glamor

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Terrorism Gives Fashion A Shake
August 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - terrorism gives fashion a shake

Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities. —Pope Francis

 

charles i. letbetter - Terrorism give fashion a shake

Recent terrorism around the world has given the fashion industry reason to worry

Western media often turns a blind eye toward problems in the East, but as radical acts of terrorism continue to grow around the world the effect comes closer to impacting our own lives every day. For fashion, one of the most critical areas of the world is Bangladesh. Only China assembles more clothing than the many garment factories here. Over 4 million people are employed in the nation’s garment industry, making it a critical economic element. We’ve expressed concern about conditions in Bangladesh before, but now matters are more critical.

Last month, terrorists attacked a cafe in Dhaka. Twenty people were killed. Among those were two Italians with connections to the fashion industry. Seven Japanese were also killed in the attack, some of whom were there on fashion business. Almost immediately, buyers started canceling trips to the city. Retail brands began calling their staffs back home.  The ripple effect sent shivers throughout the Bangladesh garment industry.

Terrorism is not new here, nor in any of the Asian countries struggling to pull themselves from Third World status. Recent attacks, however, have given international companies reason to worry more about the safety of their employees. Employees are worrying more about the safety of simply trying to get to work of the morning. As fashion’s buyers become more reluctant to visit the impact to the fashion industry begins to grow.

Reason To Be Concerned

This time last year, terrorism was a topic whispered carefully in backrooms. While care was taken to keep presentation venues safe, no one was willing to admit that any direct efforts were made to prevent any kind of attack. Then, a Paris nightclub was hit. That act of terrorism shook one of fashion’s most important cities to its core. People wanted to know that attending fashion events would be safe. No one wants to be a victim.

Since then, another attack in Paris as well as attacks in Brussels, another city with strong fashion connections, has put the topics of terrorism and security at the front of fashion discussions. As we mentioned a couple of days ago, event organizers in all four major cities have dramatically increased their security plans for this fall’s shows. Every effort will be made to keep those security factors in the background, though. No one is planning on having armed troops standing at the doors.

For garment workers in Bangladesh, those armed troops might be a welcome sight. The rise of terrorism in that country has thrown everything into turmoil and created questions about the safety of both garment workers and retailer’s representatives in the country. Should workers begin to feel unsafe going to work, production could see a significant decrease. If buyers refuse to travel to the country, orders decline. Without retailer’s representatives keeping an eye on factories, working conditions are likely to deteriorate again. There is a lot that could be lost.

Everyone Is Affected

For those of us in the US especially, it is still very easy to dismiss terrorism when it occurs elsewhere in the world. Yes, we “Stand With Paris,” and sympathize with Brussels, but beyond the reach of social media, we don’t see those events touching  our daily lives. Our stores are still full, our prices are still low. We’re happy and completely oblivious to the dangers others face. That naivitè may be short-lived, however.

Start with the very fabrics necessary to create clothes. Much of the weaving and looming of natural fabrics is done in places where terrorism is nearly a daily occurrence, from Afghanistan to the Sudan to Third World parts of Asia. Here, terrorism threatens to disrupt the supply chain, keeping Western visitors out while preventing textile factories from being able to run at full production. As production falls, prices begin to increase.

Then, when assembly factories such as those in Bangladesh are affected, the very availability of clothes is threatened. Fast fashion retailers such as H&M are especially vulnerable to terrorism as disruptions both in ordering and supply chain threatens the regular arrival of new clothes on their store floors. Inevitable price increases threaten the already razor-thin margins that allow discount retailers to stay profitable. Another major disruption could cause holiday profits to disappear with price increases.

Responding Appropriately

Anytime terrorism raises its ugly head we face the question as to how to appropriately respond. Corporate statements carry little weight as they are carefully crafted so as to not offend anyone or commit to anything that might affect their bottom line.  Individuals assume that there’s nothing they can do beyond keeping victims “in their thoughts and prayers.” We leave it up to governments to handle the official response and assume they’ll do the right thing.

They don’t. Towns in France that ban Burkinis, Muslim swimwear that keeps a woman fully covered, are only adding to the problem, not solving it. Terrorism thrives on recruiting disaffected and marginalized people who feel betrayed by the society and government of which they long to be a part. Any time we respond in fear, any time we limit the rights of any marginalized group, we are feeding terrorism. The not-quite-under-your-breath remark made when passing someone wearing a turban helps feed terrorism. Getting Arab-looking people tossed off airplanes just because of their appearance is feeding terrorism. Supporting xenophobic politicians threatening to ban entry to the United States is feeding terrorism.

Higher prices and fewer choices are the price we will ultimately pay for terrorism against the fashion industry. With the luxury market already taking some severe hits the past two years, any additional decline could see retailers cutting back on inventory, orders dropping, labels making cuts, quality suffering, and prices jumping dramatically. What we say and how we treat people can have a much larger  effect than we realize.

Terrorism isn’t going to stop overnight. More attacks will happen. Much of what happens we cannot prevent no matter what we do. Power-mad ideological extremists don’t employ reason when determining their actions. We can keep those attacks from changing how we respond to people, though. We must care more about people now than we ever have. Fashion is good at caring. We just need to emphasize those actions a lot more.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Fashion Is Changing Its Look. Again.
August 16, 2016

Fashion doesn’t look good only on models; it can look good on different people of different ages and different body shapes. —Alber Elbaz

 

charles i. letbetter - fashion is changing its look - again

The next round of fashion weeks is just around the corner and the whole system is changing its look

We are now less than a month away from New York Fashion Week. One of the most frequent statements made back in February was, “we’ll have to wait until September.” Many of the changes that were announced early in the year com into fruition with next month’s set of shows. Not only have designers swapped seats, attitudes about the shows themselves have changed. Even more, the economy surrounding fashion has changed. What we experience through the fashion shows this season is likely to be a very different look than what we saw this time last year.

Change is a given in fashion. We wouldn’t need to do these dog-and-pony shows twice a year if fashion wasn’t always changing. We complain if we see two collections in a row that look too terribly similar. What’s important this season is the degree of change. Major wheels were set in motion back in the spring that change not only what we see now, but how we see it. The very structure of the presentations is changing and that may influence our perspective of the shows as well as our buying habits.

As I type this, schedules for New York are being finalized. There are some names we’ve come to expect that we won’t see on the roster this year. London, Milan, and Paris are getting ready as well and it’s just not the same as it was back in the Spring (if you can call February  Spring). The whole attitude is different. Let’s consider some of the changes.

Designers Swapping Seats

The number one topic at the beginning of each season is always which designers have switched to different labels. We didn’t see a tremendous amount of significant movement back in February, but we’ve certainly had some major changes since then and now all that jostling around has to prove its worth. These are going to drive changes in look for a number of labels.

  • Raf Simons has moved to Calvin Klein. You had to be hiding under a rock to miss this announcement. Everyone knew Raf was moving almost from the moment the first phone call was placed. The timing could have perhaps been a bit better. Simons works fast but it would be out of the ordinary even for him to create a full set on his own by  September 15, which is when CK is likely to show. Still, he’ll  be anxious to demonstrate the direction in which he wants to take the line. Anxiety and anticipation are very high here.
  • Peter Copping left Oscar de la Renta. What the fuck? This one almost knocked me out of my chair when the announcement was made last month. It’s been less than two years since Oscar de la Renta named Copping as his successor and then promptly died. The match looked perfect. The past two season’s shows have been well received. What the fuck happened? No one on either side is talking. Copping promptly moved back to the UK. De la Renta will run with a design team for the time being. We are very confused and very sad.
  • Bouchra Jarrar makes her debut at Lanvin. This looks to be one of the most highly anticipated shows of the season. Jarrar brings a different look, a more feminine look, back to Lanvin. That being said, shareholders are watching for a collection that resonates with buyers and increases sales. Will it work? We’ll see.
  • Anthony Vaccarello takes over at Yves Saint Laurent. The whole attitude has changed at YSL. Vaccarello comes from Versus Versace and almost certainly is going to bring some of Donatella’s influence with him. Expect a sexier, more defined, and perhaps even a little edgier look than YSL saw under Hedi Slimane.
  •  Maria Grazia Chiuri changes things up at Dior. Following Raf Simons isn’t going to be easy. Dior took its sweet time replacing the famed designer and makes a bold statement in appointing the label’s first female creative director. Chiuri makes the leap from Valentino where she was co-creative director. Pierpaolo Piccioli now has sole authority over there.

Spending this season on the sidelines, still, are Alber Elbaz and Hedi Slimane. One really has to wonder why they’ve not been snatched up.

A Little Less Fur

Fur has long been a mainstay of luxury fashion and Angora has been the go-to fur for quite a while given the endangered status of wild sources. Then, Peta, the animal rights group, took aim at the Angora industry in 2013, claiming harvesting methods were cruel. Now, it seems Peta has won. Orders for the fur dropped dramatically for this season after more than 100 major labels suspended use of fabric. Other types of fur have seen dramatic declines as well. I have to admit that I’m curious as to whether Dennis Basso is reducing his use of fur at all. Historically, he’s been unapologetic about using fur and animal skin in general.

What’s next? Wool. A recent op-ed takes aim at the ubiquitous fabric, claiming that large-scale harvesting methods are just as cruel as those used on angora rabbits.  Will this movement catch hold? The atmosphere certainly seems to be ripe for it, but the global use of wool peaks for the fall/winter season. We’re not likely to see any change until February.

What Season Is This?

We talked back in February about designers skipping the fall shows to go real-time this September.  Well, September  is here and we get to find out whether that strategy is going to work. Be sure, all eyes are watching Burberry, Tom Ford, and Rebecca Minkoff, among others, to see how they handle the straight-to-stores approach. Critical to this new look is whether consumers are confused by seeing both fall/winter looks and spring/summer looks in the same season. The seasonal look has been muted the past few years, with coats in spring and shorts in the fall almost being normal.

This change may work well, though, as designers look for alternative presentation methods. Criticism of the traditional runway approach grew rather heated back in February, but we’re not hearing much talk about the alternatives leading up to this season’s shows. Will Gloria Vanderbilt return to a runway approach or will she go with another fashion event that confuses the hell out of everyone? Talk back in the spring held that we would see more such presentations this fall, but as budgets have been trimmed to match declining profits much of that talk has disappeared.

A Little More Security

For people in Paris and London, the world feels less safe than it did back in February. Organizers in Milan and New York aren’t taking any risks, either. Whereas some designers had been flirting with the idea of open-to-the-public presentations, more care is being taken this fall to ensure the safety of everyone involved. Invitation requests are vetted with increased scrutiny and press credentials are more difficult to obtain. Guests lucky enough to attend an event will find security lines longer than ever. Restrictions on what guests can bring with them, including nail files and hair spray, are taken seriously.

Paris saw dramatically increased security last season but it didn’t seem to interfere with the overall spirit and celebration of the events. This season, though, there is a palpable difference in the tone. Multiple attacks across Europe have everyone looking over their shoulder. Supplier lists are under greater scrutiny. Location accessibility is a concern. In some cases, labels who might have traditionally sought a larger audience are scaling back a bit to reduce the risk.

Everyone wants fashion week to be fun and exciting, but the shadow of terrorism is impossible to escape.

Side Glance To Retail.

Macy’s is closing 100 stores. The announcement wasn’t a surprise. In fact, the retail conglomerate said earlier this year that store closings were coming. Yet, the impact was still like dropping a ton of bricks across the fashion industry. At the same time, China’s luxury market, which had been the one strong point in the industry, has begun a decline. No one is sure yet how much a hit global fashion brands might take but the Chinese government is making it clear they want those Yen to stay at home.

Meanwhile, both H&M and Lululemon are anticipating continued growth. Low-priced fast fashion is eating away at the luxury sector and forcing major labels to  make changes to their corporate look. As much movement as there has been among designers, there’s been even more seat swapping among fashion’s corporate CEOs. Even Burberry’s Christopher Bailey had to take a back seat in the boardroom over the summer.  No one wants to make a knee-jerk move that spooks the fragile market, but if sales don’t improve we may see even bigger shifts in the look of fashion by next February.

We Can’t Stop Watching

All that being said, interest in fashion is as high as ever. Fashion schools are experiencing prime enrollment numbers. Fashion magazines have retooled their look and enjoying higher numbers than this time last year. Instagram and Snapchat are full of fashionista-wannabes taking selfies of their latest look. Interest in fashion hasn’t waned one bit.

Everyone is being cautious, though. With so many changes hitting at the same time, this could be a very exciting season. We are hoping for a very exciting season. Strong interest in shows next month could do wonders for a slumping retail market. Don’t expect anything that looks like last year, though. This fashion look has changed dramatically. You may need to clean out your closet and start all over.

Prep your credit cards now. NYFW begins September 9.

Photo credits:

Model: Presley Stewart (LModelz)
Makeup: Danelle French
Hair: Jenise Norgaard
Styling: Nativa (Allyson Brooks and Lila Palomares)

Photography: charles i. letbetter

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Stop Doing What You Love
August 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - stop doing what you love

I’d rather be a failure at something I love than a success at something I hate. —George Burns

 

charles i. letbetter - stop doing what you love

Everyone keeps telling us to do what we love, but maybe that’s not the right tact to take

Imagine me not being a photographer. It could have happened. My degree is in music, after all. I loved it then and still do. Yet, the reality of the world was such that I was not afforded the opportunity to pursue that career. I love what I do, but only because I’ve developed that emotion over time. When I first started, I assumed it was just a temporary gig and couldn’t wait to move on. Had there been someone standing near my ear back then telling me to do what I loved, I would have set that camera down and never looked back.

I’m fortunate in  that my skill set and interests are broad enough to offer several different career paths, any of which might have been successful. Not everyone is as fortunate, though. Generations before me weren’t even given the option of falling in love with their work. “Grow up and find a good job,” was the mantra parents repeated to their children. If you were lucky, that job might be at least mildly interesting, but no one really expected you to like it. Work was just something you had to do. If you wanted to enjoy something, get a hobby.

Today, however, we see articles encouraging people to either do what they love or follow the money. Both are bad advice. The first sets one up for idealistic disappointment if not outright disaster. The second is based on greed which eventually leads to hate and that rarely ends well. Contentment is more likely to be found somewhere between the dream and the disaster. The key is not what you love but knowing what you do well.

What Does It Mean To Love?

You love your mom. You love your spouse or whatever you call that person who sleeps on the other side of the bed. You love your pets. But, what does it really mean to love your work? Do you take your work home with you? That’s not healthy. Do you live for your work? That’s a quick path to personal destruction. The reality is that we don’t actually love our occupations as much as we love the concept or idea of spending our days engaged in a specific activity.

I recently came across an article headlined, “You’re not meant to do what you love. You’re meant to do what you’re good at.” by Brianna Wiest, the founder of a magazine called Soul Anatomy. The magazine is a blend of Western psychology and Eastern philosophy that often starts out sounding like good advice but ends with an over-the-top dose of feel-goodism that negates what might otherwise be a practical statement. While I am not comfortable wholly endorsing Ms. West’s thesis, she makes some observations that are sounder (yes, that’s a word) than we care to admit. Such as:

People usually can’t differentiate what they really love and what they love the idea of.

One doesn’t just wake up one morning and say, “I love the idea of dentistry, I think I’ll go drill some teeth.” There are requirements and licensing that stands in the way of that happening. But even then, how many people have gone to med school not because they love medicine but because they love their parents and don’t want to disappoint them? Do we always know what we love?

Work Is Just Work

Ms. West gives the dreamers a bit of a slap in the face when she writes:

You can choose what you love to do, simply by how you think of it and what you focus on. Everything is work. Everything is work. Everything is work. There are few jobs that are fundamentally “easier” than others, whether by virtue of manual labor or brain-power. There is only finding a job that suits you enough that the work doesn’t feel excruciating. There is only finding what you are skilled at, and then learning to be thankful.

One might challenge that this is an example of the backward thinking that prevents people from enjoying their life and progressing socially. Strictly adhering to such a statement leaves one stuck in a socio-economic stratus with little room for advancement or happiness. All that clap-trap about changing how we think about a job is brainwashing people into being mindless automatons that do as they’re told. This isn’t the way to have a better life.

At the same time, though, she’s correct in that everything is work. Even though I enjoy being a photographer, I’m not a fan of early call times, late nights editing and processing to meet a deadline, and clients who have their head stuck up their ass. No matter what one’s profession, there is always an aspect that just comes down to pure labor. One can love the career without having to enjoy every minute performing those tasks.

Some Things Need To Get Done

Imagine a world where everyone only does what they love. Right off the bat, we eliminate at least a third of the adult population who will happily spend the bulk of their day having sex, or recovering from it. Those people aren’t going to get anything productive done at all. Sporting enthusiasts are dropped from the productivity list as well, as are those who have an unhealthy relationship with food. When we tell people to do what they love, we’re ignoring the fact that what they love may not be healthy, or even intelligent.

In order for the things in our world to operate with the efficiency we expect, we need people who don’t have to be in love with their occupation. We need people who lay buried cable. We need people who build bridges and are good at it. We need people who can keep the electric grid up and running 24/7. We need those guys on the ground with the orange sticks telling the airplane pilots how to maneuver that jumbo jet. Those are not glamorous jobs and probably don’t stroke anyone’s ego much, but watch how fast things grind to a halt if those people are off, “doing what they love.”

There’s nothing wrong with working for the sake of having a job and getting it done. If anything, it’s insulting to define a person based only upon one aspect of their lives. The person who handles your baggage at the airport may have mad art skills but can’t figure out how to make it pay. Your waitress who just spilled your dinner in your lap may play guitar better than Carlos Santana. We look at people and only see what they’re doing in that particular moment. We are not defined merely by what gives us a paycheck.

Working Those Mad Skills

Let’s make one more trip back to Ms. West’s article:

Your gifts are not random, they are a blueprint for your destiny. There’s more to your life than just what you think will make you happy. Your real talents may not stroke your ego as much, but if you apply to them the kind of higher thinking that allows you to find the purpose within them, you will be able to get up every single day and work diligently. Not because you are stoking your senses and stroking your ego, but because you are using what you have.

I start wincing about half-way through that paragraph because I’m not inclined to buy that “higher thinking” horseshit. Where she’s accurate, though, is in how one’s natural skills and abilities play into what we probably should be doing. Take people who have a gift for communicating as an example. They’re not all well-paid entertainers, but people who teach, people who inform. Do they need to love what they do? No, but it sure does help for them to be good at doing it. Knowing what you do well, being able to identify those skills to which one is naturally gifted, is more important than whether one loves a specific occupation or activity.

As school is starting back this fall, my eighteen-year-old is being asked to assess his career choices, decide whether he’s going to college next year, and choose activities that might support what he wants to do the rest of his life. While the assignments are required, I know that to some degree they are a waste of time. He will hold many different jobs over his life span. Some he will hate. Some he will tolerate. What’s important, though, are the ones he does well.

And look out, he doesn’t have to love what he’s doing to totally blow everyone’s mind. The kid is scary good at the things he does well, even when he doesn’t realize he’s doing them. Loving what we do isn’t a requisite for happiness. Adjust accordingly.

Continue Reading

PotD
Stale Bread, Weak Coffee, & Old Photos
August 2, 2016
charles i. letbetter - weak coffee, stale bread, and old photos

In the past, people have looked at photos as a record of memory. The focus has been on the past tense. With Instagram, the focus is on the present tense. —Kevin Systrom

 

charles i. letbetter - stale bread, weak coffee, and old photos

Fighting against asking the question, “What have I done with my life,” I look back at old photos and respond, “Oh yeah, I did this.”

I am having one of those moments of extreme self-doubt this morning. Even the dog didn’t want to stay up and play as he usually does after his morning walk  There’s something about Tuesday where I anticipate bad things to happen and the day rarely lets me down. In order to brace myself for whatever devastating news may come or difficulties take place, I try to keep Tuesdays low key to temper the emotional impact of today’s inevitable disaster.

This morning seems to be taking care of itself, however. I grind my own coffee for use in a french press each morning. Today, though, I look as I’m pouring hot water into the pot and realize I didn’t get all the coffee. I left half of it in the grinder for some reason. My coffee is weak.

Then, looking around for something to occupy the morning munchies, I pick up a piece of toast that might have been leftover from last night’s dinner. Wrong. It was stale beyond palpability. I tried eating it anyway, but no, two bites were all I could handle. The brick-like texture gave way to the taste of sawdust that coated the inside of my mouth with a mush to horrible to swallow.

5:00 AM and today already sucks.

Once Upon A Time …

Life wasn’t always like this, you know. There was a time when things were better, at least from a creative standpoint. Here’s where we put on the rose-colored glasses for the sake of sanity and encouragement. I look back at old photos, pieces that were once in my portfolio but have been dropped due to age, and find some encouragement. As I fight back against this overwhelming feeling of worthlessness, the old photos give me a reason to smile. Maybe everything hasn’t been for naught. After all, I did this.

Of course, that line of thinking only works if I ignore the fact that while I was playing with one of the first print-viable digital cameras and taking hundreds of photos almost every day, the rest of my world was crumbling. One disaster came in after another, usually on Tuesdays, though Wednesday and Thursday couldn’t necessarily be trusted. Employment? Gone. Parents? Dead. Marriage? Kaput.Security? Dissolved.

But now is not the time to dwell on those things. Right now, we need to focus on what was good, what worked, and those images that made me feel good about myself. Something to take my mind off the fact that if this coffee were any weaker it would be water. I hate weak coffee, it’s almost as bad as decaf. I’ll have to make more. Too bad I can’t just say that about the photographs.

Creative Perspiration

Old photos remind me of how much work it is to be creative. I had more energy when these were taken, more drive, and perhaps more motivation. I would sometimes put weeks of effort into researching materials to make sure what we were going to do would actually work. I’ve lost that drive and I’m not sure how to get it back.

What bothers me is that I have more resources at my disposal now in many ways. I have plenty of materials already on hand and know when they’ll work and when they won’t. My need to experiment isn’t quite as great. I can tell Kat what I’m thinking in terms of hair and makeup and know that she understands what I’m wanting.

Other pieces are missing, though, pieces that are difficult to describe and impossible to replace. Perhaps part of what makes me proud of these old photos is how hard I had to work to get some of them.

It’s Still Tuesday

My intent this morning was to share some of those old photos that still inspire me. I thought I would put them in a nice gallery displayed in a slide show. It’s Tuesday, though, so the plug-in that enables that capability has decided to not cooperate. All I can do is post the photos here and hope the mosaic works. I apologize for making you scroll through them all.

While you’re looking at pictures, I’m going to make fresh coffee, strong coffee, and maybe some fresh toast. Or maybe I’ll just have cereal.

Remember when cereal was great?  Yeah, let’s not get started with that one. Old photos are enough reminiscing for one day. Good luck with your Tuesday.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Brides Of A Different Tribe
July 22, 2016

In Hollywood, brides keep the bouquets and throw away the groom. —Groucho Marx

 

charles i. letbetter - brides of a different tribe

An increasing number of brides are opting for a style of wedding that is anything but traditional

I was amused earlier this week when Bloomberg magazine ran an article about alternative styles of wedding dresses as though the world had suddenly shifted off its fashionable axis. How dare brides not wear long, flowing, white dresses made of silk and satin and miles and miles of fabric? What of the time-honored etiquette? What of the billion-dollar industry built around weddings? Is everything going to ruin?

Of course not. We both know better. No matter what trends might be forthcoming, the foreseeable future is still going to be dominated by traditional wedding wear. There’s very little cause for worry in the short term. Brides dream of their weddings long before there’s a groom or another bride in the picture. Weddings are the stuff of fantasies and the star-lit hopes of runaway romanticism. As long as little girls dream of being a princess, there will be over-the-top traditional weddings.

Times are changing, though, and one would be crazy to not consider how modern trends are impacting the bridal industry, not just in terms of bridal fashion, but all the supporting industries necessary to make a bride’s dream come true. Change, in this case, equals opportunity if one is paying attention.

Budget-Conscious Brides

There have always been brides who do their best to squeeze every ounce of value from what they spend on their weddings. While we don’t advocate overspending on anything, there seems to be a contest among some brides to see just how little they can spend while still getting all the services they want.

To be quite honest about the matter, discount brides are a pain in the ass for everyone else. When one asks a service provider to work for less than their stated rates, or ties to trim expenses by ordering the minimum ala carte, they are devaluing the service that person provides. As a photographer, I find it extremely annoying and presumptuous when someone asks me for a discount off my smallest wedding package. The same is true for florists, caterers, and cake bakers. They all deserve to be paid fairly and not asked to discount their work.

Many brides have solved this problem by doing some things, such as making decorations, invitations, and other items themselves. Some even sew their own dress, which I think is a remarkable and romantic thing to do. There are plenty of ways to save money without cheating anyone in the process.

Alternative Brides

Kats at that age where a lot of her friends are getting married. Many are getting married out of town, so we won’t be able to attend. One we did get to go to this summer, though, was gloriously alternative. In fact, there was very little that was traditional, short of the fact there was an aisle the bride walked and they did have an officiant, which I think is required by law in most states. The bride wore a green dress. They served breakfast at the reception. The “cake” was made of Long’s donuts. Even though a thundershower soaked the area right as the wedding was about to start, the event was still wonderful, romantic, and happy.

Brides with an alternative mindset are growing in number. There are a number of reasons for this, from a change in same-gender marriage laws to a decline in religious affiliation. Many young women do not feel obligated to tradition in any way. Therefore, they are more open to exploring alternative ceremonies and creating a romantic event that suits the couples’ particular interests.

As Kat and I have discussed the eventual legal necessity of marriage, our perspective is definitely out of the norm. No church. No traditional minister. I wanted to go nude, but she wants to invite her parents, so, uhm, probably some form of clothing will be involved. What we don’t want to do is anything that someone else has already done. We’re unique rule breakers and think any wedding we might eventually have has to follow suit.

Older Brides

Another factor in non-traditional weddings is that a number of brides are older than previous generations. Part of this is due to an increase in career options. There are also more women with multiple marriages than was previously socially acceptable. More than anything, though, a high number of young women today don’t place as much importance on weddings. As a result, they’re waiting much, much longer before making that decision.

Relationship expectations have changed. Few young women today grew up in a home where Dad worked and Mom stayed home. Instead, most were either raised by single parents or in homes where both parents had to work to make ends meet. As a result, young women don’t come out of high school or college expecting prince charming to sweep them off their feet.

Waiting until you’ve traveled a bit and explored some of life’s adventures before getting married is not a bad idea. After all, many of those things become unavailable once one is tied down to the responsibilities of being married. As a result, older brides tend to have weddings that are more low-key, smaller, and more intimate affairs attended only by closest friends and family. Wardrobe is often a secondary thought with a new dress bought off the shelf at the last minute.

Happily Ever After

Ultimately, what matters most about a wedding is the union between two souls who are hopelessly and deeply in love. What they wear, where they are married, the expense involved are all factors, but, in the end, none of that actually impacts the quality of the marriage.

Every bride deserves to have the wedding the way she wants. Some will always choose to be surrounded by white and fluff and all the traditional accouterments. Others will always choose to be different. There is plenty of room for both. We wish everyone the best.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Information Overload
June 30, 2016

Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? —T. S. Eliot

 

charles i. letbetter - information overload

The glut of information comes at such a heavy pace so as to make keeping up impossible

I don’t know about anyone else, but the volume of information I receive on a daily basis is impossible to consume. While the majority of articles, press releases, and various studies shoved my direction do have some value, there is simply not enough time to digest and comprehend the bulk. I end up setting some pieces aside to read later and then get to the end of the month, like today, and realize I have a backlog that needs to be addressed.

Even then, I know there’s some information I have to let go. That article that says one out of three internet users are content creators? It’s been sitting there for two weeks. The information seems interesting, but there is not enough time to get into the details. A detailed essay on the dumbing down of America has been sitting there since the 7th. Incredible amounts of information that is highly applicable to this election season. Too detailed for my schedule, though. I have to let it pass.

Still, there are some stories that, for various reasons, I can’t let pass without at least a tiny bit of comment. This is information I am quite sure you need, that will impact every aspect of your life. Okay, not really, but some of it is damned entertaining. The headlines are links. Click them for more information.

Alexander Wang Is Now Chairman/CEO Of His Own Brand

For those outside the fashion industry, this may sound like a rather obvious move. It’s not. Fashion designers are notoriously bad at the business side of things. That’s why conglomerates such as Kering and LVMH own so many top-name labels. People who are wonderfully creative, such as clothing designers, too often attempt to apply that same creativity to the business side of the house and it rarely works.

Alex takes over the head of the boardroom from his sister-in-law and his mom, both of whom have been running things rather well. Certainly, Wang would not have been able to spend the time at Balenciaga had they not been in place. They’ve done an excellent job of steering his young brand through its first ten years. Influencers such as Marc Jacobs haven’t hurt, either.

The fashion market has changed dramatically in the past five years, though, and strategies that made sense when the label was founded no longer work. The move signals a new direction, though it remains to be seen what that new direction might be. Alexander Wang is one of the top US fashion brands at the moment. Let’s hope he doesn’t blow it. We’ll file this information under things to watch.

Kering Ordered To Pay Hedi Slimane $13 Million

Speaking of Kering, they were sued earlier this month by former Yves Saint Laurent designer Hedi Slimane. Honestly, when I first saw a related headline, I rolled my eyes. I think Slimane was expecting another label to pick him up quickly upon his departure from YSL. His expectations were a bit too eager. Few talked with him at all and none of the conversations reached a serious stage of negotiation.

That means the rather extravagant designer was starting to feel the financial impact of not having a regular income. So, what does he do? Find a loophole in his former contract and sue his former employer for failing to include a non-compete clause in his separation agreement. Understand, a non-compete means that a designer cannot just hop directly from one label to the next for a given period of time. A non-compete is what is allegedly keeping Raf Simons from taking the head job at Calvin Klein. How does this make sense?

Non-competes, in the fashion world, are generally compensated. Labels essentially pay a designer to not work (in an official capacity) for usually two or three years. The $13 million Slimane was awarded should keep him going long enough to create a new strategy.

Dove Release New #MyBeautyMyWay Campaign

Dove has been using messages of affirmation for women in its ads for some time now. While there has yet to be any firm information showing that the tactic is adding anything to the brand’s bottom line, the campaigns are at least socially popular. This particular campaign comes along at a time when body image and self-image, especially among women, is a significant issue.  Women are tired of the cat calls and the impolite statements regarding their appearance. Dove’s campaign encourages women to define their beauty their own way. Take a look at the 60-second ad:

My expectation is that an overwhelming number of women can identify with at least one if not multiple statements made. Additional ads address the details of each of the six women shown in this introductory piece. The timing ties into the presidential campaign as well. With a woman as the presumptive Democratic nominee and the misogynistic tone of the presumptive Republican nominee, women are feeling more empowered to be vocal and reclaiming their personhood.

Still, how long can Dove continue these campaigns without them adding significant revenue? Altruism doesn’t pay the bills.

Starbucks Is The Favorite Food Brand Among Millennials

Is anyone really surprised by this one? Of course not. Anytime we stop by one of the coffee stores we have to wait in line behind two or three 30-somethings getting their mocha-soy-caramel-latte-frappucino on. All I want is a venti blonde roast. Black. Yet, I still have to wait while each of the millennials in front of me orders a drink with far too many syllables to be healthy, then mulls over the ever-growing list of food items that look and sound healthy.  Can I just get my coffee, please?

Click the link above, though, and what you’ll see is a list of the top 17 most popular food brands among this top group of shoppers who are the driving demographic for almost every company on the planet. Look through the list and you’ll notice a trend that has been part of Starbuck’s strategy from the beginning: Fresh, healthy and innovative. The growing food menu items address the fresh and healthy issue. The drinks have always been innovative. Starbucks has made the strategy work for them and other brands are finally beginning to see the value as well.

Even we old codgers benefit. With everyone adjusting to lure millennials, we’re all eating better whether we like it or not.

Crystal Pepsi Is Making A Return

Depending on how one feels about the product, we might file this interesting piece of information under “too good to be true,” or “what the hell are they thinking?” Crystal Pepsi, which is supposed to taste exactly like the original product, hasn’t been on store shelves since 1994. There is a very good reason for that: no one wanted a cola that looked like 7Up. The caramel color is part of the identity of a cola. The drink was treated more as a novelty and then slipped slowly away.

Today, though, artificial dyes are under attack from the healthy/pure food woo groups. You know, those same people who are convinced that Monsanto is out to destroy the entire food supply (they’re not). While the actual peer-reviewed science regarding food dyes only shows a danger in a handful of very specific colors consumed in high quantities, the concept of going without dyes has a lot of marketing clout. The move worked for Hershey, after all. They saw a significant sales bump after announcing they had eliminated artificial coloring from their chocolate.

The difference between Hershey’s and Pepsi, though, is that the chocolate still looks pretty much the same. The color may not be identical, but at least it’s still brown. Take the artificial coloring out of Pepsi and you have something that does not look anything like a cola. The move didn’t work well the first time. We’ll see if this effort is different.

French Cable Now Has Porn Ads

Americans like copying a lot of trends that are popular across Great Britain and France. With the UK having pretty much sabotaged itself with the whole Brexit thing, France is getting more of the attention at the moment. Maybe a bit too much attention. The French cable provider Cable+ has come up with a set of ads that, while hilarious to view, would be almost impossible to duplicate for the American market. Let’s see if I can describe this delicately …

It’s porn.

Apparently, French Cable providers can get away with a lot racier content than we can here. In the American cable market, the most shocking thing one is likely to see is the blood bath known as Game of Thrones. We can be explicit in our killing, but not our sex. That might explain some problems with our culture.

What these French ads do, though, is hilariously parody old-school porn by removing one person from the scene. So, you have real porn stars looking as though they’re getting it on, but their partner is missing. Why is the partner missing? Because all the good porn has moved to Canal.

It’s a bit much and definitely NSFW. I’m not posting the ads here. Click the link, though. They’re hilarious.

Take A Break

After that last bit of information there, I think we need to take a break. I need another cup of coffee. I hope at least one piece of information here improves your life somehow.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Banning Photos Of Thin Models
June 27, 2016
charles i. letbetter - banning photos of skinny models

It is stupid on my part to think of banning the media. —Shah Rukh Khan

 

charles i. letbetter - banning photos of skinny models

Banning a photograph because a model appears too skinny is making a dangerous judgement call

Banning photography for any reason is never a good idea. When we ban things such as art, photography, books, movies, and other means of expression, we are closing off an avenue of expression, a means of learning, and perhaps even a path to enlightenment and understanding for other people. Banning the arts in any form, even those distantly related such as advertising, is wrong.

So, in what seems to be a trend, the Brits have fucked it up again. This time, it’s specifically the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who has banned ads on public transit that might challenge a woman’s body image. The mayor’s action responds to an ad that ran earlier this year asking whether one’s body was “bikini ready.” Many people found the ad offensive, even foolishly started a petition on change.org, and as a result made the ad more famous and seen in more places than it ever would have on its own.

The UK is already a bit of an anomaly in the advertising world in that its Advertising Standards Board has the ability to order the removal of any ad it doesn’t like for pretty much any reason. The board has been challenged frequently for banning ads in Britain that wouldn’t have been a problem elsewhere.

Body Image As A Matter Of Perspective

Body shaming is unquestionably a problem and body image, especially among teenage girls, is a critical issue that affects other decisions that women make. Body image determines what one chooses to eat, what one chooses to wear, and even who one chooses to date. As a result, things we used to say often, such as, “Is your body bikini ready?” are no longer publicly acceptable. We find those statements offensive because we presume they promote an unsafe body image.

But what about the image accompanying that ad? While I’m not inclined to re-publish the ad again here (it’s had more press than it deserves), I can tell you that the hourglass figure of the model would not be considered too skinny by a lot of people. If the same image had run with different copy, would Mr. Khan still be so upset? Would people still be offended?

Consider the picture I chose to go with this article. Do you consider the model too thin? Does her body shape offend you? If so, why? I can promise you that the model involved is quite healthy. She certainly does not consider her body too thin and her physician would likely agree. In banning a picture of her body, are they not body shaming and affecting her body image as well?

Body Image As A Matter  Of  Health

Both advertising and the fashion industry have for several years been challenged with the body image they present. Paris and Milan passed laws protecting models from being forced to maintain unhealthy weights. Such laws are good and necessary. No one should be asked to do things that put them in danger simply for the sake of a photograph. I have no problems with that.

However, laws banning photographs, such as this one in London, fail to actually show concern for the health of the model. There’s no requirement for a doctor’s note, such as there is in the Paris law. There are no means in which the model’s health is even considered. Rather, a judgement call is being made by an autonomous board (the members of which have yet to be selected) without any specific guidelines for what is and isn’t acceptable.

If we’re going to be concerned about body image, shouldn’t the health, both physical and emotional, of the model be considered first? If one is banning an ad because the image is considered unhealthy, is that not also telling the model that she is unhealthy as well?

I can tell you that I’ve worked with hundreds of models who are quite frustrated at people telling them they look too thin or unhealthy. How is this type of action any different than fat shaming?

Body Image As A Form Of Judgement

Vaness Friedman, a fashion editor for the New York Times, wrote an opinion piece on the matter of photographs of skinny models yesterday. In the article, she states:

Though often conflated with the movement to protect models, which resulted in legislation in France in 2015 requiring models to produce a doctor’s note attesting to their health, and digital alteration of photographs to be disclosed, banning is a separate issue. It doesn’t involve working conditions (which can and should be legislated), but subjective, and ultimately regressive, assumptions about what constitutes a positive female image.

Banning pictures of skinny women unfairly judges them. What right does someone else have to say that a skinny body is wrong any more than an overweight body is wrong based merely upon a photograph? Can you look at a set of  photographs and know, based on the model’s size and shape, which one just found out she has breast cancer, or Crone’s disease, or diabetes, or a thyroid condition? Of course you can’t! One might guess, but a large portion of the time that guess would be wrong.  The judgement is unfair and unreasonable.

Banning isn’t the answer

There’s no question that body image is an important issue. Everyone should be encouraged to embrace the fullness of who and what they are without any judgement. There is no right body type for every person. We all get to be unique.

In embracing that point of view, however, we must include women who are thinner. Their body image counts just as much as that of the woman who can’t keep her weight below 350 pounds.

We also have to start trusting women to make their own decisions about their body and stop trying to do it for them. While some women may look at a Gucci ad and find the models too thin, someone else may look at the same ad and be encouraged to eat better, exercise, or consult their doctor about losing weight. We must allow room for a difference of opinion regarding any photograph.

Censorship, in any form, is wrong. Banning pictures of skinny women is a huge mistake. If Britons get a chance to re-vote on the Brexit, perhaps Mr. Khan should also consider shelving his new law. Neither do the good for which they are advertised.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Photography  /  PotD
Street Style Loses Its Icon
June 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - street style loses its icon

The best fashion show is definitely on the street. Always has been, and always will be. —Bill Cunningham

 

charles i. letbetter - street style loses its icon

New York Street Style has only one icon, and now he’s gone

Street style is a big thing in the fashion world. So big, that photographers from all over the world flock to the fashion capitals just to stand outside fashion shows and take pictures of the guests arriving. All over New York, London, Milan, and Paris, there are people claiming to be street style photographers for this online magazine or another. They’re quick to ask your name then shove their card in your hand before moving to the next victim, er, subject. None of them matter.

Only one street style photographer really mattered, and that was Bill Cunningham. Bill died yesterday afternoon at the age of 84.

There are only two or three photographers remaining for whom I would care to write a remembrance. For some, I can write about the experience of meeting them, of talking with them, and maybe even being friends. Not Bill. I have to write about Bill from a place of admiration and respect because he didn’t let anyone get any closer than that. He lived alone. He didn’t “hang out” with “the guys.” Try addressing him on the street and he waved you off. He wouldn’t go out for a drink. He wouldn’t just sit and talk. He was singularly focused on one thing: taking pictures.

A Dislike For Celebrity

Anyone who has wandered around Manhattan much at all has likely seen Bill. He rode a bicycle everywhere. The Times says he had over 30 of them over the years and that number doesn’t surprise me. Riding a bike in Manhattan can be challenging, but even as late as this past March he was still out there. He always wore the same blue worker’s coat, khaki pants, and white tennis shoes. He wore his camera slung around his neck, not too low, always at the ready. You couldn’t miss him.

One of the best quotes about Bill being used today is from Vogue‘s Anna Wintour: “Everyone dresses for Bill.” And they did. Modeling agencies would send up and coming models to walk the streets near where Bill was found most often in hopes of them being photographed. Celebrities pushing a new movie or desperately wanting some recognition would do the same. Yet, Bill didn’t care about celebrity. He didn’t need them in front of his camera. On more than one occasion he said:

I don’t pay attention to celebrities. I don’t photograph them. They don’t dress so… interestingly. They have stylists. I prefer real women who have their own taste.

Even at parties where the rich and famous were practically dripping from the chandeliers, one never saw Bill mixing and mingling. He’d be standing off to the side, watching, snapping away, fading into the decorations so as to not draw attention to himself.

An Obsession With Fashion

Street style didn’t start with Bill Cunningham and it won’t end with his passing. What we will miss, though, is an obsession with fashion that was particularly unique and original. Unlike most street style photographers who are simply looking for any way to get their work published, Bill was on the street taking pictures out of passion. Bill loved fashion. More specifically, Bill loved what people did with fashion and how they created their own style.

In turn, fashion loved Bill right back. There was a level of unspoken endorsement when Bill showed up to photograph a fashion show. He wouldn’t go to just any runway he happened across. He was more comfortable on the street and wasn’t shy about letting designers and editors know that. When he did shoot a fashion show, though, he didn’t stand with all the other photographers in the “pit.” Instead, he had a front row seat, almost always on a corner where he could catch models as they turned. He could get the front and back of an ensemble by just swiveling in his seat.

Fashion honored Bill with plenty of awards as well, but he never mentioned them, never made a big deal about them. Instead, he’d leave the ceremony where he had been honored and hit the street, taking pictures. He didn’t care about accolades, he cared only about fashion.

A Unique Photography

Bill never considered himself a good photographer. He thought he was too shy and not nearly aggressive enough. He never gave himself much credit.

For the bulk of his career, he shot on an inexpensive 35mm camera using Kodak T-Max film. When the Times made the switch to digital cameras, he was initially upset. He didn’t care for all the bells and whistles that got in the way of him taking a picture. What brought him around was the ability to turn off or dampen the sound of the shutter click. The extra quietness allowed him to take pictures without people noticing, catching them in more “real” poses.

He kept all his negatives from the early days. I’ve no idea to whom his estate might fall, but I am hopeful that perhaps someone will curate all those hundreds of thousands of frames and create a book of Bill’s photography. He wouldn’t have wanted the attention during his life, but he certainly deserves it.

Not Here For The Money

One of the most interesting aspects of Bill’s life is that he didn’t chase a paycheck. He worked totally freelance until 1990. After being hit by a truck and hurt rather badly, he finally accepted an offer from the New York Times for the insurance.

The money wasn’t a big thing to Bill, though. More important was the freedom to photograph what he wanted, where he wanted, and how he wanted. He didn’t want or need any editor telling him what to do. Bill was fiercely independent and would tear up advance checks from magazine editors who tried to get him to do a specific editorial for them.

As a result, Bill didn’t live a luxurious lifestyle. He slept on a cot. He wore simple clothes. He ate simple meals. And then, he took pictures.

Leaving A Legacy

If I’m having trouble keeping the tears from my eyes now, it’s likely to be worse come September. I never watched a fashion show but what I was always looking for Bill. Hitting New York this fall, the street is going to feel a bit empty. I’m going to look at whoever is sitting on that front row corner and think, “You don’t belong there. That’s Bill’s seat.”

I’m going to open the Style section of the Times now and it’s going to be a little less exciting. I’m sure they’ll find street style pictures from someone, perhaps a young freelancer, but it won’t be the same. Young photographers have ambition, but Bill had passion and the difference is noticeable.

We will miss you, Bill Cunningham. Know that your work and your life will always be remembered.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
10 Illustrated Reasons To Embrace Summer
June 20, 2016
charles i. letbetter 10 reasons to embrace summer

Ah, summer, what power you have to make us suffer and like it. —Russell Baker

 

charles i. letbetter - 10 Illustrated Reasons To Embrace Summer

Summer can be a miserable season, but there are reasons to make the best of it

The Summer Solstice doesn’t officially begin until 6:34 PM EDT this evening, but it only took one step out the door this morning to realize that summer is here. When it’s 75°F with 78% humidity at 4:00 AM, you know it’s going to be a hot and difficult day. The dog took a couple of steps and looked up at me as if to say, “Are you sure you want to do this walking thing this morning?” He relieved himself, chased a cat, and was ready to return home.

Summer has been here for a while, at least in terms of outdoor temperatures. If you were in Arizona this weekend, you endured temps already over 120°. According to NOAA’s climatology forecast, most of the US is looking at hotter-than-usual temps this summer. Hardest hit is likely to be our friends along the West coast and New England. There’s talk that this could be the hottest summer on record.

With dangerous temperatures and likely an absence of moisture in most places, finding things to be happy about this summer could be challenging. For photographers, our best chance of getting a decent shot occurs around 7:00 in the morning, just after sunrise, before everything on the planet gets too hot. Scheduling can be a nightmare and if you’re shooting anything other than swimwear or lingerie you need to be ready to deal with sweat stains.

There are some good things about shooting in the summer. I thought I’d start this week with an illustrated list of reasons to embrace the season.

Waterfalls don’t induce hypothermia

charles i. letbetter - 10 illustrated reasons to embrace summer

See that water flowing behind Anneliese? It is ice cold. Most waterfalls run at temperatures below 70° which feels a bit chilly on the skin. What summer affords is the ability to shoot in these lovely places without the model turning blue. Granted, the water will still be cold and I definitely recommend taking along some petroleum jelly to protect the skin, but the chances of a model having a severe reaction to the water are dramatically reduced.

Location options increase

charles i. letbetter - 10 illustrated reasons to embrace summer

Shooting outside in winter is almost impossible. In spring, we wait impatiently for leaves and flowers to appear. Autumn has us trying to guess exactly when the leaves are going to turn and hoping we don’t miss it. From late May through August, though, we typically don’t have to worry as much. We can shoot outdoor almost anywhere and have workable summer scenery. Having more location options also means we can create more variety in our images, playing with things such as flares and reflective lighting. The options for being creative are almost limitless.

Water

charles i. letbetter - 10 illustrated reasons to embrace summer

In it, near it, over it, around it, water becomes the ultimate summertime photography prop. In fact, it’s difficult for me to do any kind of photo in the summer that doesn’t involve water in some way. My preference is to be in the water, though there are several precautions involved in doing so. Rocks, tree limbs, and boat docks in the water provide options without necessarily getting too wet. A photo on or in the water just says summer and captures everything wonderful about the season.

Walking around in underwear is possible

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

Summer gives one permission to do things they might not normally do, like walking around town in your underwear. Granted, whether or not anyone says things, or calls the police, likely depends on the quality of the underwear and who is wearing it. There can also be location issues, especially on Sunday morning near a church. This shot was taken quite early on a Sunday morning in a neighborhood that tends to sleep late. No one minded one bit that Cynthia wasn’t wearing much while walking her dog. Warm weather can be very freeing that way.

Reflection in the shade

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

With the summer solstice, we get a more intense sunlight for a longer period of time. That can sometimes be a bad thing, such as when the harshness at 10 AM makes it difficult to control highlights. One advantage, though, is that it increases the ability to cast reflective light in the shade. We can work under trees or in the shade of a building, avoiding the harsh glare, without having to blow out the background. This can certainly make the experience more comfortable for everyone.

Shooting in the rain

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

Rain shots can be lovely, but to do them anytime other than summer runs the risk of making everyone miserable. Rain is always cooler than the air temperature by several degrees, so if the air temperature is too low all we’re going to see is goosebumps. Of course, scheduling that shoot and actually being in the right place when it comes down can be quite challenging. Rain forecasts this time of year are often inaccurate and undependable. I’ve chased all over the county trying to get in front of the one rain cloud that was doing anything. When you catch it, though, it can be wonderful.

Adventures into the unknown

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

Anyone can stand under a tree or in a flower garden, but what summer gives us is the chance to wander off into places we’ve never been. Model choice is a critical element with this option, though. Not every model is inclined to spend an afternoon in the company of spiders and bugs or possibly snakes. Scouting a location can also be critical so that you know if there are crawdads just under that layer of silt in that pool of water. Still, exploring new places with the right people is always fun, even if you’re not taking pictures!

Even cloudy days are good

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

Just because it’s summer doesn’t mean that every day is going to be full of sunshine. The good news is that during this season, again thanks to that wonderful tilt, we have greater light intensity on cloudy days than we do at any other time of year. Depending on the type and height of the clouds, they can provide a beautiful diffused light or a dramatic background to one’s photograph. The absence of sun is never an excuse to stay inside!

Color and contrast

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

As much as I enjoy shooting outdoors and with natural light, there are times when mother nature doesn’t give us much in the way of color and contrast. Winter, especially, tends to give us so much grey that shooting black and white is almost requisite. Not this time of year, though. If anything, we can have the opposite problem. Backgrounds that are too full of color can be distracting, especially if the model is wearing something patterned. Nature provides plenty of perfect backdrops, though, especially with a little planning and coordination.

Summer is just more fun

charles i. letbetter - 10 reasons to embrace summer

Despite the challenges, summer photography is loaded with fun. We can take off our shoes and walk through the mud, wade streams, create crazy effects with reflectors, and really push our cameras to their limits. At times, we’ve taken a picnic and made a day of the event. We’ve found beautiful places we never knew existed. We can take advantage of everything the world has to offer.

Summer is the one season when there’s really no valid reason to not be outside taking pictures. A little planning never hurts, but with an open, creative and adventurous mind there are great pictures waiting for the click of your shutter button. Get out there, take advance of the season and shoot!

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography  /  PotD
Tossing Kat In The Water
June 15, 2016

Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it. —Lao Tzu

 

charles i. letbetter - tossing Kat in the water

Cats don’t normally like water and Kat isn’t especially fond of it either, but modeling’s supposed to be fun, isn’t it?

I think I mentioned something yesterday about going to McCormick’s Creek State Park and playing in the water. We showed you pictures of the waterfalls, the kids frolicking, and one very cool old man. I know most of you missed those pictures, so you can look at those later by clicking here.

What we showed yesterday wasn’t the only set of pictures we took, though. I was looking through the files last week and noticed that Kat hadn’t been in front of the camera at all this year. Here we are in June and not once have we managed to get her to sit even for a light test. What photographer doesn’t take pictures of his own fiancè? We needed to fix this problem quickly.

So, as we were packing clothes for the kids, I tossed a swimsuit at Kat and suggested, “Why don’t you toss this under your clothes and we can get some pictures of you in the water while we’re there?”

She laughed.

Okay, so maybe the swimsuit was just a little inappropriate and revealing to wear in a place likely populated by children other than our own. Our kids don’t even notice when Kat is looking hot; they’re rather used to that. Other people’s kids, though, might have wondered where the rest of her swimsuit was.

Kat knows how much it means for me to have pictures of her, though. She found an acceptable substitute and off we went.

Most anyone  who has shot outdoors with me knows that I typically carry two non-camera related items in my camera bag: duct tape and petroleum jelly. Uses for the duct tape are innumerable; one never knows when they might need to fix something, fasten something, or patch a hole. The petroleum jelly is a bit more specific, though. I use it not only because it causes water to bead on the skin, but because it acts as an insulator against the cold. For some stupid reason, I left the petroleum jelly sitting on my desk.

Have you ever tried standing in cold water? Have you ever tried looking any way other than horrified as hundreds of gallons of cold water came crashing down onto your head? Have you ever tried to sit on a rock while your entire body is trembling from the cold and attempt to look sexy?

Those are the things I asked Kat to do. The task wouldn’t have been nearly as daunting if I’d brought the petroleum jelly. Kat would have barely noticed the temperature of the water at all. I left the petroleum jelly sitting on my desk, though. There was no protection from the cold.  She did the whole shoot anyway. She gave me a mean look more than a few times but she did them and the resulting pictures are perhaps the strongest set she’s done since we first met.

One of the challenges of shooting in the water like this is that in order to get that silky look to the waterfall, I need a slow shutter speed. A slow shutter speed with a model means that she has to take a pose and not move.   Go ahead and try to not move while standing in cold water, especially after your body is completely wet. Oh, and add a nice breeze on top of that. A bit of wind feels good when you’re warm and dry, not as much when you’re wet and cold. Kat had to call on the discipline instilled by her Marine Corp training to keep getting in that water and holding poses for several seconds at a time, not flinching, until I got the picture I needed.

Have I mentioned that I have an awesome fiancé who loves me very much?

Did you know that waterproof mascara doesn’t necessarily hold when being assaulted by hundreds of gallons of water?

The challenges to this shoot were considerable. Not only was the water cold, but Kat still had to keep an eye on the kids and keep an eye out for anyone who might cause problems and help me avoid falling on the slick rocks. I’ve not even tried standing in water to shoot for the past three years. We had to exercise much more caution than was previously normal.

What ultimately matters, though, are the pictures and I think we captured some great ones, despite the cold water. I like having Kat in front of the camera. Next time, though, I’m bringing the petroleum jelly.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Pride Justified
June 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - pride justified

What is pride? A rocket that emulates the stars. —William Wordsworth

 

charles i. letbetter - pride justified

LGBT Pride Month may not be popular with conservatives but as long as hate remains, the love is justified.

After a full day yesterday, we will be dragging the kids from bed in a few minutes, painting their nails, tossing something resembling food in their mouths, then heading downtown for the Cadillac Barbie Indiana Pride Parade. This is a regular thing for us. We’ve done it every year Kat and I have been together. More than any other event in town, this is the one we feel obligated to get up and attend.

Sure, the parade is always a lot of fun. The people involved go out of their way to make it fun. And for the moment, the biggest concern the kids have is, “will there be candy?” because, you know, in their minds that’s what parades are all about.

There are important reasons, though, for attending the Pride parade, even if the kids don’t understand just yet what those reasons are. I’m much happier taking the little ones to a parade rather than a protest, which is the only choice my parents had back in the 1960s. I can promise you there was no candy back then. While they may not understand now, one day they’ll look back and realize how important this time is both for us as a country and as a civilization.

Conservatives erupted with howls of hate when President Obama declared June LGBT Pride Month. The religious extremists among us screamed with fury. We’ve seen this kind of reaction before. They did the same thing with Civil Rights in the 60s and Women’s Rights in the 1920s. Every positive step forward we’ve made has been met with opposition by the same groups of people. They are unable to accept the natural progression and change that comes as we develop more fully as a civilization. They spew their hate and, if allowed to have their way, keep us thinking like Neanderthals.

With all the hate we’ve seen this year directed toward transgender people (the T in the LGBT acronym, in case you didn’t know), attending this year’s parade and supporting Pride is as important as ever. While the little ones may not even fully understand the concept of sexuality yet, it is important to know that there is no room for hate, no room for exception, no room for discrimination because of any  difference, no matter what that difference might be.

Ideally, that should be enough, but I know some people that I’ve known since my own childhood are not yet convinced. So, here are a few reasons why Pride is justified:

  • LGBT people are human. Just like anyone else, one’s sexuality does not take away their human card. Being human endows one with unalienable rights, not the least among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You know where that phrase originates. If we are not supporting human rights for everyone we are not supporting human rights at all. I will go even further in saying that any candidate, for any office that does not fully support human rights for everyone, without exception, cannot legitimately be a true representative of the people.
  • Ignorance kills. Too many people who have grown up accepting who they are have been bullied, beaten, and even killed because of the ignorance of others. That such behavior continues is beyond shameful. The only way to stop these acts of hate and violence is to address the ignorance behind them. LGBT people are your brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and all any of them want is love.
  • For those who didn’t make it. When I was in high school, being out as being gay wasn’t cool. Everyone who now can stand proudly with their same gender spouse was firmly in the closet back then. While most made it out and are living beautiful lives, not everyone did. AIDS claimed the lives of a number of people who had been forced to stay in that closet during the 70s and early 80s. Even if help had been available, finding it in rural Oklahoma would have been impossible. As we think of those lost lives we must be committed to making sure that environment of fear never exists again.
  • For those who did make it. I had to smile this week as I scrolled through my Facebook feed and saw a picture of one of my favorite high school friends standing with his husband next to the Democratic nominee for president. Again, we all grew up in an extremely closeted environment unwelcoming of anyone who was different. The number of friends from high school and college who are now out and either married or in happy long-term relationships is joyous. Even more are those who are out and choose for their own reasons to remain single. They are all incredible people who have struggled with acceptance and both social and legal limitations. They all deserve to be celebrated.
  • Because love wins. If there is an ultimate lesson for the little ones to learn, it is this: love wins. Love, in all its glorious and fabulous forms, is not confining. Love does not tell you that you must behave one way or another. Love does not limit who you are or who you can become. Love accepts everyone. Love takes you to the top. Love conquers even the most vile and orange hate.

Everyone loves a parade and this one today will be louder, prouder, and more fabulous than any other to hit the streets of Indianapolis. We’re excited to attend and will be equally excited to post pictures in two or three days. But lest anyone think this a mere frivolity, be quite certain, this Pride is justified. Do not deny. We’ve told you why. No time to cry. We’re gonna fly.

Bye.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
An Ethical Wardrobe
June 8, 2016

A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives. —Albert Schweitzer

 

charles i. letbetter - an ethical wardrobe

We need clothes. We want clothes. But must each purchase we make hurt someone else? Can one have an ethical wardrobe?

I had a wardrobe crisis occur a couple of weeks ago. I looked down at my shoes, the one pair of black, slip-resistant shoes I’ve worn every day for over a year and a half, and saw a hole. I knew what was coming next. Because of the unbalanced nature of my walk, the right shoe always wears a hole in the same place: the inside seam where the upper meets the sole. Every time. The hole starts small enough but expands quickly and is not repairable. I was going to have to buy new shoes.

I hate having to buy clothes. I especially dislike having to buy new clothes as long as there is a reasonable and ethical alternative. Shoes, however, are the one thing I’ve learned to buy new, and to spend a little money. Sure, I could go to a discount shoe place and get a pair for$20, but I’m lucky if those last six months. I want a pair of shoes that lasts at least a year, longer if I don’t wear them every day. Shoes are a justifiable expense. Sort of. I still look for sales and ended up actually purchasing two pair so that neither wears out quite so quickly. I shouldn’t have to buy shoes again for at least three-four years.

That logic doesn’t apply to everything in my wardrobe, though. There is very little in my wardrobe that is less than five years old.  I have a couple of sweaters that I’ve retired after 15 years of wearing and washing. About half the black shirts I wear every day are over ten years old. When I do occasionally need to replace one, thrift stores make more sense than do department or fast fashion stores. By shopping for previously worn clothes, I’m keeping something out of a landfill, which is often as much as 30% discarded clothing. It’s an ethical thing for me, not really a standard to which I hold anyone else.

If you’ve seen me, you know my personal style is not exactly on-trend. I soon could be, perhaps. Marc Jacobs has officially declared 1980s retro back in style. The problem with that, on a personal level, is that I’m about 436 sizes larger now than I was in the 80s. Even if I still had all those stylish (cough-cough) threads from back then, there’s no way that I would still be able to fit my ample dad body into clothes that did a good job of making my butt look almost attractive (something that was much more a concern then than it is now). Does that mean I can ethically justify buying new clothes that look like the clothes I wore 30 years ago? Probably not.

Having an ethical wardrobe is more important to me than having a stylish ensemble for every day. There are multiple reasons for holding that view, but fundamental to that reasoning is that I don’t want to get dressed every morning knowing that what I’m wearing was assembled by a child in Bangladesh who is thrilled to be making $73 a month and is using all that to help support his/her family. Yes, I really do think about those things in the dark at 4:00 AM. I’m also not a fan of adding to Amancio Ortega’s $57 billion empire (he own’s Zara, among other fashion-related things). I’m especially not a fan of ripping off designers, which is what fast fashion retailers do on a daily basis.

The ethical implications of what I have in my closet are significant. I’m not ignorant of the ethical challenges that occur in the fashion world.  I know that what I buy individually, while it may seem small and insignificant on one level, becomes part of a greater whole. When I make a purchase, no matter where or what it is, I am aligning myself with a larger group of people making like-minded decisions and it is in the rise and fall of those groups from which trends are set. If I want to encourage a trend away from cheaply-sourced materials, then I have to refrain from buying cheaply sourced materials. Likewise, buying clothes manufactured in New York’s garment district, for example, encourages domestic production in an environment where workers are more likely to be treated fairly.

Still, if the 80s are indeed coming back … how do I not get in on some of that action? I felt good about my fashion choices back then. I had multiple pairs of Levi’s 501 jeans back then, and they were still being made in Northern California at the time. Levi’s has moved production south of the border though and I’m not sure one can even find 501 jeans in the store anymore. Shopping directly from Marc Jacob’s isn’t a financial option, either. How do I enjoy this momentary global lapse of stylish sanity while still holding to the ethical standards I’ve set for my wardrobe?

A couple of years ago, a Canadian artist, Sarah Lazarovic, wrote a book, A Bunch Of Pretty Things I Did Not Buy. This very interesting young woman went a full year without buying any new clothes. None. I know a lot of people who would begin to hyperventilate at the thought of going more than a week without making a new purchase of some kind. The book is quite interesting and, while everything she has to say may not align with someone else’s specific situation, she did come up with this interesting pyramid she calls the “buyerarchy of needs” to help one make a bit more sense of their fashion purchases. While she is not preaching a strict ethical behavior, the implications and applications are there. Take a look:

charles i. letbetter - an ethical wardrobe

The Buyerarchy of Needs. Copyright Sarah Lazarovic

The concept is pretty straight forward. Buying something new should be the last option. Using what you have, perhaps even repurposing what you have, should be where we all start. There’s no good reason why we should be completely turning over our wardrobes every few months. If you’re looking at a once-in-a-lifetime sort of thing, consider borrowing from someone who’s already been there. Kat and her friends swap clothes back and forth, both adult and children’s. Thrift, and I would add Vintage, shopping are my personal preference (though, I would warn, not everything in a vintage shop is necessarily original from that period). Making things yourself is one of those things that varies from person to person. I’m useless in that department.

Does that mean that I still don’t watch labels for where garments are made? No, not at all. Even when I’m thrift or vintage shopping I still look at labels and avoid those I know are unethically sourced. But, following the precepts of this pyramid brings us a lot closer to having an ethical wardrobe than we might achieve on our own.

Again, the standards I set for myself are not necessarily applicable to anyone else. You have to decide for yourself whether an ethical approach to shopping is even a concern. But for me, whether I’m buying a new pair of shoes or a t-shirt to replace the one that just disintegrated in the wash, how I shop matters. A lot.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  Original Style  /  PotD
Beauty Becomes A Battlefield
June 6, 2016

Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears. —Edgar Allan Poe

 

charles i. letbetter - beauty becomes a battlefield.

The beauty industry has played for years to women wanting to look beautiful, but today women don’t want their help.

Beauty is big business. In the United States alone, cosmetics companies rake in over $60 billion a year. Proctor & Gamble and L’Oréal alone have a combined global revenue in excess of $115 billion. That’s not even starting to figure in on what is spent at salons and spas. People want to look better because, more than anything, it helps them to feel better about themselves. Perhaps it is a little vain, but as long as the individual is doing it for themselves, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to spruce up one’s image a bit.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people running around who think we all should look better than we do.

No, scratch that, they think women should look better than they do. Just try to find an employee handbook that tells men they need to come to work with makeup. I’d offer to wait but I already know you’re not going to find anything. Beauty is sexist because society is sexist and the biases and attitudes that were encoded in the 1950s have never really gone away, no matter how advanced we like to think we have become. Women are still expected to wear makeup, to make themselves “look better” than they naturally do, and an entire industry depends on women buying into that concept that they just don’t look good enough.

Men have never been taught that they need to do anything to their appearance beyond,  depending upon social trends, maybe shave occasionally. You don’t see ads for men’s wrinkle cream. You don’t see ads telling men they need longer lashes. You don’t see men telling them they need to look “flawless.” Yet, women are bombarded with those very instructions every day and if they don’t succumb to those expectations, they can sometimes lose their jobs.

The battle between women and society over makeup is not a new one, but it may be reaching a fervor. Last year, actress Demi Lavato started a trend using the hashtag #NoMakeupMonday. About the same time, the hashtag #Iwokeuplikethis began appearing. By the end of the year, the two hashtags had appeared on Instagram over 10 million times. The craze caught on and big name models and stars such as Taylor Swift, Cindy Crawford, and Gwenyth Paltrow have all posted bare-faced photos of themselves. Of course, they then went immediately and put on makeup.

The latest volley from the #nomakup side came last week when singer Alicia Keys announced that she’s not wearing makeup. Ever. In her article for the magazine Lenny, the singer says:

In one song I wrote, called “When a Girl Can’t Be Herself,” it says,

In the morning from the minute that I wake up  / What if I don’t want to put on all that makeup  / Who says I must conceal what I’m made of  / Maybe all this Maybelline is covering my self-esteem

No disrespect to Maybelline, the word just worked after the maybe. But the truth is … I was really starting to feel like that — that, as I am, I was not good enough for the world to see.

This started manifesting on many levels, and it was not healthy.

Every time I left the house, I would be worried if I didn’t put on makeup: What if someone wanted a picture?? What if they POSTED it??? These were the insecure, superficial, but honest thoughts I was thinking. And all of it, one way or another, was based too much on what other people thought of me.

The cover art for her new album is a picture of Ms. Keys, straight from the gym, no makeup, no styling, nothing. Of course, she’s beautiful.

But is that all it takes to undo decades of chauvinistic attitudes toward beauty? And, isn’t this expectation that everyone needs to be running around sans makeup just as bad as one that says everyone needs makeup? If someone else is setting the standard, isn’t one just as bad as the other?

Back in December of last year, Flare magazine published an open letter to Demi Levato that addresses that very situation. In that article, they raise the issue that there cannot be just one standard of beauty that magically fits all the women around the world. About halfway through the article, they make this statement:

It’s not the tyranny of makeup that women need to fight back against, but the tyranny of appearance. And when we post #nomakeup selfies, we’re replacing one beauty standard with another. Scratch that—we’re actually upholding an almost identical beauty standard. We’re just making it a lot harder to achieve by telling the women of the world that not only are they supposed to look like Goop or Rih-Rih or the ethereal goddess running across a field in your J.Crew catalogue—now they’re supposed to do it without the assistance of makeup.

And here women find themselves feeling as though they can’t please anyone. If they wear makeup, that’s feeding a negative stereotype. If they don’t wear makeup, they’re still feeding a negative bias that says they have to look a certain way. When does a woman get to choose how she looks because that’s how she wants to look?

Last April comedienne Amy Schumer took on the issue by parodying One Direction’s “What Makes You Beautiful” and in doing so makes the point that pushing a #nomakeup standard is just as superficial as insisting that a woman must wear makeup every day for every occasion. Both are wrong. Both need to stop. The video is hilarious, so of course, I had to share:

Whether one likes makeup or not, what ultimately matters is that you look the way you want to look. Society has no business defining what is best, or preferable, or even professional. We haven’t even touched on the topic of modifications such as piercings and dermals. The only person who can define your beauty is you and if that includes makeup, that’s fine. No one has any room to criticize what makes you feel like the best and most beautiful you.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
Fair Doesn’t Get Personal
May 22, 2016
charles i. letbetter - fair isn't personal

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made. —Groucho Marx

 

charles i. letbetter - fair doesnt get personal

Complaining about life not being fair is immoral when you’re already so close to the top.

I could be very frank with you and say that life isn’t fair. Ever. I could end this article here and go back to bed, which sounds so very tempting. But to do that would be missing the entire point this morning. You already know life isn’t fair. You feel how unfair life is everytime the car doesn’t start, or someone else gets the girl, or the baby throws up on you just as you’re about to walk out the door. You don’t need me to tell you that life isn’t fair. What I want you to hear this morning is that nothing to do with fairness, the good, the bad, or the indifferent, is personal. The universe is not picking on you.

From the earliest point in our lives, we look for fairness. If we see a child with a lollipop, we want a lollipop. If one of our classmates has new shoes, we think we deserve new shoes  as well. Someone gets paid a given amount for a certain job, we think it’s only fair that everyone be paid the same amount for the same job. This concept of what is fair seems to be universal. Even monkeys understand equal pay for equal work. We want everything in our lives to be fair, or so we say.

The fact is, if you’re living in the United States, Canada, or most of Western Europe, the scales are already tipped in your favor. Those little inconveniences you consider unfair are little more than a minor balancing of the universal measure of right and wrong, and chances are you’re still coming out much better than the vast majority of  people. Consider some of the following comparisons:

Why? What’s fair isn’t a personal thing. Shit happens on a universal basis. There’s no cosmic calculator that is keeping tabs on the number of good things you get versus the bad. There’s no mystical figure in the sky or below the earth who is waiting to reward you for being nice, or punish you for being a total bitch. Instead, what we consider to be fairness has more to do with where on the planet you were born, whether your parents were (comparatively) rich, and whether you had the opportunity to go to school. If you had those things, life is likely to be overly fair to you. If you were born with those factors against you, life is more likely to feel like the bottom of a global shithole.

Whether you want to admit it or not, if you were born in the US, regardless of any other factor, life for you is more fair than 85% of the rest of the world. Here’s another list:

  • While you complain about slow internet speeds or lack of wifi in a given location, 60% of the world still has no internet service at all.
  • When you complain about the long wait times at the doctor’s office, consider that 27% of the world’s population has no access to modern healthcare at all.
  • If you are tempted to complain about your job, remember that over 200 million people around the world have no job and few prospects for ever getting one.
  • Before you gripe about the assembly instructions being in more than one language, know that 750 million people in the world can’t read at all.
  • As you’re complaining about the slow service at that restaurant, over 795 million people will go hungry today. Most of those will go hungry tomorrow as well.

Are any of those statistics in any way fair? What is fair about children in one part of the world sleeping soundly at night while those in a different region huddle together in fear as they listen to bombs falling around them? What is fair about women in Africa walking multiple miles each day to collect water when all you do is turn a tap and then complain because you don’t like the way it tastes?

In the past week, I’ve heard people complain that they didn’t think it fair that someone was prettier, someone had bigger boobs, someone had a better spouse, someone had a better job, someone had a bigger house. Each one of those people specifically said they didn’t think their current condition was fair.

I don’t think the real problem is one of fairness at all. Life isn’t treating you mean, the universe doesn’t have a target attached to your forehead. You’re just greedy, and perhaps lacking in perspective. Your desire for more blocks your ability to see just how much you already have.

Life is treating you just fine. So not every little detail goes your way. So someone else gets the promotion at work. So Brad Pitt will still be hotter than me even when he’s 98.

You’re alive. That’s fair.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Empowerment Or Exploitation
May 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - empowerment or exploitation

Climate change, demographics, water, food, energy, global health, women’s empowerment – these issues are all intertwined. We cannot look at one strand in isolation. Instead, we must examine how these strands are woven together. —Ban Ki-moon

 

charles i. letbetter - empowerment or enslavement

Empowerment is more than words; the actions have to match as well

There are days, like today, where I feel as though all the stories are the same, we’ve merely switched up the names a bit. Twenty years ago, June of 1996, Kathie Lee Gifford was co-host of a popular morning talk show and was active in causes designed to empower women. Somewhere along the way, someone convinced her that putting her name on a clothing label would be a good idea. The label would be affordable and provide stylish fashion to women who couldn’t afford the big designer names. Empowerment; that’s a good thing, right? There was just one problem.

June 26 came along and the chief executive of National Labor Committee Education Fund in Support of Worker and Human Rights in Central America told Congress that the clothes were being made by 13- and 14-year-olds in Honduras. Even worse, those children were being forced to work 20-hour days. Empowerment? No, enslavement.

The backlash against Mrs. Gifford was quick and hard. She was demonized from every direction. Never mind that it was Wal-Mart, not Mrs. Gifford, who had made the choice of suppliers. No one ever bothered to picket the people directly responsible. Instead, because her name was attached to the brand, it was Mrs. Gifford who had to take the responsibility.

Celebrity labels often have this problem. Putting their name on clothes can produce a perpetual revenue stream for the celebrity, often without them making any actual investment in the products at all. Their name, their face in the advertising, virtually ensures that the products will sell well. The celebrity can then use a portion the profits to support a cause of empowerment to a specific group, typically one related to their own background. Sounds like a can’t miss scenario, doesn’t it?

But it does miss. Often. In addition to Mrs. Giffords nightmare, which eventually sunk the label, both Jaclyn Smith and Michael Jordan have lent their names to clothing lines only to have the claim on sweatshop use leveled against them. This is not a new story, and it’s happening again.

This time, it’s Beyonce’s Ivy Park label that’s coming under fire. British newspaper ran a story this past Sunday claiming that the sportswear brand is being manufactured in Sri Lanka by women making mere pittance a day in confining circumstances with strict curfews. That article wasn’t too bad, as it sloppily attempted to connect the brand, and its UK seller, Topshop, to disgraced BHS executive,Sir Philip Green. But then, writer Sirin Kale picked up the story for Vice brand Broadly and took the matter much, much deeper, exposing the severity of the situation.

Beyonce talks a lot about how she wants her Ivy Park brand to be a source of empowerment for women. In an interview with Elle (which also manages to cement Philip Green’s involvement), the music diva says of the brand:

It’s really the essence: to celebrate every woman and the body she’s in while always striving to be better. I called it Ivy Park because a park is our commonality. We can all go there; we’re all welcomed. It’s anywhere we create for ourselves. For me, it’s the place that my drive comes from. I think we all have that place we go to when we need to fight through something, set our goals and accomplish them.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Inspiring, even. I’ve no reason to doubt the singer’s sincerity. But I’m pretty sure the women making those clothes aren’t visiting any parks, either. They do one thing and one thing only: make Ivy Park clothes.

The women who work for the Sri Lankan garment manufacturer make roughly the equivalent of sixty-two cents an hour. They don’t see their families; they live in dormitories on-site. They have strict curfews and their movement is limited. They barely survive. One woman said the $126 a month she makes sewing mesh panels into leggings was not enough to cover her basic expenses. Where’s the empowerment in that?

Now, to be fair, conditions in Sri Lanka are not as bad as those in Bangladesh or Pakistan. The company that owns the sweatshop pays particular attention to the building’s structure and meeting appropriate building codes. Women here are not as likely to be caught in a burning building. I should also mention that their pay is above Sri Lanka’s pitiful excuse for a minimum wage. However, workers would need to be paid nearly three times that minimum, or more than double their current wage, before they can actually live off what they are making.

Working conditions don’t have to be the worst in the world before they become exploitation. When the clothing retails at (approximately) $14 for a headband on up to $250 or so for a dress, someone is being empowered, but it is being done through the exploitation of women whose conditions are desperate enough that they will work for such horrible wages. Millions of dollars will flow into Beyonce’s bank account, and equally so for Topshop, but not for anyone else. Exactly how is that empowering to anyone but Beyonce?

We keep seeing this pattern over and over and over with almost every celebrity label on the market. Beyonce isn’t the only one, she’s just the latest big name who’s making money off women so poor they likely have never even heard of the singer and certainly can’t afford her albums.

As we saw with Mrs. Gifford’s label, though, canceling orders, shutting down the sweatshops, isn’t the answer, either. When Wal-Mart finally pulled the clothing order from the Honduran sweatshop, over 10,000 people lost desperately needed jobs. In Beyonce’s case, the numbers would likely be even higher. It’s not just the workers but entire poverty-ridden countries being exploited by the whole fashion industry.

If Beyonce was really serious about empowering women, she’d make sure those is Sri Lanka were receiving a living wage, even if that means shaving a percentage point off her own profit. If she were serious about empowerment, a portion of the profits could go into the Sri Lankan communities in desperate need of help. If empowerment were really the focus, The singer could support nutrition and education programs for the women making her clothes.

Fashion isn’t about empowerment, though, despite what their marketing packet might say. Fashion is about profit and if that means exploiting large groups of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people, then sadly the fashion establishment finds those terms acceptable.

Celebrity labels are nothing more than an attempt to profit from a name while it’s popular. No one is empowered. No one is given an advantage. It’s all about the money and exploitation. Every. Damn. Time.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology  /  pop culture
Modesty Doesn’t Become You
May 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modesty doesn't become you

It is strange that modesty is the rule for women when what they most value in men is boldness. —Ninon de L’Enclos

 

charles i. letebetter - modesty doesn't become you

Modesty should never be a mandate, but only a personal choice for those who understand their own power

Modesty is a topic that tends to get my dander up, so to speak, because I see it misapplied and inappropriately mandated and used as a bullying weapon far too often. Modesty has been used to shame, to subjugate, to imprison, and to deny rights to women for centuries and that we continue to put up with such nonsense leaves me angry. There are three specific instances that are raising my blood pressure this morning, even though not all recent.

In fact, the first happened a couple of months ago. Kat, as you may or may not have noticed, has relatively small breasts. We’re both cool with that. They have their advantages, one being that she doesn’t typically need to wear a bra. In some cases, wearing a bra can even be painful. So, she doesn’t. However, during a performance review at work a couple of months ago, she discovered that one of her co-workers, not a client or anyone of authority, but a co-worker had complained that sometimes the shape of Kat’s nipples are visible beneath her clothing. Normally, we call such an attitude petty and let it go.

Then, this past Saturday, KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was going through the morning weather report when morning news anchor Chris Burrous, a man whose own hair style was stolen from a 1950s evangelist, handed her a sweater during the live broadcast because, “we’re getting emails.” This is just so incredibly foul one has to see it for it to be believed.

https://youtu.be/NuhXbGwcUwo

Chan, who know that those who complain lose their jobs, laughed off the whole episode and Burrous later apologized, but neither is sufficient to excuse both the behavior and the reasoning behind it.

Finally, we published an article yesterday, Life Isn’t That Bad, and shared it with a few friends who expressed feeling a little hopeless about all the bad news in the world. In one instance, a woman, who is not a mutual acquaintance, commented: “Smart message. Terrible blouse.” I had to drop back and take a look at the article. I chose yesterday’s imagery because of Ella’s smile, not what she was wearing. Turns out, she’s wearing a sweater, not a blouse, and had chosen to leave it unbuttoned, daring to show some cleavage.

Modesty is a big thing among many religious zealots and in certain parts of conservative culture as a whole. Some entire countries demand that women dress modestly and provide for severe punishment if they don’t. Even the Puritans who inhabited the English settlement at Jamestown held some pretty tyrannical views. Mandatory modesty is global and a part of everyday life for many.

There’s just one HUGE problem with all this forced modesty: Everywhere you see it, without exception, it is being done in an attempt to shame, dominate, subjugate, and objectify women. Women are not told to cover up because doing so empowers them. Women are not told to be modest because it gives them more authority. Women are not told to be modest because it helps their voice to be heard.

No, women are told to be modest because they are “distracting,” which demeans them to being nothing more than shiny, pretty objects. Women are told to be modest because their dress style is “inappropriate,” which means someone is shaming them. Women are told to be modest because “only your husband should see you like that,” which is both dominating and subjugating. Every time women are told to be modest, in inference is that they are doing something wrong, even if all they are doing is existing.

What especially sickens me is that this disempowering nonsense is being taught to young girls from the moment they first learn to dress. There is an absolutely disgusting movement among conservative evangelicals called Secret Keepers. I was concerned the moment I heard the name, because keeping secrets is a tool used by rapists, specifically child molesters who are trying to keep their victims silent. “Secret Keepers” immediately sounds to me a group of children who have been molested. What it is, though, is a movement designed to impress girls as young as eight years old with the concept that their bodies are not their own and that modesty helps keep them “pure” for their eventual husbands. Get a load of some of their nonsense:

Bellies are very intoxicating and we need to save that for our husbands!

Lean forward a little bit. Can you see too much chest or future cleavage? Your shirt is too low.

It all depends on whether God has chosen to bless you with breasts or not.

There you go. Already, girls are being told that not only are their bodies not their own, but that they are little more than objects to be possessed by husbands and that their budding sexuality is distracting. Where this leads, ultimately, is the concept that victims are responsible for their own rape. They were “asking for it” because of how they dressed, or how they walked, or how they otherwise were sufficiently immodest.

We already have more than enough trouble combating the pervasive rape culture that has dominated our society for centuries. Women everywhere need to know that they can wear whatever they hell they want, where and whenever they wish, without being placed in physical danger. Women, and young girls, need to know that they can stand up for themselves and their ideals without the threat of violence against them.

Furthermore, women need to know that they, at the very least, have the same right to be dominant, to be forceful, to be bold, to be adventurous as any man who ever lived. If that boldness means one needs to take off their shirt to make a point, go for it. There is absolutely NO reason women should be shamed for doing exactly the same thing that we encourage men and boys to do.

I know there are already countless articles on this topic all over the Internet, so I won’t go on at length. Those were just the things stuck in my craw this morning.

Ultimately, though, I’m looking forward to the day we can view something like the video below as just another weather forecast. Fair warning, if you’re viewing this at work you probably do not want to scroll down.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Modeling Sucks. Sometimes.
May 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

I never cared about modeling. As a model, you’re powerless. —Karen Gillan

 

charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

If you’re looking to make a career out of modeling and don’t already have a fat bank account, you might want to think again.

Back in 2005, when I first considered moving to Indianapolis from Atlanta, I naturally wanted to make sure that I would be able to have sufficient income. I did a little digging and was able to make contact with four different modeling agencies here. Three were delightfully quick to say yes, they would be happy to utilize my services. The fourth, Helen Wells, wouldn’t commit but at least was open to discussion. I had similar phone calls with ad agencies with similar results. So, I put the majority of my belongings in a storage unit (which would later flood), packed the rest in the back of a rental car, and headed North feeling somewhat optimistic about the future.

Within two weeks I knew I was wrong in my assessment. One modeling agency packed up and moved the very next day after I met with them, taking all the models’ earnings with them. Another told me how much they paid for a model’s comp card session, but they only had one model due to a disagreement over pay. They were gone within 30 days of that conversation. The third was more difficult to pin down, never quite having time to schedule a meeting and when we did was suspiciously non-committal. By the end of the summer, a lawsuit had been brought against the agency for withholding models’ pay. The models won the suit, but the agency owner fled the state without paying anyone.

I don’t know how many times  I’ve talked with aspiring models who just wanted to make a little extra money while in college. Modeling sounds like it would be an easy source of cash for anyone who is reasonably attractive. The common perspective is that all one has to do is show up. Someone does your hair and makeup, someone else provides your wardrobe, then you just stand in front of a camera and pose for a few minutes. Boom, instant easy cash. But that’s not the way modeling works at all. Not even close.

Modeling has always had its shell games and money rackets going all the way back to the 1940s when professional modeling began. The industry runs loose with absolutely no one overseeing it in any way. Some states have laws concerning how long models can work if they’re under 18, and a few European countries have some form of law designed to protect against eating disorders, but for the most part, modeling agencies do whatever they damn well please and models almost always end up feeling more like victims.

CNN Money recently started airing a five-part investigative series called Runway Injustice, taking a detailed look at the dark and dirty side of modeling. Only two parts have been released so far, but it is obvious from the title that the cable news outlet isn’t taking a positive view of the modeling industry. They’re looking at the con games, the slow-to-pay problem, and how many agencies make money charging models for expenses. One former model even goes on record as saying her agency charged her for the flowers they sent her on her birthday.

When one watches a fashion show and sees all the long-legged girls parading past in next season’s fashion, one might get the impression that these models are doing quite well for themselves, but the truth is quite different. While designers might pay the Hadid or Jenner offspring outrageous (and unjustified) amounts for showing up, most labels still pay less than $5,000 per model. I know, that still sounds like a lot, but from that travel, hotel, and food expenses are deducted, on top of the agency’s standard 20% commission and administrative fees. Many models walk away, after months of waiting, with less than $500. Some end up actually owing the agency money. Even Cara Delevigne, who has been at the very top of the game, doesn’t have anything nice to say about the industry and how it treats models.

Increasingly, the value of an agency, or “management company” as many like IMG prefer to be called now, is being called into question. More casting agents are looking at sources such as Instagram and other social media outlets, choosing models with exceptionally high numbers of followers, which virtually guarantees success for whatever ad campaign or runway show in which the model appears. Unrepresented, or independent, these models have difficulty keeping the work flowing. Most end up signing with an agency and find themselves right back in the same traps that more traditional models experience.

All this begs the question that, if modeling is such a horrible career, why would young people want to even consider doing such a thing? The answer is that not everything about modeling is horrible. For many, just the fun of being in front of the camera, getting to play dress-up with the wardrobe, the opportunity to travel (even if it’s on their own dime), and sometimes meeting really cool and famous people is sufficient. Some use modeling as a way to explore their alter ego, being in front of the camera what they cannot be in their private lives. Others use modeling as a means of escape from other horrible conditions.  For many, just the chance that they might become part of the .05% who actually make a fantastic living is enough to risk everything.

I’m sure that, at the end of the CNN investigation, there will be someone advocating greater oversight of the industry and legislation to protect models from various forms of abuse and deceit. Don’t expect anything to actually happen, though. We’ve heard all these complaints before. Nothing I’ve seen in the CNN report so far is new or different from what I’ve seen and heard for 30 years. The sad fact is models are not an organized group, therefore they are not able to present a single or unified voice. They don’t have, and can’t afford, lobbyist speaking to legislators on their behalf. No one sticks up for them and, once the spotlight of the CNN story fades, everything will almost certainly continue on the way it has.

Modeling is fun, sometimes, but there are a lot of other times when it just plain sucks. If someone wants to do it for the fun and adventure, great. Go for it. Have fun every step of the way. Don’t expect to get rich, though, and watch your back at every turn. While being a model can present some incredible experiences, it’s not likely to leave you swimming in cash. In fact, you’ll be needing your own gas money. Always.

Good luck.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  Photography
Product Placement In Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

If you really think about it, when watching television, you have product placement all the time. —Jay Chiat

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Could photographers benefit by charging for product placement in their photographs the way television charges for placement in their shows?

Sitting here trying to catch up on some news articles I missed over the weekend, I came across an article in the Media section of the New YorkTimes looking at how advertising has changed in a digital age. What caught my attention was all the talk about how an old ad trick, product placement, is making more sense than ever in content that is shown on multiple platforms. Creating separate content for every available platform is expensive, but if the brand is embedded in someone else’s content, the onus and cost for multi-platform delivery falls to someone else. This works for the brand not only in terms of saving money (which it may or may not do), but extending their reach to content viewers who may not have been familiar with the brand.

You’ve been watching this happen on television and the movies from the moment either began. Big brands, especially tobacco companies, were significant sponsors of early television because it put their name in front of people who weren’t consumers of their product. Brands became “household names” not so much because of the quality of the product but because of their association with someone’s favorite TV program. As media has evolved, we now see that same product placement being equally important to digital media, especially those that run on social media platforms.

Photographers have utilized product placement before as well, though they may not have thought of it in those terms specifically, and they probably didn’t get paid for the placement. When we’re doing portfolio work, or taking pictures that are not for a specific client, we often approach designers and boutique owners about borrowing wardrobe. This allows our photographs to look more professionally styled (rather than depending on what the model is carrying in her bag) and, in some cases, gives the designer or boutique a touch of free publicity. In an environment where cash isn’t in abundance, the system sort of works. Kind of. Maybe.

Let’s take the pictures in this article, for example. The wardrobe is courtesy of  local designer Shiela Ferguson, whose Jealousy Jane brand is reasonably well-known in the local market. Christopher Thompson did the hair and makeup. By mentioning them here, they both, ostensibly, receive some advertising benefit from being included in the photograph. That’s assuming the people viewing the picture are in the market for a new couture gown or want to drive to Atlanta, Indiana to have their makeup done.

Consider how we might have made this photo different, though. What if the models had been holding a branded drink, with the label prominently showing? Would the image have been more interesting if they had been eating menu items from a popular fast food chain? Perhaps the image would have taken on a different tone had they been giving the dog branded treats.

Traditionally, I wouldn’t have considered such a move because using branded items, especially if the brand name and/or logo is prominently visible, can lead to some significant legal problems. Brands spend a lot of money on their image and don’t want anyone representing them in a way contrary to the brand’s message. Trademark infringement can be costly if photographers aren’t careful about what they’re doing.

In today’s environment, however, there might be an opportunity for enterprising photographers to do something unheard of: make money by selling product placement in their portfolio images! Why not? Products in photographs make them more interesting, more relatable, and make the story come alive to a larger audience. Funds from product placement can then be used for other things such as set construction and hiring models that match the brand message.

Of course, you know there are challenges to such an approach. First and foremost, the photographer has to be able to demonstrate a quality portfolio that appeals to the brand they’re approaching. No one wants to pay for shitty images, nor do they want their products associated with those images. One can hardly blame them.

Second in line is going to be whether the photographer can demonstrate value in his product. In today’s marketing game, this is where numbers matter. How many followers does one have not only on Facebook and Twitter, but Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, Vine, and Periscope? The higher each of those numbers are, the more likely a brand might be interested in placing their products in an image. Know that they’re also going to look at how many likes and shares previous images have received.

A photographer would need to have the ability to deliver an audience the brand wants. If one is primarily doing pet photography, approaching your local Coca-Cola bottler probably isn’t going to work. Tag Hauer may be a tough sell if one plans on shooting farm animals. Being able to match your audience with that of a brand is critical, which means you need to know who is your audience. Look beyond your friends and find out who really pays attention to your work.

Being able to measure results is going to be important as well. Marketing departments have a strange fetish for numbers and if they do agree to pay for product placement they’re going to want to know that you delivered the number of eyeballs you promised. If you don’t, they won’t likely pay for placement again and, especially if you don’t even come close, they might demand a refund. That means you need some method for compiling and reporting viewer statistics. There are a variety of ways to do so, especially if you are paying for sponsored content on Facebook or Snapchat, both of whom have great backend analytics as for not only how many eyeballs but where in the world they were, how old they were, their gender, and even whether they later visited the brand’s  Facebook or Snapchat.

Yes, that is a lot of work and no, it’s not going to be an option for someone who asks a model to shoot and doesn’t plan a concept until she walks through the door. If a photographer wants to actually make money off their portfolio, they have to think more like Caty Burgess, Senior VP for media strategies at the CW network, who asked in that network’s upfronts, “Is the question, ‘What is an ad?’ or ‘What isn’t an ad?'”

Almost anything we create with a camera has the ability to be an ad, even art nudes. We have the potential to change the paradigm in our favor. Think about it and consider changing your strategy.

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Selling this shot to Coke after the fact didn’t work, but it might convince them to do something similar in the future

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Philosophies Of Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. —Dalai Lama

 

charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

Why a photographer takes a picture is sometimes more important than what is being photographed.

I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone. There are a few people, fewer than five, who seem frustrated that I don’t write more about photography since that is mostly what I do. I suppose I could do that, but I’ve always operated under the premise that if one is reading about photography one is not doing photography and the only real way to improve is to do, not read. When I do write about photography, I want it to be something that is genuinely helpful.

What I’ve noticed, though, is that in those moments when I consider doing something crazy like writing a book, the outline itself seems sufficient instruction. If I were to title a chapter with something like, “Understanding Depth of Field,” what else is there to say except that the larger the aperture, the smaller the number, and the shorter the depth of field. There, done with that chapter. You’re welcome.

Okay, so I can BS my way through a thousand or so words on just about any topic, but is that really helpful when, if you want to improve your photography, you have to get out and shoot; that’s the only way anyone gets better. You can read all the damn books by all the “experts” in the world, but if your camera is not in your hand, if you’re not snapping regularly, if you’re not taking risks and trying things out differently, you’re not going to improve.

I’m no longer shooting anywhere near as often as I did four or five years ago and while I’m still not exactly “okay” with that, I’ve come to terms with the reality that my body hates me. We have a working relationship in that my body doesn’t especially like me working and lets me know when I’ve gone too far. Actually, if I could get more shoots in between 4-6 AM, we might be more productive, but there aren’t many people willing to shoot at that hour. Having plenty of time to step back and think, though, has allowed me to re-asses my philosophy of photography and make some changes.

Philosophies come and go and none of them are ever iron-clad; they’re circumstantial at best. Philosophies are based on a specific perspective to a specific reality and as both the perspectives and the realities change, so do the philosophies. As a result, philosophies held by other people are of limited value. Their perspective isn’t going to be the same as yours. The reality is not going to be identical to yours, even though you might share significant portions. Philosophies are valuable to other people only as guides in helping them establish their own.

I’ve held enough different philosophies of photography to fill a terabyte hard drive. Could I talk about each point at length? Yes, but I’m not sure what purpose that would serve. If you want how-to articles, there are plenty of those spanning different topics at Peta Pixel and PDN. Neither link is an endorsement, mind you, just two obvious resources. All I’m giving you are bullet points. Use the contact form if you have questions or hit me up on Facebook.

  • Photography is a means of communication. When you take a picture, you are saying something. When you share a photo, you are broadcasting a message. Think before you talk.
  • Photography is a visual language and just as we don’t all speak English we don’t all take photographs the same way. That’s good. Diversity opens all our minds.
  • Sometimes we have a lot of pictures to serve as our vocabulary, but we don’t always know how to put them together into cohesive communication. Learning to curate our photos before sharing them is important.
  • Just because someone else did it doesn’t mean you can, or should. Find your own distinct look and play to that.
  • Any camera that takes pictures is a good camera.
  • Every once in a while, stop what you’re doing and shoot dirt. Choose a common element, such as a tree or a dandelion, and find a way to make it interesting. Keep the creative juices flowing.
  • Don’t over-think any situation. Details can distract you from the creativity and artistry of the shot. Focus on the major elements and then shoot.
  • Shooting nudes is to photography what figure drawing is to a traditional art education: fundamental. To not study the human body is to be unprepared for shooting a clothed one.
  • Protecting the rights of photographers to shoot without interference is your responsibility, even if you never leave your own studio.
  • Beauty is built upon flaws. There is no such thing as the perfect photograph. Play to the quirks, the oddities, and the imperfections of a subject.
  • The world sees photography as a commodity. The only way to change their mind is to take pictures that are not common.
  • Photography has the ability to tell a harsh truth and that scares people. Don’t be afraid to take those pictures. Sometimes people need to be scared.
  • Censoring photography is like putting a gag in someone’s mouth. Just because someone doesn’t like the message doesn’t mean they have a right to control it.
  • Photographers own the rights to their pictures just like a speaker owns the rights to the words coming from their mouths. Limiting the rights to a photograph because of who is in it is like limiting the rights to a novel because of the words the author used. Stepping in front of a camera does not give anyone rights to that image.
  • Giving up rights to a photograph is a weakness.
  • Neither taking a photograph nor being in a photograph gives either side the right to bully the other.
  • Think with your eyes, see with your camera.
  • Criticizing photographs is a waste of time. When examining a photograph, there are but two questions: Did you capture what you wanted? What would you do differently? Everything else is a matter of one’s creative taste.
  • Saying one understands the whole of photography is like saying one understands every language in the world: you don’t. Photography is too broad, too complex, and too  individual in its details to be consumed as a whole.
  • One doesn’t need friends who limit one’s work. One needs friends who will stand/sit/lie naked in front of your camera while one searches for an angle.
  • The value of a photograph is not in the subject but in the photographer’s ability to tell the story of that subject in a single frame.
  • Just as mountains are millions of years old, there are an equal number of ways in which they can be photographed.
  • Light introduces us to a subject; shadows tell the story.
  • Morality in a photograph lies not in its content but only in the mind of the person viewing it.
  • To be jealous of someone else’s photography is to demonstrate the need for one’s own improvement.
  • Displaying a photograph in both color and black and white is like telling a story from two different perspectives; one is the three little pigs, the other is the wolf.
  • Technology and digital camera works open the field of photography to a whole new realm of exploration which we’ve not yet begun to understand.
  • Never share a picture that didn’t first make you feel something.

I’m going to stop there. I’ve probably already exceeded the point of interest for the vast majority of people. Philosophies become boring the longer one is forced to stare at them. Consider what your philosophy might be. You don’t need to write it down, just think about it then pick up the camera and start shooting.

Philosophies don’t take pictures. Photographers do.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
A Mother’s Beauty
May 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - a mother's beauty

Mother’s love is peace. It need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. —Erich Fromm

chalres i. letbetter - a mother's beauty

Mother’s Day brings plenty of memories, but we forget the beauty sacrifices mothers make for us.

I typically avoid the topic of mothers on Mother’s Day, partly because that’s what everyone is talking about and I’m not sure I can, or should, compete for your attention. Mother’s Day is also a little sad now that my own mother is gone. Some days it is better to let others do all the talking.

We romanticize our mothers in a sense, not that such a perspective is inappropriate, but our love for our mothers sometimes keeps us from seeing the depth of a mother’s sacrifice for her children.  She wouldn’t bring it up, of course, mothers rarely do. But what we remember of our mothers is seen through the perspective of a child. We don’t see what all went on in a mother’s life before she had children and everything she willingly gave up for us.

There aren’t many pictures still around of my mother when she was young. Her family was dirt poor and didn’t have a camera so the only pictures are those someone else took and gave her. What I see in those few pictures, though, is someone with a quick smile, sparkling eyes, and curly jet-black hair. I can understand why Poppa found her attractive. She was petite, like her other mother, with her father’s slim build; enough curve to be feminine, but not so much as to appear inappropriately sexual, which was apparently a thing back in the 1950s. She wore bobby socks with loafers and heels and gloves as was common at the time. Poppa said she was very prim and proper, very strict in her etiquette, but more than anything, he said she was beautiful.

Sure, everyone thinks their mother is beautiful, but we don’t see the same beauty that our fathers did. We see someone who is loving and caring and made sacrifices for us so that we could have everything we needed. Remember, though, that our fathers knew our mothers before we did and they saw her beauty in a different light.  They saw a side of a mother’s beauty that we’re not all that comfortable discussing. Despite everything that might have happened later, all the arguments and divorces, the illnesses and emotional issues, before we were born our fathers thought our mothers were sexy. They wouldn’t likely use that word in front of us, but that’s what they were thinking.

I occasionally come across someone who has nude photographs of their mother taken before they were born. We don’t often think of artistic nude photography having existed much before Helmut Newton, but it most certainly did, and was secretly very popular.   The difference was that they kept those photos to themselves. There was no Internet or social media on which to share them, so rarely did anyone else ever know they had been taken and it certainly wasn’t something they would just show to the kids. Typically, the photos are found by the adult child while helping their mother go through things later in her life. They elicit all knew stories about a side of our mothers we never considered: they were sexy.

Then, we came along and spoiled it all. The effect might not have happened immediately. Some women’s bodies handle childbirth better than others. Others, though, never lose the weight they put on carrying you. Hips that widened to facilitate your delivery didn’t snap back in place. If you kicked the wrong thing while you were swimming around in all that amniotic fluid, you likely created a physical problem your mother had to endure the rest of her life. She was thrilled to nurse you and cuddle you close, but because of that her breasts sag and she never looked the same in a swimsuit again.

You gave her stretch marks and those dark circles under her eyes from 18-plus years of never getting enough sleep and worrying about the trouble she knew you were getting into, even if she didn’t know exactly what it was. You killed her arches as she ran after you in shoes that were not meant for running. Her joints eventually became stiff and arthritic from all the times she put herself in unnatural positions to find that toy you had just dropped, or teaching you how to play leap frog, or picking you up and carrying you from the playground after you fell from the swing, again.

Before you were born, that lady you now call your mom paid more attention to how she looked when she went out. Her ensemble was carefully put together, even if it was more bohemian and less Chanel. She might have even worn makeup and had her nails done. After you came along, though, she was happy if what she was wearing didn’t have any fresh stains and if everything matched it was more by coincidence than design. Your mother’s stylist thought you were cute, but secretly hated you because your mother went from trying out different cuts and colors to short and easy-to-manage.

After  you came along, your mother didn’t go out with friends as often, didn’t travel as much, gave up on trying to fit into Gloria Vanderbilt jeans and damn sure wanted to make sure there was sufficient coverage between her and her Calvin’s. Almost everything that had gone into making her so physically desirable to your father either you ruined or she had to give up to care for you, except for one thing: Love.

And that’s what we remember on Mother’s Day: her love. After all, that’s what is important, right? Nothing else matters, at least, not now. A mother’s beauty isn’t defined by how “hot” she looks, how many heads she once turned, or how many hearts she once broke. A mother’s beauty is defined by how she could kiss a boo-boo and make the pain go away, or how she knew exactly when you needed her to make those special pancakes, or how she could mend a broken heart then help you plot revenge. She likes that definition.

Mothers don’t care about what they’ve given up for you. The love you and, in the vast majority of situations, would do everything all over again (with the benefit of a little wisdom from the experience). She loves you, you love her, and that makes everything beautiful enough for her. But don’t you ever forget that she did make those sacrifices. I’ll tell you what she might not: you owe her. Big.

A poet, whose name escapes me at the moment, once said that a mother’s beauty is defined is defined by the grace and compassion of her children. Your mother gave up a lot for you. Make her beautiful, damnit.

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography
Second Time Around
May 3, 2016
charlesi. letbetter - second time around

I think children are like pancakes. You sort of ruin the first one, and you get better at it the second time around. —Kelly Ripa

 

charles i. letbetter - second time around

This is why we don’t throw things away. Sometimes we can fix things on down the road.

Ask the cats and they’ll tell you I’ve spent the past 30 minutes yelling and cursing at the computer. Right in the big middle of trying to edit some photos that require detailed attention, another application decides that it needs to update RIGHT FUCKING NOW and takes over the desktop until it’s done. My response was sufficient to send all three cats running for cover under the bed.

Since I was momentarily disabled, I grabbed the laptop and decided to play with some old images that have been bugging me for years to see if we could give them a second chance at life. This is the advantage of being connected to the cloud. I was able to access my archives and pull down the offending images just as I would on the desktop and Photoshop pulled in all my presets so that everything I use was available on the laptop. No problem. The only issue is that I’m lousy at detail work on the laptop and I really didn’t want to go to the trouble of connecting the Wacom tablet. So, I limited my work to the changes I could enact globally without destroying the image in the process.

What has always bothered me about these images is the amount of noise. I didn’t have all the equipment necessary when these were shot and as a result they are so full of noise that I’ve not been able to render a satisfactory image out of the entire set. I thought this would be a good chance to try out some new noise reduction filters that would allow me to pinpoint the problem areas. The good news was that they did better than any previous attempt at reducing the noise. The bad news was that there was still a level of noise beyond what I prefer.

Second step: use a different black and white conversion process. When I was shooting film, I was rarely a fan of FOMAPAN because it had a higher grain spread. For this set of images, though, that seemed to be a perfect match. The amount of noise left after the filter was on par with what FOMAPAN naturally produces. After making that adjustment we then put the images through our LAB process and came out with something much closer to being acceptable.

Note that we still didn’t mess with the details. There’s one image where some foreground stuff is visible and others where little shadows or other inconvenient details were ignored for the time being. Should we ever decide that we’ve reached a quality of production where we might print these I would need to clean those up. I don’t think we’re quite there, though. They don’t look horrid on screen, but I’m not convinced they’re ready for print.

Philosophical note: People, like old photographs, often deserve a second chance. Given some time and application of different circumstances, the person you thought was a complete asshole may not be quite so bad. Not saying they’ll be perfect, but some of them definitely deserve a second chance. The exception would be the serial abuser. Kick that jackass to the curb. They don’t change.

Anyway, the fucking update is done now, so here’s the pictures we managed to get finished while we were waiting.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Shopping Habits Die Ugly
April 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - shopping habits die ugly

Whoever said money can’t buy happiness simply didn’t know where to go shopping. —Bo Derek

 

Shopping Habits Die Hard

You’ve changed your shopping habit and it’s killing a quintessential piece of America

I’m old enough to remember having to go downtown to shop. Back then, all the stores were downtown. They were open from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM except on Thursdays, when they stayed open late, until 7:00 PM. At least, that’s how it was in the small Kansas and Oklahoma towns we called home. Back then, if both your parents worked, your shopping choices were either Thursday night or Saturday, neither of which was an especially pleasant experience. Just having to be downtown at night could be harrowing.

I remember the first large indoor mall I visited: Woodland Hills Mall, Tulsa. At the time, its location seemed rather far out, well removed not only from downtown but most of Tulsa’s suburbs. There was nothing around but fields and pasture. Shopping there was a surreal experience and we wondered why in the world anyone would want to drive all the way out there. If you were to visit that location now, however, not only is the area heavily populated, it’s had to go through three or four efforts at revitalization to avoid becoming run down.

Recently, someone gave Kat’s dad, aka “Grandpa Bob,” a real treasure: a 1969 Rand-McNally Atlas. Looking at the map for Indianapolis back then, I-465 was only completed on the west side and the primary destination was Lafayette Square Mall. Drive along North Lafayette now and there are times the mall looks completely abandoned and even the few stores that do remain are small, discount-driven stores with goods of highly questionable origin and quality.

Our shopping habits are changing again, and as they do we’re slowly but surely killing off what has become a bastion of American retail and excess: the shopping mall. Already, there’s an entire website dedicated to tracking mall closures. Now, Green Street Advisors, a real estate research firm, is saying that department stores need to close hundreds of locations if they are to have any hope of returning to profitability. In short, there are too many malls with too many department stores and it’s bringing the entire retail sector down.

The plight of department stores isn’t new and has been fairly well documented. Just last week Sears announced it would be closing 78 more stores (mostly KMart stores) this year. Macy’s warned last September that it would close 40 stores this year. We’ve seen this coming for a few years and that has, if anything, accelerated the rate of change in our shopping habits. We’re buying more online and from discounters now than we ever have.

Yet, more closures are needed if these once ubiquitous department stores are to stay in business. Green Street’s report suggests Sears close nearly half its existing locations. JCPenney needs to close approximately 320 stores, while Nordstrom probably needs to shutter 30 locations, and Macy’s needs to ax another 70 on top of the previously announced 40. All this is necessary if the store brands are to remain profitable.

Store brands are likely to take heed to this advice. They’re watching what’s happening to similar retailers in the UK and it’s not a pretty sight. UK retailer BHS went into administration yesterday, a prelude to possible bankruptcy as did menswear giant Austin Reed. And the once popular mall stalwart Aeropostale was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on Friday after its stock price has failed to break the $1 mark since last September.

All this spells death for traditional suburban malls who depend on large department stores as their anchors. Malls have seen anchors cut the amount of floor space in some locations and even abandon leases in some others. When that happens, shopping at those malls screeches to a sharp stop. Smaller inner-mall stores, which rely on traffic driven by the anchors, quickly fold and leave. The next thing mall management knows, their vacancy rate exceeds 40% and once that happens the end days are near.

Let’s face it, though: no one really likes shopping at the mall anymore. This isn’t the 80s. We would much rather shop discounters such as TJ Maxx or  Marshalls and when we do shop a major department store we’re more likely to go in, find what we need, and leave. We don’t have enough expendable income to waste time just wandering around and exploring the mall.

No one has said yet whether they’ll follow Green Street’s advice. If they do, though, you can most likely kiss your mall shopping habit goodbye. With store closures in the numbers that the report recommends, only a fraction of mostly newer malls  would be able to survive. Within two years, the entire retail landscape could change dramatically.

I find it a bit ironic that suburban shopping centers and malls were responsible for killing many downtown shopping districts and now those malls are finding out what it’s likely to become obsolete themselves. Few downtowns ever recovered. Mall deaths may be even more permanent.

So, get your food court fix now and maybe make an extra trip to Spencer’s Gifts for those naughty little things. The mall is one shopping experience whose future is not pretty.

Continue Reading

Music  /  PotD
Prince, Chyna, and Immortality
April 22, 2016

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

 

charles i. letbetter - prince, chyna, and immortality

Prince changed music. Chyna changed women’s wrestling. But would we want either of them to be immortal?

Here we are again, mourning the death of yet another music legend. If I had any purple left in my wardrobe I might be wearing it today. Maybe. Earlier this week, I listed Purple Rain as one of the top five songs that everyone needs to hear. Now, that’s all anyone wants to play. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when an artist dies.

There’s also a temptation to curse 2016 for being unreasonably evil in killing off people who mean a lot to our culture and in whom we have a great deal of invested emotion. I saw one tweet yesterday that claimed the aliens were calling all their spies back home before the disaster of this fall’s presidential election. While unlikely, that explanation comes about as close to making sense as anything else does at the moment.

Yesterday just plain sucked for everyone except, possibly, Queen Elizabeth II, who turned 90. And even if her day went as badly as everyone else’s, the Queen gets a do-over in June when her birthday is officially celebrated.

The rest of us, however, started the day with news of Chyna’s death. That was bad enough. Chyna was one of those people who always seemed to be struggling against public perception. Few people paid attention to women’s wrestling before Chyna got into the game, and she changed that. She made it more sexy, more entertaining. That wasn’t enough, though, and she kept looking for something I’m not sure she ever found, some level of acceptance that alluded her.

When the news began to filter onto the Internet that Prince is dead, the initial tone was one of disbelief. After all, he’d been the target of false death announcements before and having TMZ break the news is like asking for a giant here-we-go-again eye roll. Only when the Associated Press joined in on the story did the shock and sadness really begin to set in and spread a purple wave of sadness around the globe.

Were it a more quiet news day, we would probably be talking about the death of Brenda Soto, a 16-year-old Fairfax county, Virginia student who was beaten to death by other girls while at school. There are multiple issues there that need to be discussed, including the accusation that multiple students stood by and recorded the beating on their phones instead of doing anything to help.

Our collective attention can’t seem to handle more than one topic at a time, though, and for the moment, all our attention is on Prince. The rock star’s death is bound to become one of those “where were you” moments for a lot of people. I am seeing in the global reaction’s to Prince’s death a pattern similar to what happened when Elvis died unexpectedly in 1977. All the shock, all the despair, mostly coming from people my age and a wee bit younger, those for whom songs like Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, and When Doves Cry influenced some formative part of their adolescence, is very similar to that of women of a certain age when Elvis died.

I remember being in the car with Poppa, on my way to a piano lesson, when the news of Elvis’ death came on the radio. I wasn’t of the generation that worshipped him, though, so while I appreciated the impact he’d had on music, I wasn’t necessarily a fan (which hasn’t changed). Similarly, teens today are not overly familiar with Prince and the various iterations and changes he went through. Those who are really into music appreciate his impact, but they’re not as likely to be fans and most won’t understand why their parents and the rest of the world are turning everything purple.

What I expect to come next are the conspiracy theories. Prince led a life that is ripe for speculation. After all, since his 2001 conversion to Jehovah’s Witness, Prince had acted less like a rock star and more like a delusional cult member (which is the most accurate way to describe all Jehovah’s Witnesses). Even though he had returned to performing and seemed to be in good form when he rocked Atlanta earlier this month, one has to wonder if the strange religious beliefs, particularly that part about not allowing blood transfusions or organ transplants, might have factored into his death.

There’s also the fact that Prince died a mere two months after one of his more famous girlfriends, Vanity. That there might have been some connection between their deaths is already a tale that is gathering some steam and, given the romantic twist, could quite likely take off.

Or maybe he’s out golfing with Elvis and Bowie in Bermuda.

With the tremendous number of deaths among music legends and other celebrities this year, one might find it interesting that just this past Wednesday The Guardian ran a story about the possibility of digital immortality. The theory here is that while it might be impossible to preserve one’s body forever, given the natural decaying of biological tissue, one might be able to digitally preserve all of one’s memories, experiences, personality, and wisdom in a digital form, and then present that back through some type of chat bot with an avatar resembling the face of the deceased. The name of the company is Eternime and the product isn’t quite ready for prime time. Their website says they hope to be in beta sometime “next month,” without any indication as to which “next month” that might be.

But what if we could preserve the personality, the spirit, and the essence of people like Prince or Bowie or Elvis? Would we really want to keep them around in that form? We have their music, which is influential on their own. Do we really need a digital Prince to repeat back some of his previous questionable statements? Regardless of how great his music was, this was the guy who said, “When I found out that there was eight Presidents before George Washington, I wanted to smack somebody,” and “Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.” Do we really need that nonsense lingering around? I’m not sure immortality suits everyone terribly well.

And that’s why I might not wear purple today, even if I had some. All that was great about Prince happened before 2000. In fact, one could easily, in my opinion, make the argument that after his 1998 album Lovesexy everything else pretty much sucks. To return to an earlier analogy, think young Elvis versus “old” Elvis (he died when he was 42, so “old” is a matter of perspective). With both artists, the songs that made them famous and for which they’ll always be remembered are the ones at the front of their careers. Prince hasn’t had a number one hit since 1989’s Batdance.  After that, the highest any song ranked on the charts was The Greatest Romance Ever Sold, which topped at #63 in 2000. He hasn’t had a song hit the top 100 since 2004’s Call My Name.

So, as great as he once was, maybe it’s best that we let Prince and everyone else go. Immortality isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be and sometimes the more we know about our heroes and legends, the less likeable they become. We’ll miss what we liked about them, that part of them that touched our lives, but that doesn’t mean we should keep them around forever.

And hey, maybe the movie Men In Black was right: They’re not dead, they just returned to their home planet.

Continue Reading

Fashion
Derailing Fashion’s Speed Train
April 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - derailing fashion's speed train

What good is speed if the brain has oozed out on the way. —St. Jerome

 

charles i. letbetter - derailing fashion's speed train

The first step toward fixing a broken fashion industry is getting it to slow down

Fashion’s speculators have been reeling since last fall when both Raf Simons and Elbar Albaz left high-profile creative positions without announcing a move to another similar post. Since then, others, most notably last week’s departure of Hedi Slimane from Yves Saint Laurent, have continued to underscore one of the most significant problems with fashion today: the current pace of eight collections a year is too much. Designers have been complaining for years and now, rather than continuing to put up with the relentless pace demanded by high profile houses, they’re leaving, taking their creativity with them.

This past Saturday, April 9, London’s Telegraph published an interview with Raf Simons that lays out the severity of this problem more clearly than previous statements.

“These days it’s a different way of consuming [culture]. It’s now looking and then swiping to the next thing – looking, next; looking, next; looking, next; next, next, next, next – there’s less dialogue and engagement with it in general”

Here would be the first place we need to slow down: taking the time to consider what we’re consuming  so that designers have time to consider what they’re creating.  When we engage in fast fashion, especially as we tend to do more online shopping through our smartphones and/or mobile devices, we’re not paying attention to what it is we’re actually buying. Some people don’t care; they buy for the look and prestige of a label and hope that they will be able to squeeze into the garment once it arrives. We don’t take the time to pay attention to stitching, to how well the fabric is going to stand up, or the type of care it’s going to require. Paying more attention to what we’re buying slows the purchasing process which, in turn, gradually slows the development process, giving designers more time to be creative and pay more attention to what they’re sending down the catwalk.

Simons also spoke to the pace at which designers are expected to develop. If a small designer’s work catches on in the right places, the explosion can be deafening.

“Fashion has become such a big thing. When you are just a kid from the streets somewhere you start slowly, maybe with just two people watching and then 10 and 50 and 100. These days that can grow really fast. Suddenly millions of people are watching.”

Creative fashion talent is something that takes time to grow and the traditional model allows for that. Designers first go to school then work their way up through a label, giving them time to not only hone their craft, but to learn the business as well before starting out on their own. Inasmuch as fast-fashion retailers such as H&M and Zara pluck young designers directly out of school and start demanding store-ready work from them deteriorates that growth opportunity while simultaneously minimizing their personal brand. When fed-up and burned-out designers finally leave such a place, they’re often so discouraged and disenfranchised that they leave fashion altogether. Wonderfully creative minds are being killed before they have an opportunity to fully blossom.

As fast fashion kills the opportunity for creativity, it is making more and more fashion irrelevant, which cannot help but ultimately backfire on the retailers. While the stores may appear to be putting “new” fashion on their shelves on a daily basis, what they’re actually doing is replacing one vintage inspired piece with a different vintage inspired piece. Sooner or later, people begin to look at their closet and see that they already have the exact same things that are on store shelves. Simons hits the topic rather bluntly:

“Everyone is paying attention to the wrong thing in my opinion. There’s this huge debate about ‘Oh my God, should we sell the garments the day after the show or three days after the show or should we tweet it in this way or Instagram it in that way?’… You know, all that kind of bullshit. Will all that stuff still be relevant 30 years from now? I don’t think so.”

If fashion is not memorable, if a fashion style does not define its time and place, of what good is it, ultimately? Are we looking at a fashion future that is as bland and boring as what we’ve been seeing on runways the past five years? Is fast fashion going to kill every last ounce of creativity until designers are replaced by machines making random modifications to old patterns? Simons doesn’t mix words when explains how fed up he is with the current pace of fast fashion:

“Every season I see so many things evolving at such a speed that I think certain creative people, including myself, are just not willing to do it anymore. I don’t want to. If you work on that level, you miss out on a lot of things.”

After reading this interview, I’m not expecting to see Raf Simons heading another ready-to-wear label anytime soon. While I’m sure there are offers being made, he doesn’t seem the least bit inclined to return to the craziness and self-destructive atmosphere that is fast fashion. We should take this as a warning.

Consumers are the ones who must stop fast fashion. H&M and Zara and Forever 21 are simply responding to your buying habits. When consumers demand more, faster, they rip away the opportunity for designers to think, to explore, and consider all that comes with being creative. If we want to derail this destructive train of fast fashion, we have to change the way we shop. Look more at local designers and boutiques. Take more time and be intelligent about what we buy. Pay attention to quality and not be so driven by price alone.

Should we fail, we may soon see a day where we’re all wearing identical jumpsuits. We don’t want that.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  Photography
Photoshop Myths Versus Reality
April 6, 2016
charles i. letbetter - photoshp myth verses reality

Photoshop makes things look beautiful just as you have special effects in movies. It’s just a part of life. —Erin Heatherton

 

charles i. letbetter - photoshop myths versus reality

Photoshop is often maligned as being a tool of evil, but the reality is quite different

I was quite dismayed when I saw that the use of Adobe’s premier image-editing software, Photoshop, was once again being blamed for a magazine photo looking different than what the subject expected. In this particular case, actress Kerry Washington is miffed at AdWeek for what she claims is Photoshop manipulation making her skin look lighter than it is. To my knowledge, AdWeek, of which I am an avid reader, has not yet responded (at least, not publicly), so I’m not going to weigh in on those direct allegations.

Instead, what I want to address is the increasing inference that, somehow, Photoshop is the evil villain whose sole purpose is to ruin your photographs. I am deeply disturbed by the increasing number of people, specifically actresses and models, who are adding a “no Photoshop” clause to their contracts, much to the detriment of their images. Such actions are incredibly foolish and cannot help but lead photographers to either utilize methods that are more extreme and expensive or not photograph those subjects at all (which would tend to be my response).

First, a wee bit of history. Photoshop was the brainchild of two brothers, Thomas and John Knoll. John was employed by Industrial Light and Magic, the division of LucasFilm responsible for all those cool special effects. Thomas, at the time, was a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan working on a thesis involving image processing. This was all the way back in 1987. Thomas was working on a new Apple Mac Plus and found that he was severely limited in the type of images he could use on the machine. John was having similar challenges with the early editions of Pixar, which was editing software used at ILM. Together, the brothers created a new software, originally called Display, that addressed color and gamma correction as well as controls for balance, hue and saturation. By 1988, Display developed into ImagePro.

Interestingly enough, when the brothers went looking for financial backing for their software, Adobe originally turned them down. When they did finally agree to publish what was now known as PhotoShop, there was a lot more work to do. Thomas worked on the core software while John developed the first plug-ins, which not everyone at Adobe liked, but the brothers insisted were part of the package. Anyone who has worked with software in a corporate environment knows that small projects take on scope creep quickly and the list of requirements for PhotoShop grew immensely. As a result, it wasn’t until February 1990 that the first edition of Photoshop was released. Digital photography was still more than a decade from becoming plausible. Only scanned images could be manipulated by the software, which limited its use largely to large image production houses.

When digital photography did hit the mainstream, though, sales of Photoshop boomed. Despite its professional-level pricing, amateurs who know absolutely nothing about photo or image processing snapped up the tool and began doing absolutely hideous and unnecessary things to pictures. Filters and plugins that had been oh-so-carefully applied by professionals were now being misused to levels of complete grotesqueness. Thus, at the hands of complete amateurs, the Photoshop Fail was born. Note, the very name blames the software, not the idiot using it.

I have chosen the pictures you see on this page quite on purpose to illustrate a point. These images were shot in October of 2012 in the model’s apartment using only available light. While the model herself is beautiful, from a photography perspective the images are severely lacking. There is too much noise, especially in the top image. The color is off and even out of gamut is several places. Both curves and levels are wildly out of balance. Every last one of those problems is correctable, but I’ve left them as is to demonstrate just how a picture without any “Photoshopping” done to it can look. I don’t find these images acceptable as they are displayed here and neither would any art director worthy of the title.

Could I have addressed these issues without software? Yes, by doing exactly the same thing we would have done using film: bring in more light. Doing so in such a small apartment would have been incredibly intrusive and crowded, severely complicating a rather simple shoot. I would have needed additional personnel to hold reflectors at the very least. If we had used strobes, I would have needed another assistant or two to help coordinate those and determining what type of modifiers would work best for the situation. I would have had to call on additional makeup and hair styling assistance, and probably would have needed a styling assistant to make sure clothes were lying just exactly perfect. With that many people in the model’s small apartment, we would have barely had room to move, items in the apartment would have been subject to damage, and her poor little schnauzers would have gone absolutely nuts.

While that approach would have adequately addressed color, curve, contrast, and other technical issues, it would have also, inevitably, done something else: make her skin lighter. This is a tremendous issue that many people who step in front of a camera don’t seem to understand at all. The more light we use on you, the lighter in tone your skin is likely to appear. I had a model become quite upset with me last year when her fake tan failed to make her look as dark in front of the camera as she had wanted. News flash: fake tans don’t photograph well. By the time we balance out that hideous orange to something more human looking, you’re going to appear much lighter than you expected. Whether we do that with light or with software, the results are exactly the same.

Additionally, we have to consider that one model’s disaster is another model’s savior. How many times have I had a model tell me, “You can’t airbrush me too much,” or asking that I “take off about 30 pounds or so?” And yes, I know that the Internet delights in displaying examples of both those features being done horribly wrong. Still, let’s accept the fact that not everyone wants to look back at their pictures 30 or 40 years from now and see all the wrinkles and skin blemishes they had when they were 20. Just because one person doesn’t think they needed any post-processing “fixing” doesn’t mean that same standard should apply to everyone else.

Bottom line: Photoshop is a tool, a very powerful and wonderful tool capable of many things that make my life a lot easier. There are a lot of people who misuse it, but that doesn’t make the tool a bad one and it certainly doesn’t mean that one should in any way attempt to prohibit its use. We need Photoshop. Your pictures need Photoshop.

Blaming Photoshop for poorly edited images is like blaming GM or Ford for the potholes in the road.  I hope I’ve made my point.

Continue Reading

Page 4 of 7