Photography / PotD / Social Commentary

The Thing of Nightmares

June 19, 2015

My Own Nightmare (2009)

“The 50-50-90 rule: anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90% probability you’ll get it wrong.” ― Andy Rooney

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]A lot of people have trouble sleeping for a number of different reasons; for some medical, others emotional, and for some it is totally because they just watched the wrong movie before going to bed. It happens. Nightmares. We hated them as children because they were so wild and ferocious and creative. As adults, though, what we often hate about them is the fact they are too damn real. Nightmares for adults seldom involve exotic monsters drawn from an over-active imagination but, instead, come from real life, involving people we actually know and love, in situations we seem unable to stop.

I rarely have nightmares anymore. I don’t watch movies before going to bed. I’m careful to time my medicine. I pull my adventurous imagination back a couple of notches. And then, I don’t sleep that long. I’m blaming that on getting older. Typically, I can go a couple of hours before my body thinks we need to wake up and check the house for mysterious noises. But then, there are weeks like this one where it has rained every night, causing already problematic arthritis to go into hyperdrive, making it impossible to find a comfortable sleeping position for more than 15 minutes or so. The dark circles under my eyes are almost as black as my wardrobe. When one doesn’t sleep, one doesn’t have nightmares. A small consolation.

Then, there are the nine families in Charleston, South Carolina who are living a nightmare. Wednesday night was prayer meeting night. I remember what that was like. Every Wednesday, usually around 6:30 or 7:00 PM, the church doors would open and 15-20 people, on a good night, would trickle into the small sanctuary. We’d sing a song, Poppa would read a few verses of scripture, then would come the prayer requests. Every possible concern of the community would be raised, both personal and public. After about 30 minutes, they’d start praying, pray for another 30 minutes, then go home. Except, for these nine people, they didn’t go home. They were shot dead, right where they prayed, by someone who had sat through the whole service. A living nightmare in every possible sense.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s photo was meant to be part of a composite where a beautiful young woman was awakened by a more frightening version of herself. The concept required shooting the model twice, once reclining in various states of slumber, and then again as the nightmarish self. Care to guess which this one is? Unfortunately, we only got one finished image from the set. I totally messed up the shoot, failing to mark my tripod settings correctly and thereby throwing off the perspective. Trying to composite the two pieces consumed days as I tried to correct the perspective and make something work. When I say there’s one finished image, it’s only because I eventually gave up and called it done. You won’t find it on display.

When I opened this file and took another look, though, I couldn’t help but be impressed by the makeup work of Kelly Oswalt. Sara Williams is such a lovely little wisp of a thing in real life and Kelly did an amazing job of creating something a little more terrifying. Even without the accompanying “beauty” piece, this makes for an interesting and striking image. I also had to giggle a bit looking at this, as Sara is now eight-months-plus pregnant, about to deliver her first child any day now. Perhaps Sara can threaten the child when she gets older with something like, “This is what happens to mommy when you don’t take a nap.” Of course, then the baby would have nightmares, and that just doesn’t help anyone, does it?

I wish we lived in a world where all our nightmares were those derived from imagination. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. As long as there is hate there will be nightmares like that of Wednesday night. Such events do not happen in truly civilized societies. In fact, the United States is the only first world country where mass shootings such as this are an issue. Our nightmare has repeated itself far too many times and we fail to even bother looking for a reasonable solution for fear it might keep one person from carrying a gun or somehow diminish the shooter’s rights, despite the fact he’s trampling the rights of others to live peacefully.[/one_half_last]

We can’t put a stop to all nightmares, but we can reduce them. We have no choice. Now is the time to seriously put a clamp on gun violence. This is one nightmare we must end.

Photography / PotD / Social Commentary

Look First In A Mirror

June 18, 2015

Twins (2009)

“As long as the world is turning and spinning, we’re gonna be dizzy and we’re gonna make mistakes.” ― Mel Brooks

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]You are an idiot. That’s okay. Don’t feel bad. So am I. In fact, applying the scale by which I measure myself, there are only about three people in the world that I would not put under that heading and since I don’t actually know any of those people personally it is quite possible that they are idiots, too. Here’s the problem: there is no measurable definition for what an idiot actually is (the APA discarded its use of the term years ago), which leaves the term open to mean just about anything I might want it to mean. The only aspect for certain is that it infers an insult directed toward one’s lack of intelligence. But how much intelligence must one have to not be an idiot? And is intelligence itself even enough of a monitor?

My father had what seems to be a pretty workable rule: judge others by what you see in the mirror. His intent was that we should be very much aware of our own faults and shortcomings before daring to judge anyone else’s. That sounds like a pretty good maxim and is probably applicable in a lot of cases. Yet, when we don’t like what we see in the mirror we are less likely to accept what we see in others, perpetuating a cycle of loathing that ultimately leads to destruction in one form or another. Without a reasonably healthy sense of self-esteem one’s base value system is likely to be askew.

Others would attempt to follow the direction of, “judge not, lest you be judged.” Zero judgement. I think there’s a gym that tries to apply that reasoning, hoping that people who are intimidated by the muscle-bound will use their facility to become more healthy. Yet, just as with any other gym, most people pay for the membership and never actually go. A certain amount of judgement is absolutely necessary. Are you healthy? Will you fit in those jeans without having to grease your thighs? Can you be trusted to handle the scissors without hurting yourself? Going through life without making any judgements at all can be quite dangerous.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]I look at today’s picture and can’t believe it wasn’t part of the set originally processed. Simply the different expressions on the girls’ faces tells a story of what it’s like to have a twin. How the hell did I miss this one? Obviously, I’m an idiot. What hurts even worse, though, is that I dropped the ball with these girls in helping them do more. Sure, I had my reasons at the time, but have since kicked myself repeatedly for not at least remembering their names. Yes, you read that correctly. Again, I’m an idiot. I have their names on a release, somewhere, but the motivation to actually go through the stacks of papers shoved in a box in storage has yet to hit me.

Judgements we make today don’t always hold up to future scrutiny. Sure, we can justify our decisions at the moment, but is our thought process in the heat of some emotion as objective as it perhaps should be? Rarely do we take the time to let something just sit, making no decision at all, until we can approach the matter rationally. Yes, some situations are more urgent than others, but isn’t one sign of intelligence the ability to know not only what decision to make, but when to make that decision? While waiting six years to process this image is extreme, might there have been a benefit to waiting a month or so before deciding to shelve it completely?

Maybe looking in the mirror a bit more often is a good idea. Taking a check of reality and one’s relation to it might be an activity in which we should all engage a little frequently. Not only might that give us a better grasp of the immediate tasks before us, but perhaps it would help prevent whatever it is that leads one to walk into a church and kill nine people.

Or maybe we’re all just idiots. Your call.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

Anonymously Yours

June 17, 2015

Properly Accessorized (2011)

“I am glad that I paid so little attention to good advice; had I abided by it I might have been saved from some of my most valuable mistakes.” ― Edna St. Vincent Millay

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]How bad is it that we are still a good 18 months or so away from the 2016 presidential election and already I’m tired of the whole thing? With so many candidates having already announced their campaigns, each additional name added to the roster feels more like adding to the list of extras at the end of a bad movie no one really wanted to watch in the first place. Sure, eventually we’ll have to vote for a couple of these clowns, but at this point there’s too much noise, too much grandstanding, and too much absurdity to take any of them seriously.

I wonder what would happen if we forced candidates to run anonymously through the primaries, unable to present a name, a photograph, or even appear on Sunday morning talk shows in person. How would it change the process, and the number willing to run, if they were initially assigned a number and were forced to run strictly on the merits of their platform, with no personality involved? Would we be more careful about who we choose as our president? Certainly, we would want to reveal the names of the candidates at the party primaries, but in the circus leading up to that point what benefits might there be in ignoring names altogether and having everyone run anonymously, with no indication of race, heritage, gender, sexuality, or religious beliefs? I cannot help but think the process would be much better served.

Personality and ego are a detriment when one is considering who should hold public office, but yet those are the two aspects voters get heaped upon them the most often. In a crowded field such as what we are already experiencing in this cycle, we are forced to endure a constant battle of who can say the most socially provocative thing in an effort to get even 15 seconds of time on a newscast, or perhaps a small storm of controversy on social media. When over half the field of contestants is more well known for their ridiculous statements and social media gaffes than their actual platforms, we have a serious problem.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Sadly, one of the most frequent areas of unacceptable stump speech involves slut shaming and victim blaming on the part of candidates. We saw it too often in the 2012 election, and already the habit is rearing its ugly head in this one. Candidates mistakenly believe that by pandering to the very lowest and most ignorant form of voter that they can appeal to an under-educated and socially inept base to push them forward in the election. What they fail to realize is that the rest of the civilized world would really like to put those two issues to rest. There is never such a thing as “asking for it,” especially in regard to rape, and what a woman does or does not wear is not indicative of her sexual proclivity.

Such inappropriate attitudes toward sex and violence are one of the reasons we have had to stop giving names, even pseudonyms, to models who appear nude. We have had too many instances where technology allowed a model to be stalked after her name came up in some random Google search. With the increase in facial recognition software, I worry that, without any change in public attitude, we may be forced to limit figure art to anonymous forms such as today’s picture. Yes, today’s picture is quite lovely, but I’m always saddened by the fact I’m forced to crop out the model’s beautiful and expressive face because she rightly fears both social and professional backlash.

Anonymity can work both for us and against us. When it prevents ego and personality from obscuring fact and reality, anonymity is a good thing. When it allows shaming and inappropriate blaming to continue, though, anonymity is something that should perhaps be stripped away. I would dearly love to never have to crop another photo or avoid giving credit to another model to prevent putting them in any form of danger.

Maybe I should just run for president. Anonymously, of course.[/one_half_last]

Art / PotD / Social Commentary

Waste Not

June 16, 2015

Leave A Tender Moment (2010)

“I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being–forgive me–rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger.” ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I hate waste. I don’t hate trash, mind you. There are things which, once expired, definitely require disposal. Waste, though, the deliberate misuse or ruination of something still usable, angers me. I hate wasting time, because there’s no guarantee that there is any more of it coming. I hate wasting of resources, especially those purchased with someone else’s funds under the expectation they would be managed efficiently. I loathe large, opulent displays of wealth wasted in the face of massive poverty.

As much as anything, I hate wasted food. I had to throw away a package of bagels today because moisture had gotten into the package and caused them to mold. Five perfectly good bagels gone because care wasn’t taken in preserving them properly. Those emotions crop up a lot and I’ll blame my mother in part for the constant reminder that there are always starving children somewhere. But then, my own brushes with poverty and hunger are an even more recent reminder of just how valuable a single bagel is to someone who hasn’t eaten all day.

The words “waste not, want not” are etched into my brain so strongly that almost any level of waste I observe stirs a negative emotion. Seeing massive amounts of food in a restaurant dumpster makes me momentarily swear off dining out. Observing whole rivers of polluted water makes me curse industrialization. Seeing the Coke lot the day after a race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway makes me detest racing fans everywhere. Even this past weekend I was severely dismayed to look at the street after the Pride Parade and see it not merely cluttered but severely trashed with smashed candy and other litter.

We sadly live in a world where waste of every kind is far too common, far too excessive, and leaves far too large a footprint. Getting anyone to care is almost impossible.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Waste in photography fares no better and is one of the reasons for focusing on missed imagery this week. There are some shoots where the amount of genuinely strong imagery we capture exceeds the limits of reasonable display. I prefer to keep presentations between seven and ten images, since that is pretty much the sweet spot for the average person’s attention span. If we have a really strong set, I might go up to twenty. Beyond that, though, people stop looking. Their eyes glaze over as though you’ve just brought them a fourth serving of parmesan chicken, to which their bodies groaned in despair. No matter how strong the images are, beyond a certain point they’re just waste.

Perhaps the worst, though, is seeing wasted talent. Now, I have to be very careful here. I know there are some people whose talents are multiple and for reasons of sanity they are forced to choose; focusing on one or two while letting others lie dormant. I have sympathy for those people. What bothers me is someone who can clearly do well, either in front or behind a camera, and yet lets someone who fails to understand the artistry of either talk them into doing something far less creative, far more temporary, and far less fulfilling. I come into contact with those people sometimes multiple times a day and when I see them not doing what they could clearly do so well I want to cry.

Today’s picture is one from a set of gems that could easily fill a very large wall. I won’t attempt to over-analyze why this particular combination worked; the models didn’t have an especially intimate relationship, in fact they giggled through the first several minutes of shooting. Everything just clicked and the number of frames worth saving far exceeds what should be displayed in a single exhibition. So, today’s #POTD is an example in preventing waste.

Still, I must ask you to consider: what are you wasting?[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

When Bad Pictures Are Good

June 15, 2015

Living In Color (2012)

“Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes.” ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I like this picture. I like this picture a lot, so it is a little surprising that I’ve not found an excuse to publish it before now. I like the lighting. I like the styling. The makeup by Sasha Starz kicks ass. One would think that this might have been the first picture from the collection that we would use, and if this one was omitted from the original collection then the others must be absolutely amazing. While the original set of pictures achieves their purpose, though, none of them has the photographic strength found here.

So, why wasn’t this image used? It was not what we wanted. It was a mistake. The original set was intended to showcase Sasha’s makeup using a very dynamic set of colors in an extremely contemporary style. To achieve our purpose, faces needed to be clear of any obstruction. This face is beautifully obstructed by the model’s hair, so it would not work for the desired purpose. That’s just the way things go in our world. In non-digital days it would have gone into the trash bin.

Photographers take plenty of bad photographs. We always have. I am amused now when someone comes across what they think is a treasure trove of never-before-seen old negatives or plates from a long-dead photographer and they decide to publish them. Rarely does one stop to think that perhaps there is a damned good reason why the photos weren’t seen before. Some were full of errors. Some were intended as nothing more than practice. Others were perhaps embarrassing or revealed something the photographer had no intention of ever making public. Yet, now they’re out in the open, quite possibly in violation of the photographer’s wishes.

I remember meeting a young Playboy Playmate, fresh off her gatefold shoot in Chicago. While gushing about how wonderful the experience was, she expressed disappointment that, prior to taking the shots that would eventually appear in the magazine, photographer Arny Freytag had taken several Polaroid shots that littered the studio floor. After the shoot, she went to pick up one of the Polaroids as a memento and was immediately, and severely reprimanded. Those Polaroids, she was told, were the property of the Playboy Corporation and no, she could not have one. Playboy and every other successful magazine and ad agency have long understood what many have not: Losing control of the bad photographs makes the good ones worthless. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]When digital photography first began to rise as the medium that would eventually replace film for most applications, we saw the numbers of both amateur photographers and amateur models increase dramatically. All over the world, there were (mostly) young men anxious to take pictures of pretty girls and more than a few pretty young women anxious to call themselves a model. However, no one on either side of the camera in those situations understood the actual value of an image, copyright law, nor the concept of limited exposure.

What happened was that a young photographer would drop 500 or so frames on a shoot, which could take a couple of hours or more. The model, frustrated and only getting a handful of shots she didn’t like, would ask the photographer if she could have a disk with all the unedited shots. Foolishly, the photographer would comply, the model would put really horrible edits of really ridiculous photos on her MySpace page or blog, and war would ensue between model and photographer over who had the right to publish what.

As we go through this week of pictures that were missed, we’re going to see some photos such as this one where one might be tempted to think, “How could you have missed that one?” When we do, we need to remember that not every frame snapped deserves to be published. There are endless reasons for not including a picture, from its inability to meet product or client requirements to changes in desired color or the wrong hair being out of place.

Prior to digital media, second chances like this rarely existed for a photograph. What wasn’t immediately used was typically burned to prevent an unapproved image from making it to publication. Photographers do well to guard their unpublished work so as to protect their reputations.

Yet, every once in a while, we save one like this that is just too good to throw away. The issue that kept it from being considered the first time make it all the more attractive now. I certainly don’t regret saving this one. Enjoy it, there won’t be more.[/one_half_last]

Art / PotD

Aww, Shucks

June 14, 2015

Anything For Art (2011)

“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]This is strange. We’re beginning a new week and I’m not even home to see it. Great Zeus, I do hope this turns out okay. We’ll take every precaution, of course, to ensure that this #POTD is delivered on time, or at least on the correct day. There are still limits to technology, though, and I’m not entirely sure that when it comes time for this thing to post that I’m going to be where I have a Wi-Fi signal with which to check it. I think I will, if memory serves me correctly, but I’m not 100% sure. We’re camping, you see, somewhere out in the almost-wild-unknown, except for the fact we’re not leaving Indiana.

This is a test, actually. This is only a test. We’ll get around to the real camping later this summer, but we needed to make a bit of a dry run in relatively safe conditions and not too terribly far from home in order to see how the children, to whom I fondly reference repeatedly as bear bait in hopes that the one wild bear seen in Indiana will migrate our direction, will behave given that a year has passed since the last time we dared take them into the woods. We’re not going off the beaten path. There are emergency services nearby should they be needed. This is only a test. But we may not have Wi-Fi.

Actually, as long as our phones work we should be safe, right? After all, this site is mobile friendly, in case you hadn’t noticed, and that friendliness extends to the backend as well. As long as our service provider doesn’t crap out on us and fail to cover an area their coverage map says they have covered, we shouldn’t have any problem making sure this entry posts on time. I’m not even concerned about oversleeping. Why? Bear bait, again. First crack of dawn and they’ll be up, which is why I’m better off writing this well in advance and saving it for Sunday morning. Who knows how little sleep I might get and if you think I’m crazy now you should see me when I’ve not gotten any sleep. I think we’re taking coffee, but who knows if we’ll be able to work the camp stove to heat the water to make the coffee without actually having some coffee first?[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]How does any of this relate to our topic this week of missed photos? Easy: I want to emphasize just how simple it is for us to make a mistake and misplace or lose or overlook a photograph, no matter how attractive the image might be. Depending on the day, we may take anywhere from hundreds to thousands of pictures but from those only select a handful for processing and chances are even fewer for public display. Often, we delete what we don’t use, especially if the photographs are of a sensitive nature from the client’s perspective. But sometimes, the extras just sit there in folders waiting to be recognized. Sometimes they sit there for years. Sometimes they die.

So, we decided to save a handful of those images this week and display them here. None of the pictures you’ll see this week have been processed and shown anywhere else. Each one of these is getting its world premiere right here and you are a witness to that event.

Oh, come on now, you can show a little more excitement than that. After all, the people involved in these pictures have largely forgotten they even exist. Allison here has moved off to Vegas. Hair and makeup artist Christopher Thompson is off chasing ghosts; not metaphorically, mind you, but the real thing that will scare the living daylights right out of you. The least you can do is show some enthusiasm for their hard work. I can promise you won’t come any closer to seeing Allison naked than right here. That’s one lucky corn husk.

I really hope this thing posts correctly. After all this hard work and all the effort that went into making it possible, it really would be a shame if we didn’t get this up in time. Of course, it always makes us feel bad when you miss something. Most the time that’s your fault, though, not ours. You do know you can subscribe and get a reminder in your email, don’t you? That way you wouldn’t miss anything. Assuming we actually get this posted.[/one_half_last]

Art / Photography / PotD

Splitting Exposure

June 13, 2015

From the Window to the Wall (2006)

“The trouble with rules, though, is that you’ll always be tempted to break one- for the right reasons, due to unavoidable circumstances, because it feels as if there’s no other choice. And once you break one, the rest seem like so much broken glass. The damage is already done.” ― Stacey Kade, The Rules

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Here we are at the very end of this rule breaking week and I can tell by the significant drop in the number of visitors we’ve had that you’re really not too terribly interested in the topic. Perhaps you are too busy breaking your own rules in your own way to find our discussion of them to be of any value. Perhaps you’ve observed the breaking of rules for so long that you doubt, probably correctly, that we are covering any new territory. Maybe you just found other things to do. I don’t know. I only care because I really don’t like that feeling that I’m screaming into the wind.

So, I’m breaking one of my own rules today with a full nude. I had told myself, in my annual introspective meeting of my mind, that I would not post any full nudes outside the Art section of the website. The reason for that being my desire to not overtly offend those who might arrive at the website without prior knowledge of who I am or what I shoot. If one is simply looking for a photographer for your child’s one-year-old portrait, one doesn’t necessarily want to be inundated with nudity. I don’t fault someone for not wanting to look at nude photography without warning. Most the nude imagery is kept to the art section where it attracts people who are interested in that material.

Oh, but you, dear voyeur, have shown your true colors. You enjoy the enticing and even implied naughtiness of some pictures. When we posted a picture of a couple simulating sex last week, our hit count went through the digital roof with us doing only minimal marketing. If anyone was offended, they certainly didn’t bother saying so. If anything, the inference is that, given the opportunity, those of more salacious appetites will beat a webbed path to our world-wide door if we simply guide them with the right picture. Such knowledge puts us in a bit of a quandary: do we go for the increased attention or do we try to be good neighbors in our digital neighborhood? [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Our picture today is actually one of my favorites and I do so miss the model who has moved on to other endeavors. Long exposure shots are always interesting and this one is made more so by the fact that the window through which a street lamp provides illumination contains two different kinds of glass. As a result, the glass in the lower part of the window creates a distortion that dramatically alters the lines. By having the model stand half in light, half in shadow, we open the image to numerous metaphors and interpretations. There is a lot going on here for such a very simple looking photograph.

Are we breaking a photographic rule? Yes, a couple of them actually. We’re not going to tell you what they are, though, since that’s almost assuredly not why you’re really here. If you’re just dying to know, though, you can always drop me a note and I’ll be happy to answer when I return from camping, which is how I am spending my weekend. While we will be taking some pictures this weekend, they are likely to be much more journalistic in nature and almost certainly won’t involve any nudity, or adult situations, or much of anything else that a reasonable person might find objectionable. Note that I said a reasonable person; those who are offended by everything we do are obviously not reasonable.

There’s a lot going on this weekend and I’m sure that no matter where you live there are better things to do than sitting around looking at nine-year-old pictures of naked people on the Internet. If you’ve not found any of those things, you are seriously in need of a life transplant and I cannot assist you with that. You’re on your own. For the rest of you who are stopping by either after or perhaps in between all the festivities, thank you. We take off in a significantly less structured direction starting tomorrow, so please add checking the #POTD to your to-do list. Better yet, just subscribe so that a gentle, loving reminder shows up in your email every morning. [/one_half_last]

PEACE

Advertising / Photography / PotD

Wide Open Spaces

June 12, 2015

Before Leaving (2012)

“The irony of rule followers is they often quote a lot of people that do not follow as many rules as they do.” ― Shannon L. Alder

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Creative people have never liked feeling they were limited in any way. Adventurous people are much the same. Chances are, if you’re a friend of mine, you’re not a fan of limitations, either. Breaking rules? Hell yeah!

There is a song sounding like it’s from the old west that says:

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don’t fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don’t fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin’ breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don’t fence me in

Cole Porter, who wrote the song based on a poem by Robert Fletcher, was nowhere near the “old west,” though. He wrote the song for a movie that was never produced. Go figure. Some ten years later, the song was given to Roy Rogers who made it a hit because, you know, horses and cowboys and those legendary wide open space were a big hit in post-war America. Interestingly enough, Porter never really liked the song all that much.

A lot of people feign amusement with the concept of wide open spaces, including space itself. Yet, when we find it, not too many of us are actually comfortable. Where space is truly plentiful, where there is an absence of things, there is also an absence of people, anyone with whom one might have a decent conversation, and from there matters quickly get boring. And lonely. And suddenly those wide open spaces aren’t looking quite as good as they did when one first arrived.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]When it comes to space, I live in a world of sometimes uncomfortable juxtaposition. A very basic rule of photography is to fill the frame; make the whole picture interesting, give the eye plenty to see, but make sure it’s all cohesive. At the same time, though, advertising needs space, white space, sometimes a great deal of space, for all the copy that goes into an ad. Some are simple, with little more than a product logo and copyright/trademark notices. Others, especially those having anything to do with medicine, can be quite extensive with a requirement for a full list of possible side effects. For those ads, there’s no such thing as too much space.

Today’s picture breaks the fill the frame rule. Maybe it’s still the ad person left in me, but I like the space. I like that there’s room for copy, a lot of copy, but no copy exists. In my mind, the space gives the mind room to create its own story, its own copy, to go along with the picture. We titled the image, “Before Leaving,” because the way in which her body is slightly turned gives one the impression that perhaps she is on her way out the door. Why? That’s for you to decide. Maybe she’s looking for pants. Maybe she’s about to take a shower. Maybe she’s changed her mind and doesn’t like you as much as you thought. Maybe she’s not a fan of the space.

Giving an image space, sometimes a lot of space, leaves a story open to almost endless possibilities. I like that mystery, myself. I’m not looking for a world all neatly bundled together and fitting nicely into a frame. I enjoy concepts that require thinking for myself. For me, space is a friend and I frequently break this rule, especially for portraits. Let this moment be endless, not boxed and framed and predictable.

Just don’t fence me in. Please. Whatever you do. [/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Balancing Act

June 11, 2015

The Bird Cage (2012)

“Unfortunately, in many cases, the rule book goes way too far – it tries to tell people how to be instead of explaining what we’re trying to do. We need recipes, not rules.” ― Howard Behar, It’s Not About the Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I am far from being the most graceful person on the planet. I’ve fallen in front of presidents. I’ve tripped over red carpets. If there’s a cup of coffee near a white table cloth, I’ve spilled it. When I was young, my mother used to say I was like a bull in a china shop, which is why we never visited any china shops or anywhere else that tended to have a lot of glass. For myself and a lot of other people I know, that thing in our inner ear that keeps us level and helps us establish equilibrium doesn’t always work as well as it should. As a result, we go blundering through life, being especially careful when required to handle anything sharp or otherwise potentially dangerous.

What I’ve learned from my somewhat lop-sided life, though, is that being slightly off center, looking at life on somewhat of a tilt, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Not every measure we take can or should be balanced because there simply isn’t enough detail or information or content to support the balance that everyone seems to think is necessary. Even a ship can have a bit of a list and still manage to sail its way into port safely. Being unbalanced isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it is quite different.

The rule broken in today’s picture is that of balance, but it’s one where the circumstances create such strong leading lines that we might not notice at first just how uneven the image is. Note that there are two models. Ideally, each would be given an equal amount of space. They needn’t occupy the space in the same manner or even the same general position, but the space should be available to them. In this image, though, the model on the left is limited to the left third of the image. The panel trim on the wall behind her creates a very strong visual barrier that, at least as far as our eyes are concerned, holds her to that side of the space.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]However, one might also notice that the entire frame is a bit askew. The lines are not parallel with the horizon; they’re not even close. Our entire perspective of the scene is thrown off balance by the angle from which the image was taken. The uniqueness of the angle ends up being a strength that allows the unintentional division between the models to exist without making us want to move one of them.

Not that we had much choice. The picture is taken in an elevator built sometime in the 1920s. This is one of those small, residential elevators where one has to manually close the gate, then close the door, before engaging the lift. If the models appear uneven and off balance, it’s because the only way to get the shot was by lying on the floor, having someone out-of-frame hold open the gate, and praying that no one in the building would need the elevator before we got the shots taken.

Metaphors for life, anyone? There are some things that claim to be fair and balanced and intentionally are not; their claim to equality is an attempt to mask just how one-sided their view actually is. Other times, we look at something that appears to be off-center only to discover that our eyes deceive us because of the limitations of our perspective or the specific angle from which we view the situation. What we learn with experience, hopefully, is that balance is precarious and not always something that is even possible. Returning to the ship metaphor, even the largest aircraft carrier moves back and forth along the waves; sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left. That ability shift weight from one side to the other is critical to preventing the vessel from capsizing.

Balance is something our eyes like to see, but what appears to be is not always true.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Right Smack In The Middle

June 10, 2015

Pin This (2012)

“More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.” ― Hyman G. Rickover

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Stop and think for a moment what you might do if there was no one to tell you no. Ever. You want ice cream for breakfast? Go for it. Wear a yellow jumpsuit to a funeral? Sure, why not? Build an elevator into space? Others have talked about it, let’s see how you do. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to innovation and progress is the fear that someone will object to what you do. There are too many people who are afraid of upsetting the status quo and that keeps them from ever venturing into an area of imagination and experimentation that could quite possibly lead to fantastic inventions and dramatically wonderful changes in society. But first, one has to be willing to break the rules.

Breaking the rules in photography is actually rather easy. First, there are too many damn rules and most of those are under-supported and fail to take into account all the possible variations one might encounter when shooting. Second, those rules are generally not explained too terribly well, even in photography courses, and some of them are so confusing as to make it difficult to know whether the rule is actually being broken or not. Breaking photography rules is about as easy, and pretty much as earth shattering, as rolling out of bed in the morning.

Breaking the rules of society, not just society in general, but the very specific society of which you are immediately and constantly a part, is more difficult, though. Why? Because you have to live there. If you venture out and make a mistake, the people around you know about it, and might possibly remind you. Constantly. Cruelly. Taking risks to do something as different as changing the brand of coffee used in the office means taking on the possibility that others, especially the boss, might disagree. Breaking rules in life, no matter how small they are, can have some very large consequence and that risk is enough to keep the majority of people quiet and toeing the line.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image is sneaky and breaks a visual framing rule that may not be noticeable to anyone who is not a photographer or works with visual layout on a regular basis. This is one of those violations of good imagery that rather sneaks past the rule checkers without immediately setting off any red flags. The model is attractive. The set looks good. There are strong leading lines. Makeup, hair, accessories, styling, are all pretty much on point. This is such a quiet little bit of rule breaking that some might not even think that it is worth mentioning at all.

What’s wrong is that the model is positioned right smack in the middle of the frame, which is actually a fairly strong framing no-no. We would much rather have positioned her slightly to the right just a bit. Making the rule violation even worse is that the positioning puts the dead center of the image right at the model’s crotch. Awkward. And now that I’ve mentioned it, you won’t be able to not notice. We went ahead and broke this rule for two reasons. 1. The leading lines created by the car put our eyes there whether we like that or not. 2. Size restrictions of the frame made it impossible to move left or right without creating additional visual problems. Sometimes we have to decide which rule to keep and which to ignore.

Earth shattering? Not hardly. You’ll go on about your day and quite possibly won’t give it a second thought, unless you spending time looking at a lot of pictures. The picture won’t cause the overthrow of any dictatorial government or change the economic policies of the Midwest. But our whole purpose this week is to reinforce the idea that breaking rules is not something we should be afraid to do. Should we give thought to the consequences? Yes. But if more of us were willing to break rules, even the simple one such as this, we might be surprised at how wonderful the changes would be.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

Shooting For Exposure

June 9, 2015

Through Different Lenses (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

Guessing At The Rule Of Thirds

June 8, 2015

A Moment of Sun (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

Life’s A Blur

June 7, 2015

Watch Me Hoop! (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

Of Highlights and Shadows

June 6, 2015

The Other Side (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear friends —

My work is done.
Why wait?
GE

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

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

Photography / PotD

Riding The Wave of (e)Motion

June 5, 2015

Removing the Afternoon (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art / Photography / PotD

Best Thing Next To Being There

June 4, 2015

Morning Dance (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

A Casual Intimacy

June 3, 2015

All Wet (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

But Soft! What Light …

June 2, 2015

Comfortable With Here & Now (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

In Defense of Color

June 1, 2015

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photography / PotD

The Joys of Natural Light

May 31, 2015

A Little Gaga (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pop culture / PotD / Social Commentary

12 People Who Totally Suck

May 30, 2015

Indiana Tea Party Republican Governor Mike Pense (2015)

“All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.” -Richard Avedon

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Ha! I bet you thought we were going to give you a list of twelve individuals who totally suck! Okay, we did think about doing that, but then the number of Republican candidates for President grew to 16 and that just made the list too long.

Kidding. Sort of. Almost.

Sure, we preach being nice and inclusive and loving most the time. After all, that really is the only way the world is going to improve. However, there are certain groups of people whose actions as a group are so reprehensible that they need to be called out and shunned. Furthermore, we as a society should do everything we can to encourage the demise of these groups. Some I doubt will ever go away, but many can, and should. Here’s our list of the most despicable.

Pseudo-Celebrities

Real celebrities, those who have some significant talent that thrusts them into the public eye for good reason, can be challenging enough; there have been many in that group whose behavior is less than stellar. Pseudo-celebrities, though, have no significant talent. They have no significant reason for being popular. In most cases, we have reality television to thank for this phenomenon. When networks find amusement in airing the antics of talentless, classless, and too often clueless people, we all suffer. Greatly. Better they all go away. Forever.

Terrorists

These people are just straight up mean. They do not value life in any form, theirs nor anyone else’s. When people don’t value life, they do stupid things such as see how many people they can blow up. Ostensibly, they all have some cause they are trying to defend, but what cause would anyone support that doesn’t value life? Where on the scale of reason does that even remotely make sense? Here’s the thing: not all terrorist are in the middle east or carry guns. There are more in corporate boardrooms. They’re all just as dangerous and all need to be stopped.

People Who Knock On Doors

When I was little, I would get excited every time I heard a knock on the door because it almost always meant a friend had come to play or the UPS guy had dropped off a package. Now, the UPS and FedEx guys just ring the doorbell and disappear. So help me, I swear they’re using teleporters. I’ve not seen a truck in front of our house in years. Now, when there is a knock at the door, it’s someone wanting to change my religion or ask me for money. I’m not interested in doing either and, quite honestly, even if I was looking to do either I wouldn’t wait to see who showed up on my front porch. If I didn’t invite you or you’re not bringing me something fun, go away. Forever.

Racists

This is one of those groups that, no matter how much we rail against them or point out how totally ridiculous they are, they’re probably not going to go totally away. Why do I think this? Because racists have been here pretty much from the moment hominids developed and separated into different tribes. Just because they won’t go completely away doesn’t mean we should in any way, shape, or form tolerate their unacceptable behavior. To the degree we ignore them, they fester and grow like an untreated cancer. We have to stay on top of them, stopping them at every possible juncture, or else they will take over.

Homophobes

Here we have one group who can, should, and must go completely away. More than anything else, these people are quite simply ignorant. We can’t even complain that they’re believing in ancient myths. These fools are making up nonsense out of the clear blue. While we would like to think we can love them into accepting everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, history would seem to indicate otherwise. We must instead focus on educating younger generations correctly, dismantling the nonsense before it has a chance to grab hold, and hoping that those who refuse to learn die out quickly.

Sexual Predators

Rapists. Pedophiles. Anyone who sexually takes advantage of another person, or commits any sex act against them without their permission and compliance, is someone who needs to be immediately removed from society. There’s actual science to tell us that recidivism among sexual predators exceeds 80% no matter what type of treatment or intervention they receive, or who their parents are, or what reality show they’re on, or which presidential candidates have had their picture taken with them. If we want to keep them from committing further crimes, they have to be removed from society. We simply have no choice at this point.

People Who Don’t Hold Doors/Elevators

Compared to the previous group, this one may seem completely insignificant. However, I challenge that people who don’t hold doors and/or elevators, especially when they see the person approaching is in some form of distress, are more than just rude: they have no respect for other people. Those who have no respect for other people not only don’t hold doors/elevators, they are capable of doing any despicable and mean act of which one can think. Murder is not off the list of choices for these people, given the correct set of circumstances. Note, we’re not talking about someone who is just having a bad day and lets one instance slip. These are the people who, every day, despise everyone else on the planet and do their best to be mean. They can all go away.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

Justin Bieber Fans

I’m relying on statistical analysis for this one. I’m not sure I’ve ever had the displeasure of actually running into a true Bieber Believer. I don’t go to the places where they are likely to congregate and run in the opposite direction at the first sound of anything that might possibly be the beginning of that noise Bieber calls music. Bieber fans elicit screams and other sounds that exceed the measurable quotient of the human ear. Rumor is they’ve actually had to re-route aircraft to avoid the shockwave of disruptive noise caused by Bieber Fans. Many cities are considering a ban on indoor Bieber concerts due to the screams of fans compromising the structural integrity of the buildings. Fortunately, most Bieber Fans grow up, discover real music, and move on.

Self-Righteous Assholes

You know at least one. They are convinced that they know better than everyone and no amount of evidence to the contrary is ever going to convince them otherwise. They believe they have the best religion, went to the best school, drive the best cars, live in the best houses, and could have just as easily invented Facebook themselves accept for the fact they’ve never been a loser geek. These people delight in putting everyone else down in an effort to make themselves look better. We have another word for them, too: Bullies. Like many others on this list, we have to stand up to them to keep their numbers from growing. Fortunately, there is evidence they can be converted when shown the error of their ways. We have no choice but to try.

Non-Tippers

If you’ve never worked for tips in the United States, you don’t understand the severity of this crime. All over the country, we hear people talking about the minimum wage being too low. What rarely gets any publicity is that groups of very necessary people work for even less, roughly 75% less, on the promise that if they do a good job people will tip them. Your server’s base wage is a mere $2.75 an hour. Who can live on that? No one! And while the concept of tips sounds good, the fact is that as meal prices have gone up, and the quality of food has in many cases declined, tips given to servers, who control neither prices nor food quality, get shafted. Not tipping should be a crime. The punishment: working three doubles in a row at a busy restaurant … with no tips.

Murderers

This one is a no-brainer as well. Murder is probably the worst crime of them all, and often the most difficult to catch. Police can’t look for a murderer until they have evidence that the crime has been committed and contemporary murderers have all kinds of methods preventing that from happening. Murderers can be divided into two groups: passionate murderers who were simply pushed to far and killed in the heat of the moment; and psycho murderers who think, plan, and prepare before carrying out their nefarious deed(s). The first group probably isn’t all that dangerous with a little psychiatric help. The fact that they killed once was totally related to a specific situation. The second group, though, can’t be trusted no matter what. That there are still a huge group of them running loose should make all of us afraid to go to bed at night.

Tea Party Republicans

The Republican party has a grand tradition and holds a valuable place in political conversation. At least, it did until this small group of jackasses calling themselves the Tea Party started taking over. Tea Party Republicans have done more damage to the country, especially at the state level, than ISIS or any other terrorist group ever could. Consider their list of crimes:

They’ve gutted civil rights laws and the 1964 Voting Rights Act,
they deny women the right to control their own body,
they deny much-needed services to the poor and incapacitated,
they deny assistance to military veterans,
they’ve turned education into nothing more than a test-taking machine,
they are systemically killing the environment,
they have attempted to usurp the First Amendment with laws explicitly promoting Christianity while oppressing everyone else,
they claim they do not have to obey decisions made by the United States Supreme Court,
they believe rape is the woman’s fault, and
they refuse to recognize the civil rights of the entire LGBTQ community.

Sadly, that list is just the most common grievances to be held against Tea Partiers. These folks are nothing short of insane. Running on a platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, once elected they decimate every necessary program that does not kick back funding to their cronies. They are the very definition of a real and present danger that, if not completely removed from the political system, could single-handedly destroy the country.

See, I made it all the way through the list without naming anyone specifically. Well, okay, there is the idiot in today’s picture, but that’s more implied, don’t you think? Besides, he’s already proven this year just how much he sucks. He doesn’t need my help.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

5 Reasons We Can’t Have Nice Things

May 29, 2015

The Worry of Bills (2010)

“If I were to teach, I wouldn’t teach a course in photography. I’d teach a course called ‘What Matters.'” -Ralph Steiner

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I used to watch the animated television show, The Jetson’s when I was a kid. Set somewhere in this century, they lived in condos balancing in the sky on giant pedestals, wore unitards with unexplained but uncomfortable looking collars and cuffs, had robot maids, and most importantly, cars that flew. We were supposed to have flying cars by now!

While the practicality of many of the predictions launched in the cartoon are far-fetched, one can scarcely deny that we are not as far along the developmental scale as possible. Had we realized a bit more of our potential, it’s quite likely that we would be off fossil fuels, have more efficient means of transportation, and perhaps even solved problems that put our natural resources in danger. So, what happened?

I don’t have all the answers, but here are a few reasons we don’t have nice things.

Jailing The Wrong People

We have developed a bad habit over the years of jailing people for little things and letting those who commit more egregious crimes walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. A failed war on drugs has saddled way too many young men, especially young black men, with criminal records from which they can’t escape, making education and employment difficult. Meanwhile, the bankers, brokers, and politicians responsible for the 2008 recession received … nothing. The institutions for which they worked received fines, but none of the individuals were held responsible. Even worse, politicians pushed us into a totally unnecessary war, committed acts in gross violation of the Geneva Convention, were responsible for the deaths of thousands, and yet are allowed to continue living lives of luxury as though nothing happened. If we are going to move forward as a society we need to fix this issue promptly and find ways to keep young, non-violent offenders out of jail.

Religion

Every time society begins to take a step forward, such as with birth control to help stop over population, or gay marriage so those who love can legally be with those they love, or allowing women to make their own decisions and run their own lives and dress how they please, there is always one religion or another claiming that such a move defies their mythology and therefore, no one should be able to progress. While one has the right to believe whatever they wish to believe, they do not have the right to impose that belief system upon anyone else or use that belief system to prevent others, or society as a whole from progressing. Religion is great at bringing comfort and peace to people who can’t find it elsewhere. Society seeks out religion when there is none. However, that is not to say that religion should be allowed to dominate society or determine its progressive direction. There is no place for religious authority outside the religion itself.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

We’re Rude

How we treat other people is a significant factor in how society progresses and we seem to be doing a great job of blocking ourselves simply in the way we treat others. Not only are we, as a society, still dealing with issues such as homophobia, racism, bigotry, and class warfare, we can’t even drive to work without being disrespectful and rude to each other. We fight for the best parking space at the gym. We bully people for dressing different or having body shapes we don’t find attractive. We make fun of people behind their backs and there’s no way we’re letting that co-worker get that promotion. A progressive society has to figure out how to be supportive, considerate, and caring of each other. Otherwise, we’re dooming ourselves.

Big Everything

We know monopolies are bad. We know oligarchies are oppressive. Yet, we’ve not done anything to stop either. Big banking. Big pharma. Big tobacco. Big media. Big Internet. Big Oil. By allowing certain industries to become, “too big to fail,” we’ve put them, rather than us, in the position of deciding when, where, and how society progresses. If they don’t like an invention, they squash it. If they do like it, they try to buy it and control it for themselves. There is no “trickle down” to the economics here. What big industry captures, it keeps. Forever. If we are to move forward, we must do more to prevent progressive development and innovation from being squashed and swallowed before it gets off the ground and break up the monopolies and oppressive industries that hold us back.

Politicians

I’m still not sure how we’ve gotten here, but politicians and governments, especially at the state level, have done more to hold back progressive development and social change than anything or anyone else. They’re purposefully and maliciously imposing themselves over things in which they have absolutely no business being; things such as who can marry whom, restrictive business regulation, and even who can or cannot be consulted on important matters. Scientists have been banned from discussions on the climate and space. Experts are not allowed to be consulted on matters ranging from education to public transportation. We could easily be light years ahead of where we are if the politicians of the world would simply get out of the way!

We could and should be much further progressed as a society than we are. Yet, much like a parent disciplining a child, the universe will not let us have the nice things such as flying cars until we learn to be more responsible. We control our destiny, and we can blow it.

Don’t blow it.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

8 Things REALLY Smart People Know

May 28, 2015

The Boss (2010)

“This photographic thing has changed the entire vision of the world. It will go through every activity of humanity — science, medicine, space, ESP, for peace, against peace, entertainment, television, movies, all of them — you will not find one without photography.” -Lisette Model

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Clickbait lists are especially good at spreading pseudo-science and fear mongering. Lists such as “10 Foods You Shouldn’t Eat” and “5 Big Companies You Can’t Trust” do more harm than good, destroying any trust we have in our fellow man. Personally, I tend to defer a number of issues to those smarter than me; a lot smarter than me. I’m not talking about the “four out of five” ratio, but more like 99 of 100, and only the really intelligent thinkers among those. They tend to be unanimous on a number of issues the rest of us still waste time arguing about. Here are a few such examples.

Humans Cause Climate Change

For the smartest people in the world, this is a no-brainer. They stopped arguing about it 40 years ago and have been focusing their attention where it belongs: finding a solution. Is this a convenient fact? No. Does a solution likely involve a dramatic shift in the way some industries do business? Yes. Is there any reason is should be limited by political belly-aching? No. The argument has been over a long time. Move forward.

You’re Only As Good As The People Around You

Smart people surround themselves with smart people and make every effort to bring those people up to their level. Very little is achieved working alone and doing great things that change the world requires everyone on the team be at the top of their game. Really smart people know that and manage their teams by teaching them and encouraging to learn more and develop their skills. Is there any reason we all shouldn’t take that approach? No, there isn’t.

No6 Don’t Just Focus On One Thing

Just as you were likely taught to not put all your eggs in one basket, focusing on only one thing at a time is rarely a good idea, either. Really smart people know that our brains are designed to multi-task and need stimulus from a number of different directions in order to operate most efficiently. Science and music work remarkably well, for example, as do business and sports. Even within a general industry, focusing on multiple projects, having more than one ball in the air, keeps our minds more alert and creative.

Evolution Happens

The smartest people in the world just assume the rest of us know this and laugh and scoff when encountering someone who’s not on board. They understand the amount of evidence accumulated at this point is too high for there to be any alternative. They’ve known this for well over a hundred years now. That anyone is still arguing the point is rather like saying one would rather believe in magic than science. Governments that promote magic rather than real education are ultimately enslaving their people.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]
No4 Artificial Intelligence Is Scary

Really smart people do have fears and the one that bothers the smartest, from Elon Musk to Stephen Hawking, is Artificial Intelligence (AI). We’re talking about something much more advanced than your smart phone, though. What bothers them is giving a device the ability to make changes and adjustments based upon its input without direct human interference. While it’s nice to have devices doing the thinking for us, eventually they figure out they don’t need us. We need to proceed carefully.

Vaccinations Are Important

Want to entice a really smart person to smack you? Tell them you don’t believe in vaccinations. Really smart people know that vaccinations save lives. How many lives we can’t know because the people who were vaccinated never became ill in the first place! What we do know is that in parts of the world where vaccinations don’t happen disease is far more rampant and much more difficult to control. The whole anti-vaccination movement is based on something proven to be a lie. Get your immunizations now.

Most GMOs Are Safe … And Necessary

Again, pseudo-science and outright lies spread across the Internet have done a great disservice is causing us to distrust our food sources. Don’t like Genetically Modified Organisms? Put down that strawberry; they wouldn’t exist without genetic modification. Stop eating asparagus; its current form is almost unrecognizable from the little annoying weed it once was. Same is true for a number of foods one now laughably sees marketed as organic. Really smart people know that to feed the seven billion plus people in the world, we need food that can adapt to being grown in a variety of climates and soils. Without GMOs, we’re all going to starve.

Just Because It Hasn’t Been Proven Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t True

Really smart people understand there are some things we will never know (because we can’t go back in time) and some things we don’t yet have the ability to know. They’re okay with that because the preponderance of evidence points to a single solution. Really smart people are also okay with Truth not being an absolute. Truth once said that the universe revolved around the Earth. As our ability to understand and observe the universe changed, so did Truth. This is why they use the word theory; it is the Truth as we are able to understand it at this moment.

Really smart people agree on a lot of things. Maybe we should listen.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

6 Reasons No One Likes You

May 27, 2015

Broken Princess (2011)

“Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. Photography is a major force in explaining man to man.” -Edward Steichen

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Yesterday we explained to everyone that you’re going to die. Armed with that knowledge, one might think that people would be a bit nicer, more accommodating, and trying to leave an enduring legacy of peace and hope. Nope, that’s not happening. Instead, we’re surrounded by people who are absolutely rotten and don’t seem to be capable of understanding exactly why it is that no one likes them. The whole situation might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that roughly half the US population is not only unlikable but absolutely baffled as to why. Please, allow us to try and shed some light on the subject. While the justifications are myriad, we have concatenated them down to six primary reasons that no one likes you.

You Are A Homophobe

Let me state for the record that we are combining all negative attitudes toward anyone within the LGBTQ community. Gay jokes are no longer acceptable. “That’s so gay” is one of the most rude statements you can make. All those derogatory terms you’ve been using? I can’t think of any faster way to get reasonable people to turn their back and walk away. LGBTQ people are absolutely no threat to you, so stop being so damn afraid. They’re not out to recruit you. They’re not going to cause the downfall of society. They’re not responsible for bad weather. Letting them marry isn’t going to effect your sham of a marriage. Get over yourself already and accept them for the beautiful people they are.

You’re Greedy

Interestingly enough, we’re not necessarily talking about the 1% here. At least, we’re not talking about the richest .o1%. I’ve met some of those people and found them to be among the most generous because they realize that, to a very large extent, they got lucky. What no one likes is the person who is among the nouveau rich and can’t be bothered to share their wealth with anyone else. They think they need a third house, a fourth car, or a bigger boat while complaining about all those “other” people who simply would like a living wage without having to work three jobs. For you, I have a very important message:

Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, Cease from your consideration of it. Proverbs 23:4

You Only Think About Yourself

Whether one has any money or not, only thinking about yourself, insisting that the world revolves around you, is just as bad a social crime as being a greedy SOB. This would include the sales manager who keeps demanding more of his/her floor people so they have less work to do themselves. Bosses who make everyone else work weekends but doesn’t work one themselves also falls into this category. Oh, and let’s not forget the people who demand everyone help them move but are always “busy” when someone else needs help. It is time you understand that we see through your bullshit and we don’t like you.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

You Diss People Who Genuinely Need Help

I genuinely fail to understand this whole war on the poor and disadvantaged that has popped up over the past few years. This is very much not a part of the United States in which I grew up and it has the ability to make me angry about as fast as anything can. I was raised that when you see someone who needs help, you help them, not spit at them or yell at them to “get a job.” We felt pity for those who were unemployed and had difficulty finding work. There was an understanding that even those who are on government assistance still often need additional help with clothing and transportation. Helping people was not just the Christian thing to do, it was the human thing to do. Now, not helping is actually a plank in some people’s presidential platform! Poor are called greedy just for wanting to feed their children. Homeless are shamed because they lost jobs that went overseas. You talk bad about disadvantaged people and not only does no one like you but I firmly believe the universe will wreak vengeance on you.

You Enjoy Hurting People

There is a whole culture of violence across the country that seems to be growing. Perhaps it is fueled by anger to some degree, but more than anything I find it is fueled by fears that are totally unreasonable. Racism is part of it, but there’s more than that going on for violence between people of the same color is higher than ever. We’re finally starting to call out publicly those people who commit acts of domestic violence against family members, and unnecessary violence among law enforcement is getting some attention. But bullying still remains a critical issue and gang on gang violence hasn’t backed off for years. If you’re involved in hurting other people on any level, no one likes you. No one wants you around. No one wants to risk being your next victim.

You’re a member of the United States Congress

Nine percent. That’s how many people in the US approve of Congress. Let’s flip that number, shall we? Ninety-one percent of all the people from one end of this country to the other dislike the United States Congress. This isn’t a new revelation, of course, but it is an all-time low and damned if the members of Congress don’t seem to care. We send them to Washington, we pay their salaries, we pay their staff’s salaries, we entrust them with the care of the nation and what do they do? Nothing. Well, that’s not entirely true; they generate a lot of hot air as complain about how horrible everyone else is. Heaven forbid any of them actually set a good example or anything like that. Members of Congress, we loathe you.

Of course, how you choose to behave is something totally under your control. No one forces you to be an asshole, you choose it. You have the ability to change. That doesn’t mean everyone will suddenly like you because we’re used to not trusting; but if you can change, so can everyone’s opinion of you. Just try.[/one_half_last]

PotD / Social Commentary

10 Reasons You Are Going To DIE!

May 26, 2015

When Dreams Die (2010)

“It is said that mourning, by its gradual labour, slowly erases pain; I could not, I cannot believe this; because for me, Time eliminates the emotion of loss (I do not weep), that is all. For the rest, everything has remained motionless. For what I have lost is not a Figure (the Mother), but a being; and not a being, but a quality (a soul): not the indispensable, but the irreplaceable.” ― Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]You are not safe. You are going to die. If you don’t believe me, just check any of the clickbait lists on social media expounding upon the many ways in which that just might happen. Everything from e-cigs to orange juice has one problem or another if you ask the right person. The internet has made it possible for bad science, or often no science, to have a voice it really shouldn’t have and the result is fear mongering over issues that really shouldn’t exist. So, here’s a list of all the things that really, seriously, could result in your death.

There’s Someone In Your Life Who Needs The Insurance Money

Sure, you like to think that everyone loves you. Your spouse adores the ground on which you walk. Your parents think you do no wrong. Your siblings aren’t the least be jealous. Your co-workers are proud of your accomplishments. Right. Go ahead and think that. In reality, most murder victims are killed by someone they know, often a family member. The larger your insurance policy, the greater the risk. Be careful with that OJ this morning.

You’re Starving While Searching For Non-GMO Food

I’m still not sure how genetically modified food suddenly went from being the god-send that would end hunger around the planet to the horrible poison that is going to kill us all. There isn’t a substantial amount real science to back up all the fear mongering and political arm-twisting on the subject. Fact is, strawberries as we know and enjoy them wouldn’t even exist without some genetic modification. Same is true for a number of standard foods, which makes it absolutely laughable when one sees them in the organic section of the produce aisle. As the world becomes less hospitable to traditional farming, the choices are likely to be GMO or die. Your call.

When The Polar Ice Cap Melts, You’ll Drown

I recently heard one climate-change denier base his entire argument on the fact that property he owns in Key West isn’t yet under water. The key word there, pardon the pun, is yet. Climate change wasn’t an argument when I was in elementary school. Over 40 years ago we were being taught that as greenhouse gasses increased, the earth’s temperature would warm and the oceans would inevitably rise, eventually dramatically reshaping the continents as we know them now. What has changed is the timetable. Back then, most scientists were estimating that rise would take effect somewhere in the 22nd century. Now, most are saying it could happen in this one. I hope you know how to dog paddle.

You Drive Like A Moron

I no longer drive. What being a passenger the past few years has taught me is that those of you who do drive are nuts. Every day, we encounter so many near-misses that I’m amazed we’re not burying more drivers. The fact that people have actually become proficient at dodging each other should tell us just how bad our driving has become. Driving rules really aren’t that difficult. Stay in your lane. Use your damn turn signal. Slow the fuck down already! Keep your eyes on the road, not your phone. Perhaps most important, though, is that you actually plan your trip so you know where you’re going and know when you need to leave. Traffic is going to suck. Plan on it and maybe you won’t be the reason everyone else is late for work.

The Elevator Cable Broke

I have a habit when I get on elevators. I look for the weight limit and then check the people who are around me. If it appears we might be pushing that weight limit, I get off the damn elevator. I’m not taking that risk. Yes, I know modern elevators have emergency braking systems in case the cable breaks. I don’t trust them. Why? Americans are obese and one place where that creates a real strain is on elevator cables lifting our fat asses from the first floor to the second because we get winded taking the stairs. Breaking cables are inevitable. Go ahead and keep eating like a pig if you must. Just be careful going to your doctor. The cardiac specialist is on the fourteenth floor.

[/one_half] [one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]

You Share Needles

Southern Indiana has recently experienced a dramatic increase in HIV/AIDS cases due to one specific problem: needle sharing. Now, while a lot of the political rhetoric centers around the state cutting funding for public health sources, the reality is that if you’re sharing needles you’re just asking to die. Period. I’ll admit that I don’t really understand what drives a person to share needles in the first place; that’s not an addiction that has ever been remotely tempting. I do, however, realize that the problem is ultimately, politics aside, one of your own doing. So, let’s get this straight: if you share needles, you’re going to die and it’s not going to be pretty.

You Weren’t Immunized

Here’s another piece of bad science that has just gotten totally out of control. A recent measles outbreak is evidence of just how stupid some people can be when it comes to the health of their own children. Measles. Really. We had that disease all but licked until a few idiots decided to stop immunizing their kids. Next think you know, children everywhere, especially those who already had some form of immune deficiency, are breaking out with one of the most easily eradicated and totally unnecessary diseases possible. There is no real science behind anti-vaxing, just paranoid stupidity and the end results are lethal. Not immunizing your children is signing their death warrant. The risk is just that real. Stupid.

You Left The Oven On

Haven’t we all been there? We’re driving down the road, 30 minutes or so from home, when we suddenly wonder whether we actually remembered to turn off the oven. Okay, so millennials don’t have this problem because they don’t know how to cook, but older generations understand. There’s always that chance that you left on the oven, which means there could be gas building up inside your own right now, creating an inevitable powder keg. All it needs is the sudden rush of oxygen you’ll make available when you open the door, and boom! You, your house, and possibly even your neighbor’s houses are all going up in smoke. You know it could happen. You’re never really sure. Maybe you should turn around and check now.

Elves

I’m not kidding. They’re out there. We’re not talking about the little guys that help Santa deliver presents on Christmas Eve, either. Elves are evil, mean, and waiting to sabotage your every move, your every plan. You never see the little suckers until it’s too late. They tampered with your break lines. They put sleeping powder in the pilot’s coffee. Elves stretch electrical cords across the floor and then make them invisible until you’ve tripped over one. The water on the floor that cause you to slip and fall? Elves. I tell you, man, their everywhere and they’re out to get you. I swear it.

The Bible Tells Me So

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27 KJV

Sorry, I’m not making this one up. It’s really there. There’s no getting around it. Nothing you do is going to save your ass. You’re done for you’re going to die. The Bible says so. You’re toast.

Are you scared yet? Are you ready to crawl in a hole and hide? Can we get real for a moment? Sure, we’re all going to die, sooner or later, one way or another. I frequently tell the story of my Uncle Fred who died from smoking two and a half packs of cigarettes a day. He was 96. He didn’t stop smoking until he was 94. How, where and when one dies matters much less than how one lives. You have one life. Are you going to spend it worrying about what might kill you or are you going to spend your life actually living? You don’t have to listen to all the doomsayers on the Internet. You’ll probably live longer if you spend less time on the Internet completely. So go ahead. Defy death. Live. [/one_half_last]

potd

“The 50-50-90 rule: anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90% probability you’ll get it wrong.” ― Andy Rooney

We can’t put a stop to all nightmares, but we can reduce them. We have no choice. Now is the time to seriously put a clamp on gun violence. This is one nightmare we must end.

Share this:

Like this:

“As long as the world is turning and spinning, we’re gonna be dizzy and we’re gonna make mistakes.” ― Mel Brooks

Share this:

Like this:

“I am glad that I paid so little attention to good advice; had I abided by it I might have been saved from some of my most valuable mistakes.” ― Edna St. Vincent Millay

Share this:

Like this:

“I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being–forgive me–rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger.” ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Share this:

Like this:

“Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes.” ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Share this:

Like this:

“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Share this:

Like this:

PEACE

Share this:

Like this:

“The irony of rule followers is they often quote a lot of people that do not follow as many rules as they do.” ― Shannon L. Alder

Share this:

Like this:

“Unfortunately, in many cases, the rule book goes way too far – it tries to tell people how to be instead of explaining what we’re trying to do. We need recipes, not rules.” ― Howard Behar, It’s Not About the Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks

Share this:

Like this:

“More than ambition, more than ability, it is rules that limit contribution; rules are the lowest common denominator of human behavior. They are a substitute for rational thought.” ― Hyman G. Rickover

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

“All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.” -Richard Avedon

Pseudo-Celebrities

Terrorists

People Who Knock On Doors

Racists

Homophobes

Sexual Predators

People Who Don’t Hold Doors/Elevators

Justin Bieber Fans

Self-Righteous Assholes

Non-Tippers

Murderers

Tea Party Republicans

Share this:

Like this:

“If I were to teach, I wouldn’t teach a course in photography. I’d teach a course called ‘What Matters.'” -Ralph Steiner

Jailing The Wrong People

Religion

We’re Rude