light we can give them. Photoshop hasn’t been around forever you know, but natural light at its softest works a magic that makeup and software could never achieve so accurately. Look at today’s photo, for example, and notice how soft the complexion is. Did we airbrush her skin in any way? No. First, her skin was quite healthy from the outset. But then, the gentleness of natural light diffused through lead glass at just the right time of day worked a magic that makes any thought of post-process manipulation preposterous.

Good photographers often struggle with finding just the right light for portraits. One needs shadows to help define features, so a light that is too bright or all-encompassing doesn’t work. Yet, too much shadow, or shadow from the wrong direction, can distort features, make a face look harsh and more angled than it naturally is. Light coming in at too high an angle can have the appearance of re-shaping features and is especially tough on noses or anyone with bags under their eyes. Good, soft light rarely just falls onto a photographer’s set. Even chasing that mythical “golden hour” is no promise of good light.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Soft light, such as in today’s image, is a diffused light. Light is diffused, or spread out, when it passes through some material that is at least partially opaque. In this case, it was an old window of lead glass. Despite how it appears, leaded glass has a graduated opacity in that over time the lead in the glass pulls the material toward the bottom of the frame, making it thicker at the bottom than at the top. When working with a window composed of sixteen smaller frames (four rows of four frames), the shifting lead lets more light in from the top of the frame than the bottom imprecisely so there is variation within each small frame. This effectively diffuses the light when the subject is at least two feet from the window.

Many different materials diffuse lights at different rates, giving one a lot of choices to get just the right light for just the right portrait. My personal preference is for white cotton, but that doesn’t work as well if the sunlight is not directly positioned at the material. I’ve also gotten wonderful results inside an old taupe canvas army tent, surprisingly enough, and almost always carry a commercial diffuser as part of my reflector kit. Of course, clouds are a natural diffuser and at times can be the perfect answer to a challenging portrait, but they also tend to reduce or eliminate shadows as well as muting color. Other natural diffusers, such as tree leaves, might work depending on the type of leaf, but can also give a green tint to the warm light.

Ultimately, we want a soft light on our subject, though, because it makes them appear approachable, friendly, even kind. Portraits captured in softest light can have that same effect as moonlight did when Romeo saw Juliet, bringing out the natural beauty in a subject. A portrait has done its best when it causes one to feel that someone we don’t know, somehow, has become our best friend. Even Shakespeare couldn’t do better.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

In Defense of Color

June 1, 2015

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Color has been the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, struggling for respect from the moment the folks at Eastman Kodak labs tried selling it to the general public. Before then, it was considered highly experimental, one of those things that couldn’t be trusted, was hardly useful in a practical manner, and hardly worth the time it took to make it a reality. Black and white was where it was at, especially if one wanted a crisp, clear photograph. Anything else was just wasting your time.

I should probably clarify that when we talk about color photography now, more often than not what we are referencing is color process photography similar to what is achieved using negative film processing during the 1940s. Prior to that, there were plenty of experiments going all the way back to 1861 when physicist James Clerk Maxwell achieved a form of color reproduction by shooting three black and white frames using a different color filter, red, green, and blue, for each one and then superimposing them together. Through World War II, that stacking method dramatically improved but still lacked accuracy and refinement necessary to be effective on a large commercial scale.

When color negative film was first developed, the critical issue was the relationship between the negative and the dark room solution known as fixer. It was up to the fixer to accurately translate the negative and produce the correct color onto the specially coated paper. Results varied dramatically from one fixer to the next and even from one person to the next. Color labs began popping up with their reputations lying on their ability to accurately reproduce color negatives. Color reversal film, or slide film, finally came along in the 50s with dramatically more accurate results, but to achieve a print they still had to be translated back to negatives where the process was still less than accurate.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Given all the problems surrounding color film, it really is no wonder that the people who made their living in photography wanted little to do with the mess and uncertainty. Even museums and galleries refused to show color photography any respect for the longest time. The first gallery showing of color photography didn’t occur until 1976! When the Museum of Modern Art in New York showed William Egleston’s Guide response was still based more in curiosity with the medium than acknowledging it as a medium that had finally come into its own. For the best photo possible, photographers still turned to black and white film.

Digital photography has actually helped change color’s reputation. Unlike film, digital cameras capture a color image right from the start, even if the camera has a black and white setting. Digital imagery removes some of the guess-work, so images are more likely to come out looking closer to what our minds remember our eyes saw. Digital imagery using natural light may be the most accurate translation of color achieved on a regular basis to date. While everything can be manipulated and corrected during post processing, natural light and color photography are the best buddies that have been looking for years to find each other.

Yes, there are still plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that most computer monitors are not accurately balanced to produce true colors. Yet, can you imagine how incredibly boring today’s picture would be if it were in black and white? Color conveys emotion, warmth, and contrast. We look at the picture and can wonder why in the world I would put powdered cheese dust over half the model’s body, and be intrigued by the effect it has on our eyes. In natural light, color photography finally begins earning the respect it deserves.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

The Joys of Natural Light

May 31, 2015

A Little Gaga (2010)

It’s that I don’t like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room. -Helmut Newton

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]There will be no white paper backgrounds this week. White paper has its place. I have whole sets of images shot on it, but they will never be among my favorites. I am, fundamentally, at my happiest when I’m shooting with natural light. We are looking specifically at natural light photos this week for just that reason: to make me happy. While I hope they make everyone else happy as well, I’ve not been able to shoot a great many of these images in a while so it’s nice to take a look back and be reminded.

Specifically, the images we’ll share this week are all indoor with natural light. There are two important distinctions here. First, there is a difference between natural light and ambient light. Ambient light can include artificial light, reflected light, and any other light source available. With ambient light, one can have light coming from several different directions at the same time, which can diminish the appearance of shadows. Natural light is strictly that which comes from the sun. When shooting natural light indoors, that means it is being diffused at least through glass and often through some form of drapery as well. The light is about as soft as we can possibly make it, which in turn makes for very soft edges and easy motion blurs.

We’ve also made the decision to not include any black and white images this week. Helmut would not be happy about that; he quite disliked color transparency film and the difficulties that came with processing. We’re not working with film, though, and have an infinitely greater number of processing choices than did Mr. Newton. To that end, we did re-process all of this week’s images using the identical processing on each one to provide some visual continuity and minimize some of the less appealing factors of digital processing.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Natural light, indoors, in color, has some very natural challenges. The first is noise, or grain if one is still shooting film. While newer cameras minimize the amount of noise in low light, that’s not the instrument with which I’m working and to some degree I like that. There has always been noise/grain in low light images and to some degree I find it disingenuous to expect natural light imagery without it. This race for the “perfect” image is unnecessary and removes from the natural creativity of the medium. There’s something to be said for working with the light to minimize the noise effect using things such as pose and position rather than technology.

Motion blur is also a frequent issue with natural light, because of our need to use slower shutter speeds. I have mixed feelings about blur. There are times when I feel it adds a sense of motion to an image, especially when the image is of a more editorial nature. At the same time, it is admittedly frustrating as hell when every aspect of a portrait is perfect except for the movement of a couple of fingers or the jingle of dangling earrings. You’ll see a couple of images this week where I think the motion works, but know that sometimes, especially when the subject is not a model, the blur isn’t always attractive.

Natural light photographs are, in my opinion, their own form of beauty. They are, especially in this digital age, a very separate and distinct genre. Low processing, no air brushing, and an emphasis on the relationship between the subject and the light are factors distinctive to this week’s photos. Taking pictures in natural light is one of the most basic forms of photography, and it can almost be the most enjoyable. I hope this week’s pictures make you as happy as they do me.[/one_half_last]

Photography / pop culture / PotD

5 Reasons You Can’t Take A Good Picture

May 24, 2015

Untitled (2009)

“Which of my photographs is my favorite? The one I’m going to take tomorrow.” -Imogene Cunningham

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]Anyone who has a social media account of most any kind understands the clickbait list trap. They pull you in with an enticing title such as “Warner Bros. Cartoon Characters: Where Are They Now,” and you click the link thinking that this might actually be interesting information, especially since Speedy Gonzalez just disappeared suddenly without a trace. Oh, but when you get there, you have to click and click and click and click! The average ten-entry list requires you to click at least 30 times to see all the information, and even then it’s usually not as awesome as you’d like. Then, there are auto-play videos and other articles and ads all over the place. Mis-click just once and you’re down a rabbit hole from which there is no return.

So, this week we’re turning the tables a bit with a set of lists that sound as though they might be something that would appear on a clickbait site, but we promise you won’t have to keep clicking in order to see all the information. In fact, depending on how you view our page, we’ll even try to keep scrolling to a minimum. Some of our list, such as this one, are silly. Others, such as tomorrow’s, are quite serious. Either way, we hope you are informed and/or entertained without all the hassle of clickbait.

Now, for today’s topic: there are a lot of people running around out there trying to take pictures. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people running around taking lousy pictures. We have five reasons why that might be happening.

You can’t take your camera off auto

Your camera arrives from the factory with an auto setting. This is a lot like the little Instamatic film cameras of the 1960s and 70s. It’s acceptable for snapshots under well-lit conditions, but vary away from those conditions and the quality of the pictures degrades quickly. The solution: take the damn camera off auto and set the ISO, aperture, and lens speed manually! What, you’re camera doesn’t have a manual mode? That’s the manufacturer’s way of calling you stupid. They don’t think you’re smart enough to figure out how to work your own camera. You should suit them for defamation of character.

Your camera is really a phone

I already know I’m going to catch some shit for this one because there are a bunch of people running around who think that taking pictures with a cell phone and then manipulating them in Photoshop or some other program is a form of art. Bullshit. You’re still just taking a snapshot with your damn phone and I don’t care how many filters you apply it’s not going to make up for the fact it’s still a shitty picture. I mean, you can’t even hold it still enough to take a selfie without 37 tries! Come on! That’s not a camera! It’s more like a digital crayon. Get a real camera already!

[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]

You don’t have a clue what aperture or ISO do

This is the reason your camera’s manufacturer didn’t give you a manual mode. They make image capturing devices for people like you who look at the ISO setting on a camera and think it’s pronounced EE-soh. No, it’s not. I. S. O. Think International Standards Organization. It’s a globally agreed-upon standard for how digital media responds to light. Aperture is how large the hole is in the lens that lets in light. Those are pretty fundamental settings for any camera and are critical to taking a good picture. If you don’t know those then there are probably a host of other things you probably don’t know. Consider taking a class or better yet find a professional willing to mentor you.

You think a frame is what goes on the wall

Ever notice how you keep cutting off people’s heads in your photos? Or that people look much smaller and further away in the picture than they did in person? There’s a reason for that: bad framing. Or maybe not framing at all. Framing is the ability to accurately get the things in the picture that you want in the picture at the size and in the position you want them. Framing takes practice, to be sure, but more than anything it requires actually looking through the viewfinder, not that preview screen on the back. The preview screen is an estimate and does not give you the framing accuracy that comes from looking through the viewfinder. Beyond that, practice, practice, practice!

You’re blind

Sight is fundamental, people. If you want to take good pictures, it really helps that you’re able to actually see what it is you’re photographing, unless you’re just really into for the abstract value, which you’re still not going to appreciate if you can’t see the finished photo, either. Vision is perhaps the most critical element of taking a picture!

I realize that seeing may seem inherent, but I can’t begin to tell you the number of people I’ve seen hold a camera up to their face and then close their eyes before snapping the shutter! Over and over, no matter how much I might try to help, they would close their eyes every damn time! I’m sorry, but if you’re not going to look at your subject then you shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed if the photo comes out looking differently than anticipated.

Of course, if you’re blind, you wouldn’t know either way, would you? So maybe it’s not such a big deal after all.

[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

Not Quite Naked: Tacit

May 18, 2015

Beautiful nudes made it possible for us to contemplate our sexuality in safety. -Martha Mayer Erlebacher

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]”Don’t tag me in these, my family wouldn’t understand.”

I’ve gotten that request often from models since social media became prominent, and not always in regard to nudity. There have been times when the request came simply because the person feared her family’s response to her modeling. Other times because the clothing was so very different from what they normally wore. And at least one time because the model feared her family would think she wasn’t taking her college courses seriously. Social media’s ability to expose our “secrets” to the rest of the world has had a dramatic effect in how people behave, or at least choose to present themselves, when they’re online.

Not that such concerns are entirely new, mind you. Horst P. Horst related the story of one instance where a husband became very upset that Horst had taken pictures of his wife and threatened to kill both the photographer and the wife. This was back before professional models existed, forcing photographers to pull from their social contacts for subjects. Horst had photographed the young woman unaware that her husband had any concerns. Once the photo showed up in Vogue magazine, however, the husband was outraged and accused his spouse of having an affair with the photographer. What made that accusation all the more outlandish was the fact that Horst was unapologetically gay and everyone knew it. Eventually, cooler heads prevailed and no one was harmed.

Still, public reaction to anything remotely resembling nudity is surprisingly severe given how we’re supposed to be so incredibly “enlightened” now. Just this past week, I observed a comment under the photo of a young woman in a relatively modest bikini chastising the girl for “lowering” herself by posing in such a way. The model was, understandably, offended and quickly corrected the commenter. Other friends have had pictures of them nursing their newborn reported to the morality police. Instagram even removed fashion week runway photos if there was a hint of nipple exposed. Social media has become the arbiter of a false morality that works against the very idea of an open and well-educated society. We find it much easier to respond from ignorance than to seek understanding.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]I am convinced that the major reason for such excessive reaction to tacit nudity is that images remotely focusing on the human body stir questions of one’s own sexuality within those who have never fully dealt with the subject. For those raised in sexually oppressive environments, the mere thought of anything sexual scares the living shit right out of them because they don’t have the emotional or intellectual tools necessary to even begin dealing with the subject. People sexually oppressed, whether due to social constraints, religion, or any other number of factors, fail to understand sexuality as anything more than a means of procreation. Therefore, anything that creates any kind of emotion outside that very narrow realm must, in their minds, be wrong.

We are afraid of ourselves. We’re not really afraid of gays as much as we are afraid we might be gay. We’re not really afraid of those who are sexually open as much as we are afraid of our own rampant promiscuity being let loose. We’re not nearly as offended by public displays of affection as much as we struggle to control our own desires to do the kissing. How many dozens of times over the past ten years have we seen instances where legislators who have been most boisterous in their railing against gays and lesbians are later caught in a same-gender relationship? How many hundreds of times have those who preach against promiscuity been caught having affairs? We understand so little about our sexuality that it frightens us to violence against it.

America needs to get itself to a therapist. What we fear in ourselves ultimately does harm to others. In fighting against what we refuse to honestly confront we oppress others who have a need and a desire to learn. When we prevent people from understanding more about themselves we limit their potential in all areas of their lives. While one might make the argument that they have the right to screw up their own lives, one absolutely does not, under any circumstances, have the right to screw up the lives of others.

Get a grip, America. Face your fears. The world is tacitly naked and that’s a good thing.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD / Social Commentary

Not Quite Naked: Implied

May 17, 2015

INTENSITY (2012)

“When I met her you could tell she was on the verge. She was a girl becoming a woman. We took those pictures and I thought she looked so beautiful and having a little bit of an edge to her. She loved doing the pictures, and she was made to feel bad for doing them.” Photographer Annie Leibovitz in LA Times interview with Steve Appleford, April 19, 2014. Annie Leibovitz talks Taschen book, Miley Cyrus, John & Yoko

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 4px”]In the world of television there is this annual ritual called The Upfronts. This is where networks show samples, sometimes whole episodes, of what they plan on broadcasting in the fall in hopes that advertising executives will encourage their clients to purchase ad time during these programs. Upfronts are a huge party with a huge payoff and networks typically spare no expense trotting out their biggest stars in order to impress the host of advertising and media bigwigs assembled.

So, it was with interest I watch as Adult Swim announced Miley Cyrus was going to be performing this past week at their Upfronts. There was no way this wasn’t going to be interesting and sure enough, Miley didn’t disappoint. In case you’ve not already seen the pictures, she came on stage wearing a giant set of butterfly wings and not much else. Her breasts were fully exposed, her nipples covered with butterfly pasties. She wore a pair of white tights as well, but under the stage lights seeing through those wasn’t terribly difficult. For all practical purposes, she may as well have been naked. What was obvious was the fact that Miley was having fun and the rather uptight advertising suits were more than a little uncomfortable, especially when she told them where to lick her.

All this brought me back to 2008 when Vanity Fair photographer Annie Leibovitz shot a 15-year-old Miley with only her back exposed. You would have thought she had shot Hanna Montana live on the evening news for all the furor it created. Annie was demonized by practically every outlet on the planet for daring to “sexualize” a young woman in such a way. Miley was forced to apologize (and then later recanted). Vanity Fair threatened to not pay for the pictures. Everyone wondered if Annie’s famed career was over and what would happen to Miley as a result of this “horrible abuse.”

Well, now we know, don’t we?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 8px”]Americans don’t know how to handle the nude form. Little difference is made for efforts made toward being socially appropriate or artistically posed; Americans see bare skin and automatically achieve a state of hyper-hysteria that causes them to have difficulty breathing, blurred vision, and an unrealistic fear of judgement from the late Jerry Falwell. Just the notion that a person may not have been wearing clothes when a photograph was taken causes those who feel they must protect the innocence of the world to become absolutely apoplectic. There’s no attempt to understand, no regard for artistry, they’re just angry.

At least, until they think no one is looking. I watch with routine amusement as my website stats fluctuate from day to day. On days when the #POTD is a landscape, hardly anyone pays attention; numbers are in the cellar. Days when the #POTD is an attractive young person see a more respectable hit count based largely on how popular that particular model might be. Let me post a picture that hints at nudity though, even if it’s implied, and watch the traffic soar! This isn’t unique to my site but is an exact reflection of traffic patterns across the Internet. If you want attention, post a picture of someone naked.

Social media hypocritically decries nudity while at the same time enjoying the fact that even there a little skin increases their traffic. They’ve each re-written their rules over time to allow for as much skin as possible without actually giving into allowing “real” nudity. So, it is in deference to Facebook and other such sites that we’re focusing this week on photos that are not quite naked. You won’t see any nipples. For that matter, you won’t always even catch side boob. Our goal is to give one reason to think about the artistry of the human body and just how messed up society’s reaction is. We hope you’ll join us. We hope you’ll think.[/one_half_last]

Behind The Scenes / Photography / PotD

Hold Your Horses

April 20, 2015

Behind The Scenes: Sunday Morning Ride (2011). Model: Cynthia Schmidt. Horse wrangler: Jewel Emery. Horse: Duke.

Working with horses is a good reminder of why planning photoshoots well in advance is important and why no detail is too small to let go unattended. With sufficient time and care, though, they can take incredible photographs. The same can be said of people on occasion.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]I like horses. I still remember my first pony ride as a tot. I still remember struggling to try and carry the saddle by myself. I still remember the thrill of jumping gates. Growing up in rural areas, horses were frequently part of our lives and the love and respect I have for them continues. Horses are bright, intelligent, and noble regardless of age or pedigree. Occasionally ornery, they are often great hams in front of a camera and even show jealousy if one gets more lens time than another. They also tend to be great judges of human character and won’t tolerate someone they don’t like.

Having a horse in a photograph almost always makes for a great image, but those pictures don’t just happen by showing up at a ranch one morning and asking to borrow a horse. Most city-raised people don’t know how to ride, or even how to behave around a horse, which can be a bit dangerous. So, when planning to work with horses we have to take plenty of time, choose our models carefully, and take extra precautions such as giving the horse and the model a little time to get to know each other before taking the pictures that count.

Today’s picture is one such bonding moment between Duke and Cynthia. Duke’s owner can just barely be seen on his right side, adjusting the stirrup for Cynthia’s long legs. It was fairly early on a Sunday morning, Cynthia hadn’t ridden in a while, and I’m not sure Duke was all that crazy about having someone on his back at this particular hour. Everything went quite well except for this one tentative moment when Duke moved a little unexpectedly, catching Cynthia by surprise. Very shortly thereafter, they were riding around, getting to know each other, and having a good time.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]We arrived even earlier the next week and fog hugged the pasture as Cynthia mounted Duke and took off. He pranced and trotted beautifully, responding well to her instructions. One of my favorite shots from the day is where Duke appears to be sticking his tongue out at me as he trots my direction. After playing in the field for a while, Cynthia changed clothes and Duke proceeded to stand beautifully still as she laid across his bare back for a number of images. Something tells me that Duke thought he was the focus on the pictures and the girl was just decoration.

I should probably take a moment to insert a cautionary note here. Not every horse is as cooperative as Duke. In fact, when it comes to editorial style photographs, one is almost always better off with an older horse who is accustomed to being ridden by a number of people. Younger, more high-spirited horses are likely to be a bit temperamental about who is on their back; they need strong, experienced riders who know how to take charge and aren’t intimidated by a horse’s dominant personality. Listen carefully to the advice of a horse’s owner and/or wrangler. I’ve never had anyone hurt while taking pictures around horses, but the danger is definitely there.

Pictures circulating in Las Vegas this week show an intimidating Cynthia in her football uniform, promoting that city’s LFL team; she looks as tough and dominating as she is beautiful. So, this seemed like the perfect time to pull out a picture of the one moment, that split second, where she might have been a wee bit anxious. Obviously, her confidence was back by the time we took the pictures below, but we’ll always remember that one moment and the horse that made it possible.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Concrete, Glass, and Steel

April 17, 2015

Capturing the Night (2008). Model: Sarah

Nature gives us earth, wind, and fire. The urban outdoors responds with concrete, glass, and steel, its own basic elements of which every city is composed. Yet, when photographing a city we must first make the choice of whether our subject is the people or the architecture.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]I went with another long-exposure night shot for today’s image because it emphasizes, perhaps more than any other image I immediately have available, the choices we must make when shooting in the inner city. Urban architecture and design can make for wonderful photographs. Yet, the heart and soul of any city is its people. Trying to fit both into the same photograph is almost always disappointing, or at best, cliché. Sarah is standing in front of a work of beautiful design, but the landmark wasn’t our subject, she was. To say this is a picture of the landmark would be totally inappropriate.

I am reminded of the time a friend returned from a trip to Paris and arrived back home with boxes of slides under his arm. I realize younger readers may not have ever experienced the mixture of joy and boredom that comes with watching someone else’s vacation pictures projected onto a white sheet in the living room, but this particular experience was especially disappointing at first. I was expecting grand, sweeping images of Parisian landmarks, and upon seeing sleeves marked “Arch de Triomphe” and “Notre Dame” was prepared to be thrilled. Yet, not one such shot existed. No flying buttresses. No stained glass. No arch.

“So, where are the landmarks,” I asked. “I only saw a hint of the Seine and nothing at all of the cathedrals.” I’m sure my disappointment was evident in the tone of my voice.

“I didn’t go to take pictures of tourist attractions,” he responded. “I wanted pictures of Paris, so I took pictures of people who were to be standing around tourist attractions.”

Looking back through the slides, there they were: the painter along the Seine; the street vendor in front of the arch; the woman asking for alms in the shadow of the great cathedral. He had captured the very essence of Paris without a single landscape shot, no hint of Eiffel’s tower, or even the Louvre’s pyramid.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]Cities are easily recognized by its architectural landmarks, to the point that even the silhouette of some skylines, such as those of New York, London, Dubai, and Seattle, are enough to identify the location. Architecture and design that varies from one city to the next help give one a sense of place, uniqueness for a given geography. Architecture is to the urban landscape what mountains, rivers, and trees are to nature’s domain. They make for wonderful images, but require one to step back, to look at the city from a distance. One does not capture the glory of Notre Dame standing on its front steps. To capture this view of the city requires distance to achieve the best perspective.

Yet, if one really wants to capture what makes a city tick, one needs to photograph its people, the ones who live and work in and around those gigantic landmarks; the ones who put life and breath into the concrete, glass, and steel. These pictures require getting close, choosing a more intimate perspective, and perhaps exposing the city in a way that isn’t necessarily glamorous, or what might appear on a tourism brochure. Find the people who haven’t given in to the fashion hegemony of the malls and capture them in their natural element.

Each summer I have to stop myself from interfering with tourist trying to fit a large landmark into the same frame as Aunt Sue. Inevitably, one must choose: is it a picture of the architecture, or Aunt Sue’s quirky grin? Neither is wrong, both capture a piece of the city, but they are different pieces. Know which is your focus before you start.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Experience The Night

April 15, 2015

In The Garden (2010). Model: Samantha. Body art: Jennifer Baxter

Cities become very different places at night, some good, some bad. A quiet shopping area suddenly becomes alive with club activity. A busy business district takes on a ghostly creepiness. Shooting in the urban outdoors can be dangerous but rewarding.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]We knew we were taking some risks the night we shot today’s photo. The location was a very popular club area, which meant it would be heavily populated with a lot of lights and activity in the background. All that traffic would give us a certain amount of anonymity for a little while, but not long. Once bystanders, most of whom had already consumed a fair share of alcohol, figured out we essentially had a topless girl standing on the sidewalk, we wouldn’t have long before the scene might potentially grow out of control.

Working in the urban outdoors at night is an experience unlike any other. One never is quite sure whether they are alone, who might be watching or what might be hiding in the shadows. At the same time, the colors and lighting of the urban landscape at night are wholly unique, dramatically different from the long exposure shots taken in more rural areas. Here, there is a beauty and an intrigue that is very different from other forms of photography, but there is also an element of danger.

Over the years, we’ve often taken to the streets at night with tripod in hand, ready to see what the camera might capture that the naked eye didn’t see. Some nights we might only get interesting light flares. Other nights we’ve had rocks thrown at us from unseen sources, frightened those in the act of committing a crime, stumbled across hidden lovers, and possibly crossed paths with a ghost or two if one believes in such things. We’ve attracted the attention of police, but, fortunately, have never needed their services. Armed escorts are a necessary precaution, but we’ve never needed them to draw their weapon.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]This particular night we relied on sheer numbers and our ability to dissolve into a darkened neighborhood as our security method. While the model and I quickly snapped the handful of frames necessary to ensure we’d gotten a good shot, three others, including the body artist, stood nearby looking casual but on alert. By the time someone shouted across the street, “Hey, is that girl naked?” we were done and slipped quietly away from any potential danger.

For shots such as this one, planning and knowledge of the area are critical. We knew we wouldn’t have much time, so we carefully chose our location and discussed posing before we arrived. I also made a solo trip to the area on a previous night so that I wouldn’t need to waste time getting light meter readings. I was very familiar with the street and had a sense of what to expect. None of that quelled my excitement or anxiety as we walked through the shadows of an adjoining neighborhood on our way to the location. We dropped ten frames and were done.

Long exposure night photography is interesting and fun no matter where it is done, but shooting at night in the urban outdoors can be an experience in excitement unlike any other and results in some of the most unique images one is likely to take. While the inherent dangers are not something to be dismissed, a little planning and caution delivers results one can’t achieve anywhere else. Go ahead, experience the night; a whole different world of imagery awaits.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Urban Seasons

April 14, 2015

On the Fountain (2010) Model: Danelle French

As with nature, urban landscapes go through seasons of their own, just not as quickly or on as precise a schedule. Changes to the urban environment, both subtle and dramatic, keep us going back to the same locations time and time again, always with different results.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]Today’s photo is almost five years old, which is difficult to believe in some regards. I still remember with rather surprising clarity the morning of this shoot, Danelle trying to balance on the rocks, the looks of curious drivers on their morning commute wondering what we might be doing. If I were to take her back to Fountain Square this morning, though, the picture would be dramatically different. The entire landscape behind her has changed rather dramatically. This particular area of town has changed seasons, going from a sleepy Spring of quiet, modest change, to a Summer of tremendous growth with some rather dramatic additions to the landscape.

Any time we shoot outdoors, nature’s seasons factor into what we’re doing; the four seasons offer distinctly different looks, but sometimes those changes are not as obvious in an urban environment. If there are no trees on a street, we don’t see whether leaves have fallen or are beginning to bud. Snow is a rather obvious clue, but a sunny day with no people on the street to give us a hint might just as easily be July as December. Seasons take on a different feel when one is in the city.

Cities also go through seasons of their own, from growth to stability to decay and rebirth. Typically, we see those changes at the neighborhood level though occasionally, such as with Detroit, whole city transformations can be obvious. No city wants to be labeled as boring and just the natural wear and tear of use, not to mention the coming and going of business as economies fluctuate, factor into visible changes in the urban environment. While those changes rarely happen within a three-month cycle, thank goodness, they do happen with enough frequency to give photographers different and often unique settings that can be fun to capture.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]Granted, capturing urban changes requires paying a little more attention than is necessary with nature, which operates on a slightly more predictable basis. If one is not “plugged in” to a community, particularly at the neighborhood level, one can be caught by surprise. In unique little places such as Fountain Square, the coming and going of mom-and-pop, single proprietor shops has a dramatic impact on the visual impact of an area. Full window displays communicate a totally different season than does empty space or, worse yet, boarded windows. The addition of a coffee shop where a bicycle repair business once stood also gives a street a very different feel. Even things such as repairs to the sidewalk make a significant difference from a visual perspective.

Unfortunately, not every seasonal change to an area is planned or positive. When fire takes out a dominant building the entire neighborhood feels the pain and the results are surprisingly visual. Should crime overtake an area, or should a geographically specific economic program end, a once-thriving community may see itself thrust into an unwanted period of winter. New construction might be seen as the “spring planting” season in the urban environment, but street-level disruption might cause traffic congestion and noise that present a challenge.

This week marks ten years since I first moved to and began exploring Indianapolis. Visual changes in the city are dramatic to the point that pictures I took then are practically obsolete, taking on a strange “vintage” feel to them. Every year I look around and find reasons to re-visit places that I’ve photographed before, knowing that I’ll get very different results. Urban seasons are one of the things that make photographing the inner-city outdoors fun and exciting. Look around you and be amazed at the changes. [/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Walking The Dog

April 12, 2015

Walking the Dog (2010) Model: Cynthia Schmidt

While being outdoors in nature is a wonderful experience and great place to photograph, the urban outdoors is a far more common and often more complex experience. This week we explore photos that enjoy being outside but in town.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]It was early on a Sunday morning when we shot today’s picture. Cynthia had contacted me because she had rescued a pup that had been in absolutely horrible condition and now that he was all clean and healthy she wanted pictures with him. Animal pictures aren’t exactly high on my list of things to shoot, though. As cute as they are, they tend to not follow directions too terribly well and shots of them just sitting are rather boring after the second snap.

Looking to put some excitement into the picture, I asked her to take the pictures in her underwear. Granted, that’s not a request I would make of too many people. Only someone with a lot of self-confidence, poise, and the ability to drop anyone who might make an inappropriate move could pull off this look without a large security staff standing by. The fact that Cynthia looked great walking down that street with the tiny little dog was almost secondary.

Timing and location were critical in making this shot happen. While we weren’t even remotely at risk of an indecent exposure charge, there was a real chance we could be cited with disturbing the peace if we chose the wrong neighborhood. After all, it’s not every day that one sees an attractive young blonde walking down the street in her underwear, especially in the Midwest. Her ability to be a distraction meant choosing a street and a time where traffic would be minimal. I had been watching this particular location for a while and knew it was our best chance at not being disruptive.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]Of course, we still attracted a small amount of attention. There is a coffee shop just behind where I was shooting and being early on a Sunday there were, naturally, a handful of caffeine addicts who desperately needed their morning fix. No one complained, though, and when we stopped by the coffee shop later they were quite complimentary. One barista even asked if we might repeat the shoot on a regular basis, thinking it would help them attract early morning traffic.

Such are the type of things one encounters when shooting outdoors in an urban environment. Like shooting out in nature, there are all the benefits and challenges of light and shadow, but here one also has the addition of architecture, which can be incredibly beautiful to the point of being overwhelming, and traffic, which can be incredibly frustrating to the point of making a shot impossible. There are dangers, to be sure, but there are also some very strong benefits that make the urban outdoors an attraction all its own.

Americans are lucky to live in one of the least densely populated countries in the world. Even our largest cities are dotted with green space and urban planners everywhere are aware of the importance of building aesthetic value into a city’s appearance. Even in New York City, where people are seemingly stacked on top of each other there are places and times one can shoot in peace. We are quite fortunate to have the urban scenery we do and there’s no excuse not to capture it in photographs. Here’s to another week outdoors![/one_half_last]

Nature / Photography / PotD

Not All Outdoors Is Equal

April 10, 2015

On The Rocks (2012)

Finding that perfect place to shoot outdoors can be difficult and when we do find a place that works we tend to want to keep it to ourselves. Great outdoor locations are almost as valuable, and rare, as gold. Non-photographers think we’re crazy, but experienced photographers know that not all of nature is created equal.

[one_half padding=”4px 8px 0 2px”]Mud. Muck. Gnats. Hills. Rocks. Rough terrain. If one is going to shoot with me outdoors, those are some of the conditions that one is likely to encounter. I’m not one of those people who just hop out of the car and say, “Hey, this would make a good place to shoot!” Instead, I study a location for a while, watch it in different conditions, walk it multiple times if I can, and consider exactly what I can and cannot do there photographically.

Even with all the planning I’m sometimes surprised. More water. Less water. A visiting herd of cows. For all the challenges to shooting outdoors, finding the best location may be the most challenging. Certainly, it requires the most energy.

I couldn’t get to the location where today’s photo was taken if I wanted. With all the rain we’ve had this week I rather doubt there’s a natural tributary in the state that isn’t at or overflowing its capacity. That’s the one draw-back to an otherwise almost idyllic shooting location; one I’ve used several times over the years and almost always with impressive results. Even though the location is public property, it is secluded enough I tend to consider it mine and would probably be a bit jealous if I saw pictures from another photographer taken there.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to shooting outdoors is finding just the right location that works for the time at which you want to shoot. To the uninitiated, it seems that any bright, sunny location ought to work for taking pictures. After all, if we have plenty of light and maybe some flowers and trees in the background, what more do we need? Experienced photographers understand, though, that finding just the right location, one that can be used repeatedly while still generating unique looks, is almost as difficult as mining for gold in the Midwest. There aren’t as many locations running around as one might expect.

Finding a good location is not unlike going on a treasure hunt. One can drive, and hike, for hours, through all manner of conditions, before finding that perfect spot. We don’t want it to be recognizable, because then everyone else will want to use it. We want our pictures to be unique and that means having locations different from where everyone else shoots.

Understand, there are thousands of locations where one can take a good photograph. The challenge is that for most of those locations one good, usable image is all one is going to get. No one needs a portfolio where all the photos look the same. Things such as notable landmarks, unique trees, and recognizable gardens are fantastic for that one shot, but don’t provide the long-term use for which we ultimately look.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 2px 0 8px”]Everyone has their own opinions, of course, but here is what I look for in a good outdoor location:

Flexibility. Can I get more than one look out of a location? If I shoot from different directions and different times of day does it look like a different place? Does it work both morning and evening? How does it look during different seasons? The more I can get out of a location the more valuable it is.
Lighting. Sure, most any outdoor location gets light, but is it the right kind at the right time? Are there barriers between me and the sun? If so, do they make good filters? Is direct light the only option or is reflective light available as well?
Background pollution. Look toward the horizon and what do you see? If it is anything other than trees, clouds, and maybe a mountain, we have a problem. Power lines are the most frequent offenders, but randomly visible rooftops, or hints of urbanization in an otherwise forested setting reduce the visual impact.
Access. Is the location public property that can be accessed legally at any time or is it private property for which one has to obtain permission? Used to I would fudge this one, but as private property laws have changed in many states I no longer consider it worth the risk. I prefer public property whenever possible and will ask before shooting on private property.
Traffic. If I can get to a place, other people can as well. How well trafficked is the location? Do we need to watch for people in the background? Might people stand around gawking? I don’t exactly enjoy an audience.
Remoteness. How difficult is it to get to the location? The image above required a little over a mile’s hike, which is fine for a location where I don’t need additional equipment. Being remote means better privacy, but also means more difficulty getting help if something goes wrong.
Peacefulness. Very much a personal preference, is this a location I would enjoy even if not taking pictures? Would I just sit and read a book here? Is the place one I can enjoy just being? Such qualities inevitably transfer to the photos.

Every picture tells a story and we want every story to be different but having to find a new location for every outdoor concept is time-consuming and often frustrating. Finding one that offers multiple options all year long is like finding treasure.

And no, I’m not telling where mine are.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD / Social Commentary

Beware The Ides

March 15, 2015

DISCONTENT (2011). Model: Rachel

The same author who warned his Julius Ceaser to, “beware the ides of March,” (Julius Ceaser Act I scene ii) also has Polonius instructing Laertes, “This above all: to thine own self be true,” (Hamlet, act I, scene iii). Both are instructions that photographers and other creatives would do well to heed.

[one_half padding=”2px 6px 0 2px”]I have had work published in a lot of magazines around the world. There was once a time when we were averaging more than 20 new publications a month. Then, things changed. A lot of things changed, actually. The “digital revolution,” the “dot-com bust,” and the “let’s lay everyone off and hire contractors” movement. Business wasn’t handled the way it had been in the past. There were more photographers in the market than ever and occasionally one would even find one who knew what they were doing. Demand for creative talent diminished as stock companies flourished.

Then came digital printing and online magazines. Suddenly, there were new magazines popping up everywhere looking for, begging for, content with which to fill their pages. I would pass by more upscale newsstands and not recognize two-thirds of the banners facing me. I would pass by a month later and find a whole new crop in their place. Longevity didn’t seem to be in the cards for most new titles.

Being a freelance creative means going out and finding the work; it’s never going to just show up at your front door unprovoked, though that’s what many of us dream. We network in circles with which we’re less than comfortable. We push ourselves well out of our comfort zones. We play nice with people we really don’t like all that much. We do whatever it takes to get that plum assignment.

Then, we’re asked to work for free. Or at least, if not for free, for roughly a third of what our services is actually worth. We sit at our desks or on our couches and begin to wonder: is it all worth it? Why do I keep chasing something that seems to want no part of me?

Hello, self-doubt. I’ve been down this road enough times now I know it’s coming, typically mid-March just as things are starting to thaw. We have fashion weeks out of the way, we’re scheduling editorial shoots as heavily as we dare, and all the while we’re thinking, “Is it worth all the trouble?”

Shakespeare’s Caesar is warned against the betrayal of his best friend, Brutus. Perhaps the soothsayer would similarly warn creatives against the betrayal of ourselves. Once we begin to question whether we’re good enough, once we start wondering why someone else got a job we wanted, once we start thinking that perhaps we made a wrong turn in our career, we’re slowly but surely killing ourselves. We might as well be plunging a dagger into the heart of our creativity.

Not that some self-reflection isn’t occasionally necessary, and no, freelance creative work isn’t appropriate for everyone. Yet, when we begin doubting ourselves we betray the talent within us that leads us to be creative. Coming up with new ideas, exploring new concepts, stretching the bounds of our media, requires us to have faith in ourselves, faith in our talent, and the resolve to see a project through to its end, even if that end isn’t exactly what we had hoped when we started.

“This above all: to thine own self be true.”

[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”2px 2px 0 6px”]The commercialism of creative fields has created a sense of competition that, too often, is unhealthy. We begin worrying more about whether an image is commercially competitive rather than whether we captured the image we intended to take. When we look at magazines and see styles dramatically different from our own, there’s a temptation to change, mimic what we see is being published, rather than continuing to pursue and refine our own style. In short: we stop being true to our creative selves.

I was perusing through a stack of magazines recently, one of those stacks where, once again, I recognized none of the titles. In considering the imagery being used, I found myself asking, “Is this what I have to do to be commercially viable anymore?” Where does one find the balance between what seems to be popular demand while staying true to one’s own creativity?

Again, we’ve been here before so I have some idea how to snap myself out of this deadly loop of self-denial and betrayal. It goes something like this:

Stop trying to be all things to all people. One of the biggest fallacies of being creative is that we have to be able to do it all. No, we don’t. In fact, chances are pretty f’n high that you can’t. Stop wasting time and energy trying.
Find your niche and work it. If you don’t like doing color photography, then stop chasing that medium. Find the black and white markets that are best suited to you.
Present your best work. Web sites and social media make it really easy for us to just toss up everything we produce, whether it’s really our best work or not. Smothering people with our work doesn’t make them like it any better. In fact, it has the opposite effect.
Choose the right place and the right time to show your work. Not all creative work is conducive to online presentation, so why force it? Facebook and Twitter never have been especially kind to graphic mediums, so why treat that as your own website? Control where your work is seen and make sure the right people are seeing it.
Don’t compromise your talent. You alone know whether you’re doing your best, producing your best work, and trying your hardest. Don’t let others set your standards. Be true to yourself, to your talent, and to your creativity.

I know there are some who argue against my approach, who say we have to “evolve” and “change with the times.” What works for someone else may not work for you, though. What works for me works for me and may not help someone else one bit. Some people do need to evolve and do so well. Others, though, need to hold tight to what they are already doing.

What’s important is that you are making those decisions for yourself. Stop chasing trends that are going to change next week. Stop trying to be like someone else. Stop mimicking someone else’s creativity.

Don’t be your own Brutus. To yourself, above all, be true.[/one_half_last]

Nature / Photography / PotD

Spring, No Filter

March 12, 2015

[one_half padding=”2px 4px 0 2px”]Photography continues to morph as a medium. Since its inception, definition of what is or is not a photograph, how pictures should be taken, and what qualifies as “good” has been a subject of constant debate. There are those who live and die by the rule of thirds. Others consider clarity the defining element. Some accept almost anything as long as it is creative.

One of the most significant changes in photography over the past five years has been the rise of image-based social media sites such as Instagram and Tumblr. They have changed the concept of what photography is, what it does and its place in society. Even the vocabulary has changed with terms such as “selfie” and “no filter” having entered the popular lexicon.

Our picture of the day qualifies as a “no filter” shot. Now, you’re going to look at the picture and think I’m lying. If ever an image had been run through a half-dozen Photoshop filters, this would be it, right?

No, not a single one. I didn’t even color correct. This is straight out of the camera, taken on a lovely spring day in 2011. So, how did we get this interestingly abstract look without post-processing manipulation? By knowing our camera and working a bit outside the bounds of “normal.”

I’m going to get a bit technical here, so those uninitiated might want to grab a dictionary.

Aperture and shutter speed made all the difference in the world with this shot. When working with nature, we often want the crispness that comes with a tight aperture, typically f10 or higher. For this image, we pushed all the way to f32, which was about as small as this particular lens would take us. At any lower setting, we would have lost all definition completely.

The challenge, of course, is that when one makes the hole allowing light into the camera so very small, an adjustment has to be made somewhere else to compensate, otherwise the image is too dark. Our choices are ISO, which affects the light sensitivity of the capturing media, or shutter speed, which determines the length of time the shutter is left open. In this case, we chose a significantly slower shutter speed of .3 seconds.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”2px 2px 0 4px”]In almost any other conversation, .3 seconds would be incredibly fast. Anything under a second is pretty quick, isn’t it? Not always. Depending on the lens and environmental factors, shutter speeds are normally faster than 1/100th of a second and if we’re attempting to capture a moving subject we’ll need to be significantly faster than that. If we’re at the Speedway, shutter speeds of 1/5000th are not uncommon. By comparison, .3 is crawling.

The final element is one that may seem counter-intuitive: motion. Typically, one would use a tripod with such a slow shutter speed and perhaps even take other precautions such as a timed or remote shutter release to prevent motion blur. Motion blur is what makes this image, though. By pre-determining the direction in which we would move the camera, its angle, and the distance of the motion, we were able to give the image the desired amount of abstraction while still leaving a subtle hint as to what the subject actually is.

No, we didn’t get it right the first time. Or the second. Or the third. This image is half-way through a set of 26 photographs. There are others that are equally interesting, but this is my favorite of the set.

As warmer temperatures finally begin to return to the Midwest this week, now is the time to reacquaint ourselves with the outdoors. We enjoy going for walks, hiking along trails, or perhaps even sitting under a tree and reading a good book. Now is also a good time to get reacquainted with one’s camera and some of its

Now is also a good time to get reacquainted with one’s camera and some of its unique capabilities. Go outdoors. Go off tripod. Experiment with settings that aren’t supposed to work and see what you can do to create truly original images.

While the social media definition of “no filter” means going without post processing manipulation, why not also use this opportunity to take any filters off your creativity? Let your mind wander. Turn your imagination loose with no limits as to what might be possible.

Spring is the perfect time to strip away the filters, both in terms of photography, as well as life. Get out there. Discard the restrictions. Play. Risk. Fail. Try again. You may find yourself taking some of the best photographs ever.[/one_half_last]

Photography

“If you follow the rules, it’s your own fault.” ― Marty Rubin

Share this:

Like this:

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

Share this:

Like this:

You don’t learn to walk by following rules. You learn by doing, and by falling over. -Richard Branson

Share this:

Like this:

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

Share this:

Like this:

I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do — that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse. – Diane Arbus, On Photography by Susan Sontag

Share this:

Like this:

Any photographer who says he’s not a voyeur is either stupid or a liar. -Helmut Newton

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

When I say I want to photograph someone, what it really means is that I’d like to know them. Anyone I know I photograph. – Annie Leibovitz

Share this:

Like this:

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

Share this:

Like this:

It’s that I don’t like white paper backgrounds. A woman does not live in front of white paper. She lives on the street, in a motor car, in a hotel room. -Helmut Newton

Share this:

Like this:

“Which of my photographs is my favorite? The one I’m going to take tomorrow.” -Imogene Cunningham

You can’t take your camera off auto

Your camera is really a phone

You don’t have a clue what aperture or ISO do

You think a frame is what goes on the wall

You’re blind

Share this:

Like this:

Beautiful nudes made it possible for us to contemplate our sexuality in safety. -Martha Mayer Erlebacher

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Working with horses is a good reminder of why planning photoshoots well in advance is important and why no detail is too small to let go unattended. With sufficient time and care, though, they can take incredible photographs. The same can be said of people on occasion.

Share this:

Like this:

Nature gives us earth, wind, and fire. The urban outdoors responds with concrete, glass, and steel, its own basic elements of which every city is composed. Yet, when photographing a city we must first make the choice of whether our subject is the people or the architecture.

Share this:

Like this:

Cities become very different places at night, some good, some bad. A quiet shopping area suddenly becomes alive with club activity. A busy business district takes on a ghostly creepiness. Shooting in the urban outdoors can be dangerous but rewarding.

Share this:

Like this:

As with nature, urban landscapes go through seasons of their own, just not as quickly or on as precise a schedule. Changes to the urban environment, both subtle and dramatic, keep us going back to the same locations time and time again, always with different results.

Share this:

Like this:

While being outdoors in nature is a wonderful experience and great place to photograph, the urban outdoors is a far more common and often more complex experience. This week we explore photos that enjoy being outside but in town.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Don't Miss A Thing!

Login

Follow Us