L U C I M A blog

JustHost.com THE END

2012-02-24T12:40:00.006-08:00

I actually never sent that last message. Instead I said, "Of course, thanks." and closed the window. No point tempting fate. No point giving JustHost.com a reason to sabotage my website further. Besides, they still hold my domain registration on PipeDNS.com so I'll have to move that to a GoDaddy or NetworkSolutions or something.

While I'm here, I would like to say good things about www.pingdom.com for their detailed statistics with uptime and response time for any given website. You can automatically have them ping your website at 1 minute intervals and create logs for that data.

Another website I find useful is www.just-ping.com because they can ping your website from all over the world. What's cool is it shows the IP address of your website so if you're in the middle of changing DNS, you can find out whether or not the new server names have propagated into the registries (see below).

As we speak the DNS have propagated mostly and I'm pulling in over 2,700 emails from lucima.com since my mail now thinks that these are all new messages (messages from the last 3 years). I'll just mark them all as read when they come in since they are all old.

Of course if your website is working properly you won't need these resources. If your domain server is consistent and the website is optimized to respond quickly you'll never have to check pingdom or just-ping or migrate to another host. For what it's worth this was a relatively (knock on wood since it's not completely done) painless process. I just need to make sure that I don't lose the domain to JustHost.com/PipeDNS in the long-run.

Before (on JustHost.com)

After (on InMotion.com)

Time to Say Goodbye: JustHost.com

2012-02-23T21:12:00.007-08:00

86% uptime... really??? Thanks JustHost.com

This is a review of JustHost.com and lemme tell you, it's not a positive review...

I'd heard bad things about these guys but I'd always given them the benefit of the doubt.

And maybe they were always this bad and I just never really paid much attention. After all my website was on Dripbook.com and largely remained "unattended" for the last 2 years.

But ever since my class at NYFA I've been revamping my website. First it was a move away from Dripbook.com and onto a custom WordPress site. I tried several themes and settled on the current one you see at www.lucima.com which took me a good week or two just to install and learn my way around the new platform.

Then it was a matter of populating the new CMS with content. After all that's what the C in CMS stands for (content management system). Which took several weeks because I'd do things in spurts. The WordPress platform combined with this particular theme allows me to direct more attention to specific parts of LUCIMA STUDIO. For example right now I'm promoting our next workshop and so it's the first thing you see on the homepage of lucima.com

But as I worked on the website more and more over the three months, I noticed that the uptime on the website was inconsistent. Usually it worked and then sometimes it didn't. The first sign of problems was about a month ago when I discovered that the images for the site were loading extremely slowly. The help desk was of no use. Fast forward 1 month later and my site is down 15% of the time. How do I know this? Rodney Alan sent me a link to tools.pingdom.com which is a great tool that every web administrator should have. At first I thought it was my ISP but pingdom.com uses servers around the world to check connectivity to the domain of your choice. So I know I'm not crazy.

I tried getting JustHost to troubleshoot the issue. The livechat guy said they were aware of the issue and they're "working on it". No ETA on when the issue would be resolved though. I escalated the issue via a trouble ticket. The response was, "We tested it and everything seems to be working fine" even though I sent them various screenshots from pingdom.com demonstrating the 5-minute-interval pings that showed 15% downtime.

So I'm leaving. I can't get JustHost to change lucima.com onto a different server so there's no reason to stay. As we speak I'm waiting for confirmation for backup extraction on the new domain host InMotion. So far they've been responsive. I don't know how intricate the backup extraction process is and how difficult it will be to migrate fully off the old JustHost.com servers and onto the InMotion servers. I should know by the end of tonight.

Time to say goodbye JustHost.com

Here are some reviews of InMotion.com that I used to make my decision to move. It's hard since there's so much crap out there to sift through:

http://webhostinggeeks.com/user-reviews/

http://www.webhostingbreak.com/host-review/inmotion-hosting/

RadioPoppers JrX: Long-term update

2012-02-23T17:13:00.001-08:00

'Til the wheels fall off. The first JrX transmitter I purchased.

Here's the medium-term update.

Here's the short-term update.

I've been using these for a long time, since late 2009. More than two years later, I'm still in love with the RadioPopper JrX triggers.

If you use AlienBees/White Lighting strobes whether it's their monoblocks or pack/head combo, the power to control light from the trigger (on-camera) is priceless. I simply can not going back to setting the power from the back of the strobe.

And if it weren't for the existence of the Paul C. Buff CyberSyncs and Cyber Commander, I think there would have been some partnership between PCB and RadioPopper that would incorporate the RadioPopper JrX triggers into the AlienBees strobes.

Or at least there should be.

For me, I have only needed more than 3 channels of lights once or twice in my entire career. I rarely use more than 1 or 2 lights as it stands. And I understand that's an objective need. But this is an objective review. Furthermore I have never needed the precision of 1/10th stop digital increments that the Cyber Commander & Einstein might offer. Besides, running to the back of the AlienBees/White Lighting strobe only provides you an analog adjustment of power anyway.

Being able to dial the power from the camera has been critical for my development as a photographer. The obvious benefits are that I can dial in proper exposure much faster. But the intangibles of this reality are priceless. I can now develop greater rapport with the model and break her flow much less often than if I were to run back and forth between the light and my shooting position. I can provide greater flexibility to my models' poses and range of motion now that I know I can knock down power (if they move too close to the light), or bump up the exposure (if they move too far away). Such "ad hoc" power adjustments have allowed me to shoot more fluidly in difficult lighting scenarios.

Especially with multiple light setups. Things get a lot more complicated with balancing multiple light outputs.

Do the JrX's have flaws. Of course! I wish the battery cover (slider) were better made. I wish I didn't operate on CR123 batteries (though I use rechargeable ones so it's not a big deal anymore). I wish there were 5 channels (just in case) instead of 3. I wish they never misfired, though statistically I've had roughly 99+% success rate. I wish my workshop students didn't manage to break the first trigger by turning the dial too hard (you can fault RadioPopper for that though). I do wish that RadioPopper as a company was a little more inclined to help me with the repair of the trigger unit and had better customer service like Paul C. Buff. I wish I didn't have to velcro the JrX units to the side of my PCB units (but as with most receivers you have to attach them somehow). I wish canceling slave syncing on the PCB units were more elegant than using a dummy audio jack plug (though I think this is actually a PCB complaint and not a JrX complaint!).

Are the CyberSyncs & Cyber Commander better? I don't know. My inclination is that they don't offer the adjustment speed that an an analog dial provides. I'm sure they're much more accurate though.

Are the PocketWizards better? I don't know. I think the PocketWizard III's are sexy, but still no power adjustment.

I'm sure eventually something better will come out. I know that the poverty wizards (like the "Cacti" that I still have) are getting better and better. Eventually there will be a new "paradigm" trigger!

Talking about Modeling Agencies with LUCIMA and Rodney Alan

2012-02-23T10:11:00.002-08:00

I was chatting with Rodney Alan the other day about all things photography. This was before my interview with Anderson and Jillian on One Hour Photo. Halfway through lunch I said, "I wish we'd recorded our conversation!"

Hindsight is 20-20 and we can't go back in time. So we made a new recording. Specifically about our experiences with models and modeling agencies Check it out! Let us know if you have any questions you'd like to hear discussed!

Light Leaks Evolution Explained

2012-02-22T12:01:00.000-08:00

Actually now that I think about it, the entire journey of my photography can really be described or embodied in the retouching process that I employ. Anyone has taken a workshop with me knows that I employ a rough "3-step process" for retouching. They are: Fixing, Balancing, and Enhancing.

So it's no surprise that at this phase in my journey I have moved away (mostly) from balancing and deviated far from fixing. You can find lots of posts on this blog about my "fixing" fixation through skin-processing techniques I employed in the past. The balancing I don't talk very much about because it's a "ghost-process"; a process where I balance an image for exposure, reorganize the histogram, and create a "well-balanced" image. It's hard to put into words, I just do what I deem necessary for the image at the time I process it. Maybe I'll make this a post later on...

Le Park Table. Anneliese. January 2011. Hasselblad H3DII-31 and HC-80. 1/800, f/3.4, ISO100.

My light leaks were born from flares. So I suppose you can say that they share DNA with lens flare. The above image of Anneliese were shot with the H3DII-31 and those flares are real. In fact, most of the flaring that you see in my images are in the original capture.

Triangle. Lindsay. January 2011. H3DII-31 and HC-80. 1/500th, f/9.5, ISO100.

My light leaks also share DNA with is geometry. The above example of Lindsay was one of the first images where I made my foray into superimposing geometric shapes over my images.

Lightdance. Denise. January 2011. Nikon D3 and 24-70mm f/2.8G. 1/200th, f/4.0, ISO800.

The above image of Denise is where I first superimposed my light leaks in an obvious and systematic manner. Each one of these images have the middle light leak strip, so the effect was not created just for the collage alone (as it so often is for me these days). Historically light can leak onto the image in many ways. It can leak into the camera from the camera body. It can also leak onto the film during development. Admittedly I didn't have any rhyme or reason for what I was specifically trying to emulate. Whether camera body light leak or developmental light leak I was just trying something new.

Gold. Bekka. March 2011. Nikon D3 and 24-70mm f/2.8G, 1/200th, f/13, ISO400.

Here's where the light leaks were superimposed in the creation of the collage. Looking at the original edits, there are no light leaks. So this was a layer where I went willy nilly and drew a bunch of different light leaks onto the set.

It's important for me to remember that the growth and evolution of my light leaks was not a stand-alone development of my photography journey. Rather it was part of a bigger picture; specifically where I was explored the renaissance of film effects. Part of it was simply trying to fill in a gap in my own experiences (not having been a part of the Holga/Diana heyday) and the other part was simply an exploration into something different. In other words, I can't otherwise explain why I have this fascination with film.

And I think that the realization of this realization is important for me too... that anything I do is one part logic and one part random. I might start with logic and finish with artistry. And being that I have an overbearing left-side of the brain I often find myself having to justify the right-side of the brain after the fact. The thing is, the right-side of the brain doesn't need to be justified. It just is. It doesn't care when it takes over so long as it gets to explore its own fair share of the equation. And all things being considered I try and balance these two opposing forces. I think it's important to be able to rationally and logically think through problems but at the same time allow the creative juices to just do its thing. Maybe that's why I hole myself up in a cave? Perhaps I'm purely preserving my own organic creativity so that it remains unadulterated (though hardly possible in this day of media) so I can explore my own artistry?

Miami Heat. Ashley. June 2011. Nikon D3 and 24-70mm f/2.8G. 1/200th, f/6.3, ISO400.

Fast forward to June of 2011 and the light leaks transform into something more obvious and traditional. Admittedly (again), when I did this I didn't put much thought into the how/why. Rather it was something organic that I thought was a nice enhancement. But as I was explaining this effect during a workshop (months after the fact), I realized that this image precisely emulated a print reflecting overhead light. Therefore this light leak was functional. It had a purpose. Its purpose was to demonstrate that a digital image (on a display) could fool the brain into thinking the eyes were looking at a print, that this image was real and tangible.

At the time the thought wasn't very well-formed but the seed had been planted that these effects could be used to simulate something even more tangible and real than just traditional light leaks from a camera body or film development. And in conjunction with other developments with my post-processing, I employed this effect into even more work.

Eternal Sunshine. Bekka. June 2011. D3 and 24-70mm f/2.8G. 1/1000th, f/4.0, ISO200

Still one of my favorite pictures. I chose to show this one to illustrate the "print-esque-ness" of the images I was creating during this time.

And for a while I experimented with these effects. Sometimes I'd justify it logically and sometimes I'd just let the logic float away. In conjunction with my experiments with color-processing, I had a couple of months of "free-styling" and then I arrived at this:

All Angles Covered. Codi. November 2011. D3 and 50mm f/1.8D. 1/200th, f/4.0, ISO200.

With the increase in nudity of my work, I needed something to cover the sensitive parts. Why shoot it in the first place if you're going to cover it up in post? Certainly the poses and the image changes when the model has the freedom to move without fear of full-frontal retribution. Before I would recrop or simply not process those images that showed too much nudity. But with this type of processing, I had new tools to open up new gateways for what I could conceal and what I could reveal.

Duck and Model. Holly. November 2011. D3 and 50mm f/1.8D. 1/200th, f/2.8, ISO3200.

As as the light leaks evolved into something very functional, they also gained boldness in color and opacity. Perhaps it reflected the purpose. Perhaps it was simply that I had enough practice. Or simply it was a simple matter of growth and mutation. The colors have certainly gotten darker, moving away from the yellows and oranges and towards deep purple and pink hues that are now strangely attributed to my "look".

So there you have it. A quick and dirty explanation of the light leaks and the brief history during which it has inhabited my work. I'm sure this isn't the last chapter but I figured it'd be fun to talk about and to attempt to verbalize. It actually proved to be a bigger challenge than I had originally anticipated!

Cheers!

One Hour Photo

2012-02-21T10:02:00.001-08:00

I'll be on ArmadaFM.com for the first half of One Hour Photo with Anderson Smith and Jillian Hayes tomorrow (Wednesday) 1PM EST. I'll be talking about photography, the upcoming workshop, and more! Tune in with the link above!

The podcast is up! You can listen here!

Maniacs

2012-02-20T23:06:00.001-08:00

I believe in maniacs. I believe in type As. I believe that you’ve got to love your work so much that it is all you want to do. I believe you must betray your mistress for your work, you betray your wife for your work; I believe that she must betray you for her work. I believe that work is the one thing in the world that never betrays you, that lasts. If I were going to be a politician, if I were going to be a scientist, I would do it every day. I wouldn’t wait for Monday. I don’t believe in weekends.
If you’re headed for a life that’s only involved with making money and that you hope for satisfaction somewhere else, you’re headed for a lot of trouble. And whatever replaces vodka when you’re 45 is what you’re going to be doing.

Richard Avedon - 1988

We're all a little crazy. Some more than others. Most of the time you can see crazy just by talking to someone. Occasionally people hide it well although they're truly crazy underneath the shell of normality. You can usually infer crazy just by observing one's actions. For example the investment bankers are all crazy. They seem normal but they're completely nuts. The people with doctorate degrees are all nutty too but in a totally different way. Theirs is an insane ability to focus on an extremely narrow field while forsaking all else. The people who run endurance races are all crazy too. I mean who subjects himself/herself to 17 hours of torture (in the case of the Ironman Triathlon)?

Crazy people do.

And yet these people believe that they're totally normal. They thrive in the eye of their own madness, like the eye of a hurricane. They believe normal people are crazy. Crazy for leading unfulfilled lives. Crazy for settling. Crazy for being ordinary. And so these people have obviously put some thought into their own actions. In fact, they are so rational in their delusions that they can probably convince you that they're sane. That as a result of their personality flaws combined with environmental variables (e.g. divorced parents, poor upbringing, got beat up as kids, etc.) this the the only logical outcome.

That this is their destiny.

Thus, they are amazing in their tragically flawed and yet tragically beautiful ways.

I say this while knowing with utter confidence that I am one of these crazy people. I've always known this about myself. Throughout my entire life these character traits have shaped me into who I am. Mine in particular are a combination of loving the pursuit. Thriving in the passion of being totally consumed by something... anything. Needing a challenge that's not impossible to achieve in a lifetime but not easy enough to conquer in a day. Having both a fear of failure and also a phobia for being average. Believing that hard work trumps raw talent and luck. Wanting to prove to the naysayers that it can be done... and done my way. That it's not too late even if you're late to the game. That the love (for the game) is the answer.

So Dick was right. Weekends, holidays (is it still President's Day?), nights, birthdays, they're all the same to me. I have spent only 1 day physically away from my computer in the past 3+ years that I've been a professional photographer (New Year's Day 2012). Whether I'm eating, sleeping, or training for my Ironman I'm always thinking about this stuff. It's like having a TV that only has one channel and not being able to turn that TV off. It gives me a reason to live and at the same time it's slowly killing me physically and possibly psychologically.

Is it hard? You betcha. Because if it weren't hard it wouldn't be worth doing. I think that's why they make it hard. It's why med-school puts you through residency and 36-hour-shifts. Why the CFA is 3 levels and is will take you a minimum of 3 years to pass. Why the Ironman is 2.4 miles swim, 112 miles bike, and 26.2 miles run. It's hard because it's supposed to force you to question your own commitment every step of the way. After all, you don't want some half-assed nitwit operating on your when you need to have surgery.

But I'm still here and still in love with what I do. After all, who am I to complain about getting paid to shoot naked models all day? :)

Canon EOS C300

2012-02-20T21:57:00.003-08:00

Probably a little too much camera for me but I think this demonstrates Canon's commitment to cinematography. They will be competing for RED's lunch and dinner in no time!

The release of the C300 also affects my entire decision making process regarding the Canon vs. Nikon issue.

Litmus Test

2012-02-19T21:33:00.000-08:00

Testing 1-2-3. Ashley Chung. D3/50mm f/1.8D. 1/200th, f/4.0, ISO500

It's important for every photographer to periodically reconcile the inevitable discrepancy between the way he/she perceives his/her work and the way the world perceives his/her work.

For my own purposes, I use tumblr and Facebook to better understand whether or not a particular image (or set of images) resonate(s) with the masses. These social networks put my images in front of a large audience and allow me to quickly obtain a rough indication of whether or not I'm "appealing to the masses". Usually I don't put any weight on the written feedback but instead I look at the metrics behind the responses such as the number of positive responses, likes, notes, reblogs on any specific image(s).

Here's where I should put the disclaimer: This test is entirely unscientific.

Why?

Because you're first of all subjecting yourself to the subjective audiences of Facebook (your friends) and tumblr (your followers). Demographically speaking that's a very narrow and specific audience. Most of my Facebook friends are involved in the photography or fashion industry in one form or another, whether they are aspiring models, photographers, makeup artists, agents, etc. Tumblr is a similar demographic (surprisingly since I assumed it'd be more artistic, graphics-oriented, boho, etc.). With both audiences, most of the demographic skews young and hip.

Unlike you old farts that are reading this blog LOL :) Talk about night and day differences, IQ, disposable income, education, etc. pretty much in every possible way.

Anyhow, it's also important to understand that the responses to the pictures are often dependent upon many variables. On tumblr if someone with a lot of followers reblogs the post, the response could be viral. When Ashley Sky reblogged my picture of her, I immediately got 365 "notes" on that post (I average 30-50 notes). Time of day is a variable that makes a difference. If I post something at 10AM before any of the models are even awake, that picture gets no attention. Nudity is another variable because it affects whether or not I can post the image on Facebook. If I can't post it on Facebook, I can't effectively gauge mass appeal of those images and I certainly can't compare them to the images without nudity.

Overall, this litmus test is weak, unpredictable, and often inconsistent indicators of mass appeal. Any attempt at quantitative analysis of these results would be totally foolish and inconclusive.

But with that being said, I find that the Facebook and tumblr responses can reveal discrepancies in my own understanding of certain images. For example on Facebook, the above images of Ashley attracted significantly more attention than comparable images of Kate Compton and Bekka Gunther. For the life of me however, I don't see why. I mean, I see two pretty pictures, neither of which is "print-worthy" (that's my personal litmus test, whether or not I like it enough to print it...). Hell, I only uploaded them onto Facebook because them to promote the upcoming workshop. So I'm still racking my brain to see it the way the rest of the world sees it. But regardless, the reality is that the public identifies with these images so there obviously exists a discrepancy between my personal perception and the public's perception of these images.

And public opinion is a dangerous thing to ignore because I could go off into the wrong direction and produce a lot of work that the public doesn't care for and ruin my own reputation. As a fashion photographer and as Charles LUCIMA, it detracts from my public image to produce esoteric art that only a few might appreciate. Besides, I'm not enough on the bleeding edge of photography or fashion to have the license to go willy-nilly and disregard public opinion. Instead it's much more beneficial to my business to produce images that resonates with the masses.

Of course each time I look at these public polls, I can't help but supplement with a significant serving of salt. Maybe people really liked the pictures or maybe it was just a slow day on Facebook/tumblr. Who knows? But when the numbers are astronomically high I'll argue, "1,025 people can't be wrong". For the record, I think that picture of Brittany is a winner. The public is right on the money with this one.

And at the end of the day you'll still need a personal appreciation for your own images. Your "photographic eye" is what makes you unique and what provides you the perspective to differentiate yourself from the masses. So it's important to cultivate those differences and not conform. But at the same time, you should cultivate a good eye for what appeals to the masses.

So do yourself a favor and occasionally get feedback from the masses and see if they agree with you. You might be surprised ;)

Magic: Questions from a Magician's Apprentice

2012-02-16T20:49:00.000-08:00

Got an email from a Magic student yesterday and I thought I'd share:

So since, I was with you on Friday - all I been thinking about has been photos. I don't mean to bombard you with all of these little questions, its just my entire outlook on this process has changed dramatically after spending the day with you so I just wanted to refer to back you and see if you could clarify some stuff for me. :)

1. So just like you said, I have been getting messages from different models shooting with Bekka. I am excited to have real models to work with but I am looking at their portfolios and it seems that they already have some pretty extensive work. I kinda feel pressured to give them something they don't have already but I don't know how to make mine look different from the stuff they already have. Is this something that I should consider when shooting more experienced models? Or you think its just a confidence issue?

2. Now this probably doesn't happen to you anymore but I wanted to get some input on this. As you know, things are easy when everything in a shoot is going right- but how do you respond when something is just off- The images are just not coming out the way you want them. Do you show them to your model? Or does showing them crappy images diminish their confidence in you? I noticed this a bit when I was shooting Bekka- that when I went back to her, I didn't like how they were looking and felt stupid showing her something I didn't even like.

3. Again, another question that you probably don't even think about anymore based on experience, but had a real question about how fast you snap your images. It's probably just instinct by now but what exactly are you looking at when you are going that fast? I shot on sunday and I felt I had a similar phenomenon occur when reviewing Bekkas pictures, which was just a lot of stuff I didnt like. Of course probably had to do with the quality of the model... but I have a feeling there is something Im doing wrong. I have a feeling its just my finger not snapping fast enough because as I was shooting she was giving me some solid looks. It just didnt translate when I looked back.

1. Being that you're still early in your career, you'll always feel a little nervous in shooting "high-calibur" girls. When you get "older", there won't be any girls that are good enough to make you nervous. These days, I never think about getting something different from the stuff they already have because I know that there's nothing out there that looks quite like my work. On the other hand, I make sure I don't shoot the same locations or the same wardrobe or the same "looks" that the girl has in her book. It really comes down to experience and confidence. For example if a girl has all lingerie/swimwear in her book, I might choose to shoot something with more wardrobe. Or I might go the opposite direction and just shoot her completely nude. But at the end of the day I'd suggest "just be you".

2. Again it comes down to experience and confidence. I don't know if I told you but even if you don't like the pictures, you have to always "fake it until you make it". Never show weakness or lack of confidence to a model. Of course showing them crappy pictures will diminish how they feel about you. But as long as the fault is on the model, you should put the onus on them to make the pictures better. As long as your lighting and your composition and everything photography-oriented is good you shouldn't have to worry.

And that's what adjustments are for. Remember how I asked you to make adjustments 1 minute into the shoot so you could make sure you were getting the right looks? That's the time you tell the model, "Let's see what we did right and let's see how we can make things better" That's your opportunity to make improvements. Sure, sometimes the model is tapped out and she can't do any better. And yes, sometimes maybe you're stuck and you have no idea what's going wrong. But over time, you'll know and over time, your models will be able to make the required course corrections. And by that time you'll have the confidence to push harder and ensure that you get the look you want. Don't be too hard on yourself too early.

3. Just because I capture the frame does not mean that I like it 100% or will use it. The release of the shutter serves several purposes. The primary purpose is to give me a chance at capturing something magical. It does not guarantee Magic. There are certainly a lot of frames that the stars don't align; like a chunk of hair in the wrong place, poor hand positioning, blinking eyes, etc. But when you have enough experiences you will release the shutter when those moments happen and increase your probability of capturing Magic.

Again, it's a dance with the model. Right now your "timing" is a little off. You're not able to quite predict when she's going to flip her hair or spin or jump. From what I saw, your timing was a little slow. But over time you'll get better at this. And yes, you'll have lots of frames that you'll delete. But when you get something, you'll be amazed. Just remember that lightning is hard to capture in a bottle.

Furthermore, no model expects every image to be amazing. They know sometimes the timing is off. They know sometimes they're not posed the way they think they're posed. But if they believe that you're amazing, it really only takes that "one" picture that makes it all worth the effort. And once she sees that you can get that "one" she won't care that you took 1,000 to get there.

And yes it has to do with the model. And it has to do with you. And again it comes down to experience and confidence. Learning Magic takes a while. Believing that you're a Magician takes even longer.

Internship Specifics 2012

2012-02-14T14:24:00.001-08:00

In order to clarify the internship questions, I wanted to lay out the details for the various positions and the application process. LUCIMA STUDIO is an ever-growing and ever-evolving business that constantly seeks to create strategic long-term partnerships with the right individuals. Here you’ll find a listing of the current positions available at LUCIMA STUDIO.

- All positions are unpaid
- Minimum time commitment is 3 months
- Average time commitment is 30-40 hours/week and 5-6 days/week
- Internships are ongoing and exist without hard dates
- Anyone can apply (especially non-photographers)
- Location for all internships opportunities is LUCIMA STUDIO

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT aka The Front Man

Primary role: To seek and create new revenue streams.

Responsibilities: Create strategic alliances (e.g. when I called up Samy's & Calumet or how I'm currently teaching from NYFA) including but not limited to the education department of LUCIMA STUDIO. Create sponsorship opportunities via current revenue streams (e.g. Profoto, Nikon/Canon, etc.). Maintain and develop relationships with existing and new agencies (photography & talent agencies). Create, develop and maintain relationships with key publications (pursue creation of opportunities for spec. editorials in "brick & mortar" magazines). Recognize and represent LUCIMA STUDIO in key events (e.g. fashion shows, client appreciation parties, etc.).

Prerequisites: Cold calling experience. Good personality. Business background and business experience. A mobile phone with a lot of monthly minutes. Ability to manage a team and be a team player.

PRINT MARKETING aka Paper Machete

Primary role: Leverage existing content to create print media. Understand & penetrate the "Old Guard".

Responsibilities: Work with The Front Man to identify opportunities to penetrate "The Old Guard". The Old Guard is any traditional business/organization that is does not derive its business strictly from the Internet. Examples of The Old Guard are brick & mortar print publications, modeling agencies, photography agencies, retail businesses, wholesalers, any old-fashioned organization that would likely require us to leave some published material just to get our foot in the door. The responsibilities of Paper Machete will include leveraging existing LUCIMA STUDIO content to create print content for the above described purposes. These might include comp cards, brochures, mailers, business cards, etc.

Prerequisites: Knowledge and proficiency of print media and print software such as Quark, InDesign, Illustrator, Publisher, etc. Provide examples of existing body of work for review.

WEB MARKETING aka Neo

Primary role: Leverage existing content to create online media. Increase online traffic for monetary conversion.

Responsibilities: Work with The Front Man to identify opportunities to increase presence and value in the LUCIMA brand online. Administer the various LUCIMA websites including but not limited to blogger, tumblr, flickr, ModelMayhem, Facebook, LUCIMA.com. Neo must be able to perform quantitative analysis on web statistics and generate basic reports for understanding online traffic. Neo will leverage existing content created by LUCIMA STUDIO to increase brand awareness and maintain brand integrity in online interactions. Neo will also explore online partnerships and online opportunities for marketing.

Prerequisites: Knowledge of Wordpress, HTML, Flash, Dreamweaver, basic coding, basic Photoshop, Illustrator, GoToMeeting, etc. Ability to manipulate all things web. Must provide samples of existing work.

VIDEOGRAPHER/PHOTOJOURNALIST aka The Historian

Primary role: To document and create video and photo promotional material

Responsibilities: Capture video and photo behind-the-scenes documentation of LUCIMA STUDIO photoshoots. Capture second-camera cinematography during video shoots. Edit and create behind-the-scenes videos. Capture and edit interviews. Work with Neo and The Front Man to create promotional material to showcase on the web.

Prerequisites: Basic cinematography experience. Basic photography experience. Must possess video dSLR (preferably Canon) for capture. Must demonstrate proficiency in editing. Must know Final Cut (not Premier), Adobe After Effects, Magic Bullet, etc.

To apply for any of these internships you should first read these:
Proactive and Disciplined
Conversation with an Intern
I Need an Intern/Assistant
Internship Specifics

And if you still want to apply you should submit an email to info@lucima.com with the following information:

- Your resume
- Which position you are applying for
- How many miles you live from LUCIMA STUDIO
- Availability over the next 3 months
- How you'll survive financially with an unpaid internship over the next 3 months
- Greatest strength/weakness
- Why we should select you
- What you want out of the internship

Looking forward to hearing from each of you!

Magic: Lightning Rounds

2012-02-14T12:16:00.000-08:00

Lightning Rounds with Bekka Gunther.

I shot the above diptych of Bekka during a 1-minute demonstration of a private workshop. I probably shot about a hundred images or during which I caught these two images.

Sometimes people are surprised when I tell them that it only takes me 5-10 minutes to shoot a set. My reaction is that 10 minutes is a long time to hold a model's attention. That within 10 minutes, a model is likely to repeat her poses/looks/moves. That 10 minutes is a "long-program", and not a short routine. That 10 minutes could very well result in 1,000 frames.

That there isn't anything you can do in 10 minutes, that you can't do in 5 minutes.

And while that's not entirely true, it's built on the idea that 10 minutes at a brisk pace of shooting and a dynamic level of interaction is all you need to get Magic.

It's also why I set my photography students in the group workshops to 10-minute timers. And after they get used to this pace, they often wonder what they're supposed to do with the extra 5-minutes that they're left with.

And perhaps I'm guilty of really only having one gear of shooting; the gear that goes warp speed. I like pushing for intensity, emotion, action, and life. My models know this about me and expect nothing less. They know that if they give, they will recoup their efforts in volumes with the images. And I know that when they give, they don't have more than 5-10 minutes of energy/attention/patience to capture it all. So we keep the shooting duration short and sweet but always full throttle.

As a piece of trivia, one of the things I've gotten accustomed to saying right before I start shooting is, "Let's dance".

So next time you step out on set, keep it short and get to the point. This keeps everyone's energy level high and the momentum for Magic strong.

The LUCIMA Stance

2012-02-13T18:04:00.000-08:00

While it is not an officially recognized stance by the Shaolin Temple, the LUCIMA stance is a variant of one of the "Ba Shi" or "Ba Bu" (Eight Stances), namely Zuo Pan Bu (Sitting on Crossed Leg Stance). The LUCIMA stance is not combat-oriented, instead it uses the stable nature of Zuo Pan Bu and furthers it by pushing all of the fighter's weight from the back leg into the calf of the front leg. While rarely captured, I have found the only known photographic image of the LUCIMA stance in existence and placed it in a side-by-side comparison with images of the real Zuo Pan Bu.

Here's a modern day demonstration of Zuo Pan Bu

Now in all seriousness, Zuo Pan Bu is a weight-loaded stance that allows a martial artist not only to strike from a solid stance but to also transition rotationally in and out of other striking motions. The main difference is that the LUCIMA stance puts all the weight of the back leg directly into the calf of the front leg thus relieving the back leg of any effort in keeping the practitioner upright. The placement of the back knee varies; traveling as low as the Achilles Tendon of the front leg and as high as directly behind the knee of the front leg. The LUCIMA stance places great strain on the front leg's calf and Achilles Tendon and may cause discomfort to the practitioner.

But when the back leg's knee moves higher into the nook of the front leg (behind the front leg's knee), the LUCIMA stance becomes even sturdier because the presence of the back knee makes it impossible for the front leg to collapse. This reduces the effort level on the practitioner and allows for a balanced, less shaky stance.

The LUCIMA stance is therefore excellent for a photography at a lower center of gravity.

As a disclaimer the LUCIMA stance is an advanced stance for photographers that have a low center of gravity and good balance. LUCIMA himself had some kung fu training prior to becoming a photographer so do not be discouraged if you can not replicate this stance effectively. There are 7 other stances in the Ba Bu that you can attempt to convert into a stable photography stance.

All joking aside, I never thought anything of this stance. I am only aware of it as a result of people's reactions to it. I'm not even sure when I first debuted the LUCIMA stance but it has certainly given me a "signature move" that people talk about. If I were a Mortal Kombat character, my finishing move would probably employ the LUCIMA stance. The odd thing is that it's so obviously stable that I can not believe that no other photographer in the world shoots in this stance. In all seriousness, it's ridiculously comfortable. I can stay in that stance for a very long time and the only discomfort is the compression of my front calf/Achilles Tendon. Combined with a generous forward lean, I can shoot from literally 12-15 inches off the ground with my feet firmly planted on the ground.

Hell, maybe I'll offer it as a advanced technique in my future workshops at an extra cost :)

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

2012-02-13T10:53:00.000-08:00

Ahhh, but when I see images like this I'm reminded how remarkably potent the H3DII-31 performs! This is an iPhone pic of the back of my H3DII-31 during a client shoot.

I have an interesting dilemma to share with you guys. It's a little game of "Should I Stay or Should I Go"

Off the top of my head I own the following:

NIKON
-D3
-24-70mm f/2.8G
-70-200mm f/2.8G
-14-28mm f/2.8G
-50mm f/1.8D
-85mm f/1.4D
-105mm f/2.8 (Sigma)
-300mm f/4

HASSELBLAD
-H3DII-31
-HC 80mm
-HC 200mm

CANON
-7D
-24-70mm f/2.8L
-14mm f/2.8
-50mm f/1.4
-85mm f/1.8

A little history on these systems. I've shot Nikon since 1995 (film) and when I went digital, I stayed with Nikon. I acquired most of my Nikon gear before even becoming a professional photographer.

I acquired the Hasselblad in 2010 when I felt the need for more megapixels, dynamic range, and more detail. It serves its purpose as my "client/campaign camera" when the clients need more detail for ads. It also serves a unique psychological function in allowing me to differentiate myself from the rest of the market. Most of my competitors don't own or shoot digital medium format.

A couple of months ago, I decided to stop waiting for Nikon to get their act together regarding video. This was pre D800 and D4 announcement and I felt the urge to make a decision regarding the future of video. I purchased a used 7D and assortment of new lenses from B&H. I've shot 2 videos on this system and plan on making more videos going forward.

The question is, does it make sense to run 3 parallel systems? Probably not. Especially now that the D800 and D4 have at least matched what the 7D does in video. But if I sold my Canon gear, the 5DMIII and 7DMII would undoubtedly have better video capabilities than the D4/D800 which would leave me in virtually the same conundrum that got me into Canon in the first place.

And then there's the Hasselblad. The D800 closes the gap between 35mm and digital MF. While the difference in sensor size will always remain, they've at least currently closed the megapixels gap between the 31 and 40MP Hasselblads. Dynamic range? Of course not. The dynamic range on a larger sensor will inevitably be better. And of course Hasselblad and PhaseOne have their higher MP sensors from 50MP to 80MP. But temporarily speaking, the Nikon D800 seemingly creeps into the digital MF territory with its unreal 36MP and makes me reconsider owning a H3DII-31.

Only time will tell and it's very likely that I'll run these 3 separate systems for a while. The one most likely to get divested is the Hasselblad system because I find that I use it so infrequently these days that I might as well just retain the lenses and just rent when necessary. However, for the amount I could potentially recoup, I could very well just keep it.

It's fun to think about gear now and then though... part of what makes photography interesting!

Dr. L U C I M A: Curing Your Photography Ailments

2012-02-11T11:22:00.000-08:00

Pedestal. Bekka Gunther with Sam Sulam at a private workshop.

Dr. LUCIMA

It's about as close as I'll ever get to being an MD or having a PhD attached to my name.

After teaching another private workshop yesterday, I realized that my private workshops are tailored to exact specifications depending on when, where, who, what, why and how the photographer is progressing on his/her photographic journey.

You could almost say that I prescribe a remedy for whatever ails you as a photographer. With that metaphor in mind, let recount some photography diseases I've cured in my time...

Curing Photophobia (Fear of Light)

I've had photographers come in with little to no studio experience and together we create an agenda that familiarizes them with different modifiers, lighting patterns, setups, distances, and more. My goal is that they feel confident and comfortable walking into a studio and setting up their own lighting. So while I show them the basics, I will throughout the day put them in challenging lighting scenarios where they are forced to resolve these problems with minimal assistance. I constantly challenge their thinking, asking why they've elected specific modifiers over others or placed a light at a particular distance or chosen their camera settings for a lighting setup.

For example, I had a professional photographer that shot weekly stock for a clothing company. Her work was great but her fear of lighting limited her photography to only occur under diffuse light conditions of natural light. The other photographers in the company either knew less or didn't want to share their knowledge. Regardless, she knew that she needed to understand modifiers, grids, relative light size, distances, and power but didn't know where to begin.

During our private workshop we must have covered 8 to 10 unique light setups. One of the benefits of my studio is that I have pretty much all the light modifiers you might want to try. From umbrellas, to soft boxes, grids, beauty dish, octabox, reflectors, parabolic light, pack light, mono blocks, halogen (even fluorescents), ring flash, reflectors, barn doors, and more. This combined with a variety of walls, faux walls, boxes, stairs, other random props, different flooring, seamless paper, and 2,100 square feet of playground, results in an endless game of "What if we tried this?" for any photographer.

One of the unique remedies I prescribed for this photographer was to look for Rembrandt, butterfly, loupe, flat and split lighting on every advertising image she looked at. This mental exercise forces the photographer to acknowledge not only the different lighting pattern but mentally reverse engineer the lighting setup at the time of capture. Over time she'll be able to reverse engineer modifiers, distances, modifier size, and understand multiple light setups all by looking at the final product.

Curing Atelophobia (Fear of Imperfection)

I've had photographers come in feeling like they're stuck in a rut. "Rut" is a non-specific term photographers like to use when describing their general displeasure with the results of their work. In other words, it's a psychological ailment and not an actual ailment. It's mostly a problem with perception. Nonetheless it's important for us to discuss the source of this rut, why, when, how it occurs, so we can prescribe a plan of attack to bring these photographers out of their ruts.

One private workshop photographer bemoaned that his images had "no life" to them. That they were stale and sterile. That there was something "missing" to his results. Through a long email discussion prior to our private workshop, we discovered that his hectic day job and traveling schedule placed great limitations on his ability to moonlight as a photographer. As a result of his limited shooting opportunities, this photographer would plan everything out to a T. Having only a few opportunities to shoot each month, he didn't want to leave anything to chance. The pre-production planning combined with specific concepts, coordination, and scheduling of everything was so precise for each shoot, and yet so often left the photographer largely disappointed in the results.

After hearing this story and seeing the exactness of this photographer's execution, I realized that he was just like me. Namely, a control-freak. But life can't be controlled. By planning everything out to a T, he basically disinfected his entire shoot with 409. Think The Stepford Wives.

If you pose your models and try to exact a certain vision, you'll get exactly what you want. Or at least you should. But you'll never get Magic. You'll never be surprised. You'll never capture "the moment".

-Charles LUCIMA

I knew this because I was once exactly the same way. Wanting to "maximize my ROI" for each shoot. Using perfectionist ideals and a "will to control" to execute a photoshoot. Forgetting that this is art and not a financial projection built in Microsoft Excel. I understood the pressures of obtaining specific results driven by high-expectations.

But that's not how this photography thing works. And it's certainly not how you create life. Making that mental breakthrough is half the battle. So I assisted him in that self-revelation.

Once we agreed that the sheer pressure of high-ROI-expectations were crushing the life out of his shoots, I prescribed a series of ingredients for our workshop that I was sure would result in life and Magic. Before our shoot we assembled a few lighting setups that were simple and yet dynamic enough to keep up with an active model. And without a concept, makeup OR wardrobe, we selected one of the most spontaneous models I knew that could create Magic all by herself. Combined with a retooled perspective of capturing the beauty of the human element and raw emotion, this photographer realized all the things he had been missing in his exactitude. Because there he was with no concept, no makeup artist, no wardrobe stylist, and just creating epic images over and over again.

That was a good day.

Curing Myopia (Near-Sightedness)

Maybe myopia isn't the right disease to describe photographers that just don't have the experience or the foresight to see where their own photographic journey might lead. That's where my personal journey comes into play. With where I am now and where I've been, I can lend a lot of insight to navigating the obstacles ahead.

Because I have a lot of photography students that are amazing photographers with lots of talent, aptitude to learn, ability to take direction and all they're missing are the practical experiences of putting together the nuts and bolts of a photography business and/or photography brand. I have high hopes for these photographers, many of whom are young adults that have a great future. All they need is a little focus and the right roadmap for getting to the right junctures in their careers.

I recently taught a private workshop for a young photography student enrolled at the film school of a well-known university. Yet this particular photographer was putting more of his free time into still photography than into his major of choice (cinematography). And while some educators might force him to choose one over the other, I believe at the ripe old age of 20, you should have the flexibility to say "I don't know, can I try both?" Because by forcing him to choose this early in the game, he might preclude many opportunities that might lead him down a different path; one that might be more beneficial to his growth and future career.

Without precluding any future change of hearts we devised a short-term strategy based upon his current love of photography. Although he was getting great results from shooting his friends (men and women), he really wanted to focus on the fashion aspect of capturing female models. So the first task was to help him get better fashion models. I recommended that he retool his photography website to reflect only the genre of the images that he wanted to shoot going forward (women's fashion). We then created a gameplan for building a pipeline of models that he'd have at his disposal for his shoots 2-3x a week. This included creating more exposure for himself on social networking sites such as Facebook and ModelMayhem. Lastly I broke down the process of climbing the ladder of the modeling agencies to attain better models and more paid work.

In the shooting portion of our workshop I brought in a model that had enough clout of her own to put him immediately on the fashion "map". Combined with the captures using different modifiers and backgrounds, this photographer left the workshop with an arsenal of new images for this website and ability to market himself successfully to attract better fashion models. My prediction is that combined with his inherent talent and easygoing nature, he'll go far and he'll go fast.

Now of course I'm not really a doctor. The irony is that as I type this, I am currently sick and need to fill my antibiotics prescription. But I feel like my work as a private workshop educator puts me in a position of consultation not unlike medical professionals or even my previous work as a software consultant. I put a lot of time and effort into diagnosing every photographer because every situation is unique. Because even if the ailment itself is the same, the final result in different photographers will be different. On the other hand, sometimes the ailments are different but for different photographers the prescriptions might be exactly the same. Choosing the right tool for the job has always been one of the most important abilities that I cultivated in myself over the years. That helps me assess photographer challenges with accuracy so I can provide the right solution to getting them to their next big hurdle.

And of course, I still teach the workshops with set topics such as Working with Modeling Agencies or B&W Fashion Photography. But I find more and more of my private workshop students need a blend of different antidotes.

If you have any questions regarding a workshop please see my FAQ and/or visit the my workshop Education page!

Looking for Proactive, Disciplined, and Resourceful Entrepreneurs

2012-02-07T16:03:00.000-08:00

This is a response to the availability of internships at LUCIMA STUDIO.

Last year I thought I could train the interns to do the nitty gritty, but I quickly realized that they neither had the skill sets nor desire to execute those tasks. I was somewhat shocked when I requested my interns to figure out how to sync/share my iCal with everyone... yet no one could figure it out.

I wound up doing it myself. Something that took me less than 5 minutes of Googling and experimenting with iCal.

Being a professional photographer is really just a matter of being entrepreneurial and resourceful. I don't imagine those things can be taught. You either are or aren't independent-thinking and proactive.

And I think that's what it came down to. I found that the interns weren't capable (or driven) to think freely and push my business forward. Everyone had to be told what to do.

Now on the other hand, I too have responsibility in this matter because I have a hard time letting go of responsibility because I have a hard time trusting that it will be done correctly. Furthermore when interns aren't paid for their time, there's a lot less motivation to put in 110%.

But even then, I could see in the eyes of some of my interns the utter lack of attention and ability to hold focus. If these interns were cameras, they would be cameras that could acquire focus on a subject but then would quickly slip out-of-focus for no apparent reason.

It's very frustrating interacting with people that have the attention span of a goldfish.

Which gets me to thinking that most photographers these days (myself included) aren't cut out to be good apprentices or interns. As a lot, they simply don't have the patience to sit down and learn properly. These days it's too easy to bypass the standard operating procedures. No one I know actually flips through the manual anymore. They Google/YouTube what they want to know. Now, any 17-year-old can hit Best Buy and buy a 5DMII with a kit lens and call himself/herself a photographer... or worse a wedding photographer and bid for jobs. Which is incidentally why wedding photography prices are being driven down.

This is really a rant on the instant gratification that everyone seems to be chasing. Or rather the entitlement that I see is so rampant amongst Americans in general, but more so the current generation of kids that have rarely put in a hard day's worth of work. I'm not sure if it's the parenting or reality TV, but every kid with a Facebook/Myspace account believes they are special, that they deserve their own show... When the reality is that they possess no talent and lack the drive to actually do anything about it.

But then maybe you'll strike gold and be a cast member on Jersey Shore?

It goes back to the whole T-ball society I blogged about before.

It's a double-edged sword, really. While digital made photography easily accessible to the average Joe, it also raised the level of competition. There really are some really gifted young photographers out there pushing the envelope; an envelope that hasn't been pushed in decades. But with that being said, there are so many more average photographers that feel like they ought to do better than they are currently doing. They believe they're undervalued for their talent... when really they're not.

I believe you get exactly what you deserve in life.

Here's the reality of photography as a business. Photography is photography. But being a professional photographer is not just about the photography.

I'm going to say this again, "Being a professional photographer is not just about the photography".

You can be the best photographer in the world and still be threatened by bankruptcy (*cough Annie Liebowitz).

Surviving as a professional photographer means being a successful entrepreneur. And as free-thinking and revolutionary as our kids are, they lack the discipline, dedication, and sheer attention span to be successful entrepreneurs. Most of the time it's because they're looking for shortcuts (or just weaseling out of doing things they don't want to do). And while that's "great out-of-the-box" thinking, when push comes to shove, somebody's gotta do the bullshit that nobody wants to do. When you're an entrepreneur, that somebody is you. But when nobody is willing to do those tasks, the business ultimately falls apart.

So, no. The current generation of kids these days aren't built for apprenticeships/internships. They might be great at photography but they amount to very little as professional photographers. They spend too much time wondering why they're under-appreciated and undervalued and not enough time working hard to build the right foundations for a good business.

Does that mean I'm going to stop taking interns? Nope, it just means that I need to be more selective about which ones I take. I am still open to suggestions. I am still looking for interns that can do things that I can't do. I am still looking for interns that can challenge the way I do things in general and provide me new perspectives. I'm still looking for interns that are proactive and can generate new revenue streams and or increase current revenue streams. Later on I might even create paid internships but most likely after I find a manager who can help me with the current set of tasks that undermine me on a regular basis. Hell, if you can demonstrate why and how you're not exactly what I've described above, feel free to email info@lucima.com and tell me why you would be a great intern.

D800 or D800E?

2012-02-07T11:36:00.000-08:00

Let me rephrase the question, "Do I need an anti-aliasing filter?"

If you don't know what an AA filter is, please read this and come back when you're ready.

The issue is actually "Sharpness versus Moiré"

The thing is, most of you have never shot a digital camera without an AA-filter. I'm here to tell you that you haven't seen "sharpness" until you have.

My first experience with the H3DII-31 blew my mind when I saw the image details and raw sharpness straight out of the box. With the Nikon D3 files, you'd have to sharpen it significantly to attain that type of crispness. With the Hasselblad files, it was the way I always wanted them to look; tack sharp.

See the sample image. It's a RAW capture. Don't mind the blemishes. In fact, this might be a rude awakening seeing how if you're using this camera for beauty or fashion what you're going to have to clean up. But this is the kind of detail that I'm talking about with a non-AA filter camera.

Yes, Hasselbald is not Nikon. More sensor, more glass, more details. I get it.

But we're talking about the AA-filter here. Most of which is responsible for the clarity and detail in this image.

So it's a good idea to think about what your intent is. Because at the end of the day you're trading sharpness for moiré or vice versa. Are you shooting non-patterns or patterns. Natural patterns might arise in anything; landscape, fabric/fashion, still life. But usually the known enemies are fabric and architecture. Anything that would naturally be patterned. Personally I think landscape photographers will be fine with non-AA cameras. And even I've been able to get away from moiré with my H3DII-31 for fashion purposes. And yes, I have seen moiré in some of the fabrics I shoot.

For my purposes I would take a non-AA filter over an AA filter camera any day of the week. And if I can't convince you, maybe some of the D800E sample images can. Check out the sharpness on these bad boys!

How will the non-AA filtered D800 videos look? I have no idea. I have no experience with non-AA filtered video.

Corruption II

2012-01-31T10:45:00.000-08:00

It's funny, with a title like "Corruption" you'd think I'd be talking about the philosophical corruption of the soul or how the industry is corrupt or we're corrupting young girls by feeding them eating disorders.

Nope.

This is a followup to Corruption.

Opened up one of my full TIFFs with layers yesterday and found this:

It's supposed to look like this:

As usual the layers in this file are flattened (though they were not flattened when saved).

Oh and my flattened version of this file (also a TIFF) is also corrupted. It has nothing to do with the layers.

I haven't had this kind of file corruption since the original post. I previously suspected bad sectors on my SSD. Now I believe I have a better idea of what's going on.

In each incidence of this type of file corruption, I had several open PS files. In each case I discovered this problem after moving from either my home office to the studio or vice versa. Photoshop is either not happy with sleeping on open files OR it's not happy with attaching different displays when there are open files. The odd color shifting seems like it might have something to do with color profile attachments. But it could be something else entirely.

The irony is I just recently stopped saving duplicates of the TIFFs (full-layered and flattened) to save time. But now I suspect that the duplicates would also be corrupted because I believe the corruption happens during the save. The strange thing is that immediately after saving the TIFF to Lr and exporting a web-sized JPEG to the desktop, the export file is intact revealing no cause for alarm. But now when I examine the same file in Lr, it reveals that it's corrupted. Exporting this file also reveals a corrupted export. Not sure why that is.

Without doing extensive tests on the situational variables involved, I don't think I'll be able to figure out exactly what causes the corruption. But I suspect there's something going on with Photoshop and its ability to render files correctly either after sleep/hibernating and/or when connecting different displays while files are open.

Magic: But Then I Wouldn't Be Me

2012-01-23T22:34:00.001-08:00

Against the Wall. Holly. D3/50mm. 1/200th, f/2.8, ISO3200.
Shot and retouched live at the Magic Fashion-Editorial Master Class.

Over this past weekend I had a great opportunity to discuss Magic and the philosophy behind Magic with the workshop photographers. Each one of the photographers brought a unique perspective to the class that made this a truly unique experience.

A truly unique experience...

As we wrapped up our 2-day Master Class, I was confiding in the group how I am myself constantly working against my own limitations. Some of these limitations I've discussed here on my blog. For example, I explained that part of the reason I "live in a cave" and don't read blogs, magazines, or flip through other photographers' work is simply to protect my own fragile ego. If I see amazing work from others I might not feel that great about my own pictures. So part of the reason I keep myself in the dark is so I can keep creating organically and not worry about not being good enough.

And that's just one of the many limitations that I have to work with.

At dinner today, I randomly admitted to my wife that I didn't feel like I was a great "manager of my own life". For example, if I wanted to be a photographer, why go through college and then 3 years of graduate school? Why take on dead-end corporate positions only to quit later? Why not apprentice under a famous photographer so I can skyrocket myself into the limelight faster? Because if I think rationally about my journey as a photographer, I have had many opportunities to make better decisions. For example, I am not actively pursuing getting published. Why? Partially because of fear of failure. Maybe even some complacency? While I shudder at the thought of complacency, I fear that it's the honest truth. If I looked at myself from a 3rd party perspective, I would do things a lot differently...

But then I wouldn't be me.

I wouldn't be a truly unique experience. I'd be someone else's ideal. A well-managed experience.

Maybe even a corporate experience...

The irony is that after I analyzed the situation in my typical analytical, glass-half-empty, left-brain dominant way... I immediately turned around and asked, "What if that's not the point? What if the point is to celebrate our differences so that we may lead truly unique lives? Rather than conform to the mean?"

And that's exactly what Magic is.

In the left-brain dominant world, we try and conform to the social norms. Pick at the flaws and annihilate errors. Everyone wears a suit-and-tie or some uniform and no one is different. Everything is clean, pristine, perfect, and orderly. But what kind of world is that? It sure as hell ain't a world of Magic.

I told the workshop group that when I look at other photographers' work, I'm turned off when I see stylistic effects that are too similar to that of my own. For example, if I see a random purple streak, a gradient map, or light leak lines that look like mine, I'll flip to the next image. Because I'm not impressed by copycat-styled pictures. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to impress me, show me something I haven't already seen.

So rather than conform to the L U C I M A-style of photography, celebrate your own unique perspective. Dig deep and find something within you that is your own and feed that perspective. That's the origin of Magic. That's something that no one can take away from you. It's organic and it's intrinsically you. Think about the things that motivate you internally and cultivate that. Because it not only affects the way you post-process your images but also affects the way select concepts, wardrobe, lighting, and ultimately the way you shoot the model.

And the beauty is that it's purely you. You're not conforming to social standards or what other people think is "good" or "beautiful".

Because everyone's take on Magic is going to be different. And that's amazing. That leads to innovation. That leads to permutations. That leads to the stuff that impresses me because I haven't seen it before.

We're all fatally flawed. We're tragic characters in a Shakespearean play. We don't even have to try to be interesting. We are born interesting. Because we're each unique in our limitations. How we cultivate those differences into a bold new perspective is the silver lining to each of our stories.

So in the words of Wanda Sykes, "I'ma be me".

10 Secrets to Attract Clients and Increase Your Income - Larry Becker

2012-01-20T16:46:00.001-08:00

These were on my computer from years ago and I wanted to share them with you before I deleted them. Cheers!

Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx

2012-01-19T11:33:00.000-08:00

Workhorse

My considerations here are written only from the perspective of my needs and not from a general review viewpoint.

While I own both Canons and Nikons, I would most heavily consider the D4 to replace the D3 if I were to upgrade.

The key words being "if I were to upgrade".

I was thinking about this last night as I thought about the ergonomics of the Nikons versus Canons and also what the D4 would do better. Small differences here and there but nothing that makes this decision a no-brainer.

Looking at the specs, here are the few things that I could really benefit from:
-XQD slot: I love the idea of faster write speeds and thus less dependence on the buffer and less waiting overall.
-better autofocus
-better high-ISO performance: I shoot a lot in low-light situations and would love better performance in high-ISO settings.
-A few more megapixels
-HD video

But the problem is that I already have the Canon to do video. So I should really scratch that from the list. The rest of the benefits are good but only marginally better than my D3.

There is one big problem I see with the D4 and that is the battery is only rated for 2,400 shots. My D3 is rated for 4,300. This is fairly accurate because I can shoot well over 3,500 frames in a day and not drain my battery (still 1/3 left). I would be disappointed to have to change batteries halfway through the shoot.

Which begs the question, "What would Nikon need to release in the D4s for me to upgrade?"

Well first let's go back and briefly check out my D4 wishlist.

It's interesting to look at what I thought was important back then and what I think is important now. More megapixels doesn't make my current list. Wireless tethering? Nice to have, but I tether so infrequently as it stands. And when I tether I'm usually tethering with the Hasselblad. I'm happy with the histogram function now that I trust my eyes and have an additional 200k frames under my belt. Would have really loved a built-in RF trigger but that would compete with Nikon CLS so it was unreasonable to begin with. Sensor-cleaner? Bleh. I like my sensor swabs for that kind of application. Firewire 800? Too slow. Besides with XQD and faster card readers should be fine. GPS geotagging? For what?

But the two things at the top of my list still stand. I would still love to have focus points in the extremities. I would also love better autofocus in low-light situations. I'm glad I put those at the top because they represented the priority that these things have and still have to this day.

One of the things my Canon photographers have trouble with is focusing in my studio. Hell, I have a hard time focusing in my studio with the D3 sometimes. It's even more frustrating with the 5DMII and 7D.

But going back to the hypothetical question about what Nikon would have to release. Currently my limiting factors are simply write speeds, low-light autofocus, and high-ISO performance. And now that I think about it, the D4 pretty much addresses all those issues. But does it address it so much better to warrant the hefty price tag? And at the cost of battery life? The only thing that I might add to the list is better video autofocus, but judging the D4 merely as a still camera the above list pretty much sums it up.

If I really wanted to get philosophical about the upgrade question I'd ask, "What does better gear really add to my ability to create better images?" The answer to that is, "Not a whole lot..." I can think of a few things that I'd like to add to my studio as toys but there isn't any capture-side gear that I can think of that would change the way I do things or really change the quality of my images. Most of the improvements I can think of are skill/talent-related and not equipment-related. At the end of the day improving the photographer is a far better investment than improving your equipment. Unless of course you have more money than you have time and ambition (to improve). In that case, I hear Leica's got some great cameras just for you...

Magic: Model Interaction - Niche Focus

2012-01-18T14:43:00.000-08:00

Couch Surfing. Roarie. D3/50mm, 1/200th, f/1.8, ISO2500.

At first I didn't think that the subject of niche and focus would be relevant to Magic. Then when I thought about it, I realized that having a specific style and genre of photography really focuses your ability to pull certain models; models for (your type of) Magic. When I thought about it further I realized that this was all part of Model Interaction. That models look at photographers' work and then decide whether or not to work with you based upon your genre, your niche, your focus, and of course your abilities in that particular niche.

Take me for example, you'll find a lot of fashion nudes in my recent work. I shoot fashion nudes because I like shooting fashion nudes. It's that simple. So my very first recommendation to any photographer is to first find your passion and then shoot your passion. Don't get sidetracked with all the wonderful sub-genres of photography; glamour, beauty, lifestyle, fashion, etc. If you like something more than anything else, shoot that.

It will do wonders for your portfolio and your ability to pull the right models.

Why? Because people want to understand who and what you are. They want to categorize you into a "box". When you have everything from fetish to fashion in your portfolio, it's very confusing. No one knows what you are and no one knows that you want.

Now there's a big difference between how you want to be perceived and how the market actually perceives you. If you look at my website, you'll find mostly fashion photography. For a couple reasons. First and foremost, I'm a fashion photographer. That's how I want the world to perceive me. That's what it says on my business card. That's the kind of work I get paid to do and that's the kind of paid work that I want to receive. It's how I define myself first and foremost as a photographer. Of course under the overall umbrella of fashion, on my website you'll find the usual companion sub-genres of fashion photography such as beauty, editorial, commercial, and lifestyle photography. However, the lion's share of my work is (commercial) fashion.

In my personal work however you'll find a lot of fashion-nudes. It's what keeps me interested in what I do but it's really a sub-genre of fashion photography. I call it "editorial" on my website and since my website is a lagging indicator of what I do, you won't find nearly as much editorial work in my portfolio.

But it begs the question, "Do you want to confuse people and upload a lot of editorial work into your portfolio if you are primarily a fashion photographer?" Secondly, it begs the question "If you're a fashion photographer then why are you shooting so many fashion nudes?"

Those are great questions. Let me first give you my canned response which is what I would recommend to everyone. Don't confuse your audience. Shoot what you love and love what you shoot. You'll be happier and get more paid work of that genre. That's the number one issue I find with most workshop photographers and their portfolios. There's no consistency to what they shoot, how they shoot it, and how they present it. It's a mishmash of anything and everything. My official stance is that you ought to narrow your focus and hunker down on a single genre of photography. In fact, hunker down and really focus on a single sub-genre of photography. Fashion is too broad. Be specific. Is it beauty? Is it lifestyle? Pick one, stick with it, focus your 110% attention on that sub-genre.

You'll attract more work and better models of that particular category.

Now, to answer the first question editorially. The truth is that most fashion photographers should demonstrate aptitude for shooting multiple sub-genres of fashion in order to survive in this industry. In my particular case, I still get paid to shoot beauty even though you won't find much of it in my personal work. And with my outdoor natural polaroid-esque style, I also get paid to shoot lifestyle. I also get paid to shoot nudes (usually through direct bookings). And of course I get paid to shoot commercial fashion through campaigns and what not. As a fashion photographer, I create more potential revenue streams if I demonstrate the ability to shoot multiple sub-genres of fashion photography.

But if you ask any fashion photographer, they'll all tell you that they get paid through one particular revenue stream more than another. Whether it's beauty, or lifestyle, commercial or something else. Each of us finds a particular sub-genre where we attract and get more work.

And that's how it should be.

Now to answer the second question, "Why shoot so many fashion nudes if you're a fashion photographer?" The simple answer I've already given. I like shooting fashion nudes. The better answer to that question, whether intentional or unintentional, is that fashion nudes attracts a lot of attention. It allows me to fill workshops, it attracts the right type of models for Magic, it gives me good street cred with models and photographers, and overall it's simply good marketing for me.

Because let's face it, most people respond much more to a nudie pic versus a well-styled fashion picture.

Perhaps the better question is, "Based upon your ability to shoot fashion nudes, shouldn't you just shift the overall sub-genre of your website over to fashion nudes?" The answer to that (currently at least) is "No, because that would detract from my ability to generate revenue from my biggest contributor which is (currently at least) commercial fashion". Ideally companies would pay me the same amount or more to shoot fashion nudes. But that's a paradox because other than the art itself there's no merchandise to feature (unless it's just accessories, which is something I'm focusing more on going forward). So currently at least, my official stance is that I'm a fashion photographer even though my personal projects consist mostly of fashion nudes.

These aren't easy questions to answer. The short answer is to do as I say and not as I do. Because if the monetary reward weren't a factor in this equation, I probably wouldn't shoot anything outside of fashion nudes. Or if there were more (direct) ways to monetize my personal projects, I might stop shooting beauty, lifestyle, and commercial fashion altogether.

But to bring this post around full circle, let's look at the bullet-points. Find ways for people to easily categorize you into a box. That you are a [fill in the blank] photographer. Make sure that your mission statement is clear. Make sure your mission statement is visible on the websites that you showcases your work. From Facebook to your personal website. That you're known for [fill in the blank] photography. That way you can attract the right models for Magic in that sub-genre. Because personally I can't use alternative models for what I do. Neither do I want to attract glamour models for my fashion nudes. The more I shoot fashion nudes, the more likely I'll be solicited by fashion models to shoot fashion nudes. It's a vicious cycle. The only downside is that you won't be known for other types of photography. But that's a small price to pay compared to the overwhelming benefit of having the right models for your photography niche. And this ultimately leads to more paid work for in that photography niche.

Magic: Model Interaction - Market Perception

2012-01-16T15:30:00.000-08:00

7 Mistakes Companies Make on Facebook and How to Avoid Them

A big part of capturing and creating Magic is finding the right model to shoot. Finding the right model to shoot hinges greatly upon how your models perceive you before they even meet you. Much of that perception is built on what people say about you, either through direct interactions, through the grapevine and/or how you present yourself on the interwebz. All those perceptions create certain expectations of who you are, what you are, and what you can do.

The flip side of having no "market perception" is having no work to show for yourself and no reputation. If you are relatively new to photography and you want to shoot better models, you'll find that it's difficult to convince good models to shoot with you. And for good reason. You can't expect people to decide purely on faith that they'll get good images from a photographer that doesn't have a proven track record of generating good images. This is a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma because getting Magic can depend greatly on the quality of the models that you use.

Of course, no one expects you to go from zero-to-hero overnight. That's why in my Magic: The Right Model post, I propose that the best model for Magic is the one that wants to shoot with you. What I forgot to mention in that post is that even if you were to bribe a supermodel to shoot with you (with monetary or other incentives), if that model doesn't want to be there, chances are you still won't get Magic. The proper connection is missing when one or more of the parties isn't motivated properly and isn't in the proper mindset for shooting magic.

Back to the issue of market perception. If you're a budding photographer, your goal is to shoot with as many good models as possible while creating the best images that you can create. These images are stepping stones to better models, better images and ultimately better market perception and a better reputation.

So you should mind your reputation closely. People talk. A lot. Whatever you say and do can be used in determining your market value. It goes without saying that you should strive to deliver only positive working experiences and try not to give people reasons to say no to working with you. In my own practices, I listen to the marketplace and sometimes I hear bad things about people in the industry. Whether or not these things are true, the news affects me (and the marketplace) consciously or unconsciously. And if I hear something negative about someone that I might have considered working with previously, it weighs heavily on my decision making. I've actually said this in the past about models but based upon the number of requests I get to shoot, I'm generally just looking for reasons to say no. Hearing negative responses from the marketplace is usually a deal-breaker. Likewise, I know a lot of models that ask about photographers' reputations prior to deciding whether or not they will shoot with a particular photographer. And sadly, rumors get passed around quickly and bad experiences can lead to negative feedback can could ultimately define you as a photographer and devalue your worth in the marketplace.

But good things can happen when you have a good reputation. Assuming you've developed a decent body of work and presented yourself fairly and accurately and given most people a positive experience, this could lead to very positive market perception of who and what you are.

In fact, this could lead to an unreal perception and/or expectation of what you are.

For example, I've worked with plenty of agency models that book me outside of the typical agency protocol. They find me on Facebook, Model Mayhem, or through my website. Most of these models know a lot more about me than I would have guessed. They've watched my interviews online, looked through my older flickr images, sometimes even read my blog. And while I would like to believe that I present myself as a fairly normal human being (occasionally even funny if you've seen my Tennis Geek photo), there's one common response that these models have prior to meeting me; they are intimidated by who and what I am.

And being me, I don't get a power trip about people being intimidated by my work or who they think I am. Mostly I just find it very curious because in person I'm the farthest thing from intimidating. In fact, I go to great lengths to be personable and easy- going. Actually I take that back, I don't try to be personable, I just like to be liked. I don't enjoy making people feel uncomfortable.

But through working with these models that perceive me to be intimidating, I have discovered that such perceptions shapes the overall working experience and can be quite conducive to creating Magic. The models I shoot with are attentive, they are willing to go with the flow regarding location/makeup/wardrobe, take constructive criticism and direction extremely well, and are willing to go the extra mile to make Magic.

What more can I ask? I mean, I could ask them to make me a sandwich but that might be a little much.

In stark contrast, I remember some less than ideal experiences with booking models directly through the agencies. Most of the time the models didn't care to be there. After all, they show up because their bookers tell them to show up. To them (even though the shoots were just tests) it's just a job. They don't know who I am and they typically don't research my work prior to showing up. They come late (indicative of lack of proper motivation and desire to be present). They aren't flexible in location/makeup/wardrobe. They balk at requests. They don't listen. They aren't attentive. They don't put in a whole lot of effort into the shoot.

Now of course that's a summary of all the bad experiences rolled into one, but you get the idea. And of course in each of those cases I did my best to try and make it work, to create the best images we could get from that particular situation. But they were so often less than ideal. When your positive market perception isn't working for you, it's so much harder to get at Magic. And as a result, I pretty much stopped asking agencies to send me models. That dynamic simply didn't work for me. I mean, it works if you're a Testino or a Miesel and your name carries so much weight that it's instantly recognized. But the difference in soliciting and being solicited is night and day.

Which is why again I say the best chances at creating Magic is shooting a model that wants to be there. I seriously can't stress this enough.

Taking one last pass at market perception, I want to encourage that as photographers you pay attention to the persona that you create for yourself on the Internet. Be aware of how people perceive you. Are you working often? Staying busy? Creating new content regularly? Staying on top of people's minds? Do people want to work with you? How do you handle your requests (emails/messages/etc.)? Do you show good work? How do you showcase your work? And more. The answers to these questions plus the real-world experiences you have with people ultimately dictate the market perception of who and what you are.

And in my case people think I'm better than I think I am. And I'm very fortunate for that discrepancy. But regardless of what I think, I am what the public believes I am. After all, I am only one voice in the overall marketplace. While I can certainly influence how I want to be perceived, I can not dictate how I will be perceived. And the industry's perception of me is not only their reality but also ultimately (directly or indirectly) my reality.

I have a very laissez-faire attitude about market perception when it's on the uptick. Obviously if I had to deal with some negative press, I'd have a much different and more aggressive approach in squashing rumors in the rumor mill. But I don't mind that models perceive that I'm larger than life and totally intimidating. Sure, they're disappointed when they meet me, but the Magic speaks for itself.

Magic: Model Interaction - What You Don't Say

2012-01-12T09:08:00.000-08:00

Listening. Cody. D3/50mm. 1/250th, f/2.8, ISO1250.

Continuing on Model Interaction, it's important that we discuss the boundaries of conversation etiquette. Why? Because some photographers have diarrhea of the mouth. Put them in front of a pretty girl and they fall apart. They say whatever comes to mind. About things that have no relevance to the matter at hand (shooting). Or worse, they become inappropriate and talk about things that are socially unacceptable and/or make the model uncomfortable.

No, no, no and no.

Some of these photographers lack social interaction on a regular basis. And when they get the chance to work with models, they run their mouth and talk about things that they shouldn't be talking about. Their excuse is that they're just excited. But little do they know, by running their mouth the photographer can destroy what little respect the model had for him/her in the first place.

So the first thing for us to discuss is what not to say. Later we'll look at the value of what you don't say.

While the more obvious topic would be "what to say" it's important to look at this topic from the other perspective because photographers don't consider the possibility that saying too much is just as bad, if not worse than saying too little. Of course saying too little is bad too because there's a basic level of "getting to know one another" that needs to occur. But just how well do you need to get to know your model for Magic to occur?

Honestly, not that much.

In fact, through my experiences the less you run your mouth and the fewer major life secrets you divulge, the better.

Why? Because people try harder when they're not completely comfortable. Which is to say people generally become complacent when they are too comfortable. The idea of Magic is built upon mutual respect and simultaneously some "friction". I don't mean "friction" in terms of conflict, but rather the solid and tangible contact that arises from two non-smooth surfaces coming into contact with one another. The opposite scenario would be two totally smooth objects coming together and not creating any frictional "contact". That's the kind of interaction I'd use to describe a photographer and a model that know each other too well. Two surfaces that are so smooth that they're never really frictionally connected. That kind of familiarity that can unfortunately lead to complacency and complacency is detrimental to Magic.

Now I know what some of you will argue. That the better you know someone, the more likely you'll be able to experiment with new ideas and then get Magic. That's simply not true. Some of my best shoots have been with models I've only worked with once and hence was the first time I'd ever shot them. Some of my worst experiences have been with models that I've shot repeatedly. Most of you have the misconception that you need to know someone 110% to be comfortable with "letting go" and "trying new things". What I'm saying is that "letting go" and "being completely comfortable" aren't prerequisites to getting Magic.

Because let's face it, human beings are creatures of habit. When you work with someone over and over again, those people will create "precedents". Patterns of behavior. Those patterns of behavior are hard to break and may get in the way of making Magic. For example, maybe after working with the same model a few times you discover that this model always needs to run through his/her 20 poses in order to get warmed up. And because they set this precedent the first few times they shoot with you, now it's how they always work when shooting with you. Is this long warmup really necessary? Perhaps not, but it's a routine that you're now pigeon-holed into because you let that precedent occur the first few times and now it's going to be all but impossible to break the model out of that pattern of behavior.

That's precedent.

And the more comfortable a model is with you, the more likely you're going to see some patterns of behavior that are hard to break. The irony is that frequency and familiarity can both be your enemy.

And it goes back to what not to say or what you don't say. Sure, there's a need for a basic level of understanding and comfort. The model needs to be comfortable enough to trust you as a photographer and try new things. But simultaneously, the model should not be so comfortable with the photographer that he/she doesn't try as hard to impress anymore.

The point of "what not to say" or "what you don't say" is simply that the model is not there to be your best friend. Hell, the model is not even there to be your friend. Therefore you should not treat the model in such a way that diminishes those boundaries. These boundaries are important. They're what keeps people on their toes. They're there to ensure that people are paying attention and are "present" during the shoot. There ought to be some "friction" by which mutual understanding and respect is created so that the working relationship is optimized for great photography.

Magic is not two people hanging out and having a good time. Having a good time is a byproduct of making Magic, but it's not the focus of the shoot. Otherwise you'll wind up sitting around and having riveting conversation without actually taking a single picture. While this has never actually happened to me before, I have heard this happen on many occasions with other photographers.

Going back to what you don't say. Basically if you run your mouth and tell the model about all the bad models you've worked with or how deep down inside you're never really confident about how the pictures from a shoot turns out... well you're just screwing the pooch. I mean what kind of impression do you think the model will have of you if you say these things? Do you think your model will be thinking, "Wow, this photographer is so honest. This is wonderful. I am really going to push myself harder now that I know all these things!" Or do you think your model will be thinking, "Why the hell is this photographer telling me these things? I should have done my homework. I didn't realize this photographer was so negative. Should we even bother shooting?"

Because once you expose yourself in that light (yes, pun intended) you can't take it back. Once you reveal your lack of self-confidence or how negative you are, you set a precedent. You pigeon-hole yourself as a photographer who isn't in control and isn't sure whether or not the pictures will come out well.

If you want a rule-of-thumb, a good one is simply not to plant seeds of doubt in your model's mind. Doubt begets doubt and doubt erodes confidence. Confidence is the stuff that makes great shoots. Most of you will never have the problem of having too much confidence going into a shoot. Even what you perceive as being over-confidence is simply a function of really not having enough confidence either about your experience, your abilities, your talent, etc. Don't mistaken confidence for arrogance and cockiness. Confidence can be quiet, it can be demonstrated without using any words, it can be embodied by slow and steady actions. Confidence is not diarrhea of the mouth. Because photographers that are truly confident have nothing to prove. They don't need to use words to demonstrate their value, merit or worth in conversation. People who are confident are great listeners because they don't need to make the conversation about them. If anything, you should err on the side of being a little less talkative and a little more receptive. Rather than running your mouth, just listen a little more and you'll find much better results from your shoots.

On the shoots where I talked less and simply listened and smiled more, I found that my models were much more receptive to what I had to say later. Particularly on set when it was time to shoot. These models interpreted my silence as quiet confidence. And strangely, this "mystery" only added to the aura of my "character", a character that they made up in their minds about who I was. And thus hidden deep in what I did not say, my models believed what they wanted to believe about me. That I was as good a photographer as they thought I was. That I was totally sure about everything that I did. They were filling in all the blanks that I was not offering to fill with gab. And in the absence of real information these models created mental fantasies about what kind of person and photographer I really was.

And it's been very easy to take advantage of those perceived conceptions real or imagined in order to create Magic.

Because in this day and age, your reputation precedes you, especially if you're marketing yourself on the Internet. Since you can't stop people from talking, all you can do is present yourself in the best light. Let the dialogue about you do the rest. Those conversations between people who either have or haven't met you, loom large and heavy over you as a real person. Which is why self-marketing is so important prior to meeting and shooting your model. If your reputation is good and people only have good things to say about you, there isn't much you need to add. Let the model believe that you're as good as she thinks you are. Why ruin her ideals with useless words?

So think twice before you offer some piece of useless information about yourself just to fill in what you think is awkward silence. Remember that what you don't say is just as important if not more important than what you do say.

Magic: Model Interaction - Don't Be A Douchebag

2012-01-06T16:11:00.000-08:00

I've outlined the Model Interaction post and it's going to be impossible to put it all in one post so I'm going to break it down. This one is called "Don't Be A Douchebag".

One of the fundamental principles about being able to create Magic (or just being a decent person) is to not be a douchebag. You'd think this were obvious, but not so! The problem with douchebags is that they can't help being douchebags. For them, it's a way of life. They don't know how to be normal human being.

Here's one story that I hear again and again: Photographer asks a model to shoot. When the model shows up, the photographer starts asking leading questions about her love life and ultimately asks the model out. When the model refuses, the photographer gets all weird and throws a fit.

You sir are a douchebag.

Here's another story: I saw this one with my own eyes when one of the photographers at my workshop got antsy when the models were taking time to do a wardrobe change. He then yelled at them to hurry up.

You sir are a douchebag.

Or how about the photographer who thinks he's too good for the model and tells her that she's a bad model and points out her flaws.

You sir are a douchebag.

The stories go on and on. The point is that while this is obvious douchey behavior to you and me, these three photographers felt that it was appropriate at the time of their actions. At some point they decided in their minds, "It's okay to hit on the model" or "It's okay to yell at the model" or "It's okay to make the model feel bad about herself".

How do you know if you're a douchebag? Generally speaking, douchebags are negative people. If you're a hater, you're probably a douchebag. If you're full of negativity and constantly putting people down (just so they can be at your level), you're probably a douchebag. If for some weird reason, none of the models you've worked with in the past are willing to refer you to other models, you're probably a douchebag. If you have no friends (ones that you don't pay), you're probably a douchebag. If you talk more than you listen, you're probably a douchebag. If you are reading this and you think to yourself, "I'm totally not a douchebag" then you're probably a douchebag. Because let's face it, everyone has been douchey at some point in their lives. Yup, even me.

How does one curb douchey behavior? For one, stop talking about yourself. If the conversation is totally lopsided and sounds like a lecture, just stop. How much attention span do you think your audience has? If she's a model between the age of 18-25, do you think she cares about how awesome you think you are?

Here's another way to curb douchey behavior. Ask yourself "Did I just do that to evoke a reaction from the model?" Or "Did I just say/do that because it entertains me?" Or "Do I feel better about myself as a result of what I just said/did?". If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes", then stop whatever it is that you're doing and stop being such a douchebag. Chances are nothing good comes from trying to evoke a reaction, trying to entertain yourself, or trying to stroke your own ego.

Where does doucheyness come from? Doucheyness is a symptom of a larger problem. Doucheyness is really a function of social ineptitude combined with a lack of self-confidence. I'm not sure if there are cures for doucheyness. As I've observed it's really a way of life for most douchebags. I've met photographers well into their 50's that are still socially awkward and still have problems functioning as normal human beings. Fortunately for them, they're rather intelligent folk so they compensate for their douchey behavior by being successful at their profession of choice.

But that's not an excuse for you to be a douchebag.

And just in case anyone's wondering why can't you be a douchebag and still create Magic? Yes, some douchebags still find ways to create Magic with their models. But why make it harder than it already is? Magic boils down to mutual respect. Douchebags create a self-fulfilling prophecy when they act like douchebags. They already have a chip on their shoulder. So when they behave poorly, they actively lose the model's respect. And when the model reacts poorly to that douchey behavior, it only fuels that chip on the douchebag's shoulder. Consequently they act like even bigger douchebags. Because (usually) they think the world is against them.

I think it boils down to photographers being the red-headed-step-child of artistry. Unlike musicians or painters, photographers are not a "cool" lot. I've always challenged, "Name one photographer you know that used to be the captain of the football team"

In the words of Katt Williams "Don't worry, I'll wait" :)

Because being good at photography these days means being good with technical things like machines, computers, physics/math and theory. What else explains the disproportionate number of Asian photographers? Did you think that was a coincidence? And let's face it, if you were really good with computers, physics/math and theory, you were probably playing Dungeons & Dragons or part of the chess club after school. And the last time I checked, neither of those things were cool.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that photographers (as a lot) don't know what to do in the presence of pretty girls. They simply freak out. For some, this means becoming super quiet because some photographers are very shy. For others, pretty girls bring out super douchey behavior. They feel the need to impress because they're simply not well-adjusted people. And yeah, a lot of times douchey behavior is just a desire to impress that comes out all wrong... so wrong. Like jokes that aren't funny or even worse, inappropriate.

So I'm going to end this here and hope that I've set the baseline for behavior by asking that photographers not act like douchebags. It's simply detrimental to creating Magic.

Magic: Technical Imperfection

2011-12-30T08:12:00.000-08:00

Perfect Imperfection. Holly. Nikon D3/50mm f/1.8D. 1/200th, f/4.0, ISO200.

I'm going to deviate from the script and write about Magic from the perspective of the mindset behind the following image. Yeah that's a mouthful.

There are a lot of things technically wrong about this image. I'm going to reveal every significant detail I can find.

- Composition is off. Too much foreground (or just ground) and not enough headroom for balance. Also it's skewed left.
- The background is completely exposed. Yes it's seamless paper. But usually you're not supposed to reveal the background stands.
- There's a light artifact on the upper right hand corner. No I didn't Photoshop that in. It's an artifact from using my cheap 50mm f/1.8D Nikkor within an ABR800. What you're seeing is some light leakage from the ABR into the lens from inside the ring. I can't explain it any more since I'm not really sure how or why it exists. It's a hundred-dollar lens made in the 90's, what do you expect?
- There's significant vignetting. A perfect lens doesn't vignette. A technically perfect image corrects for vignetting.
- Overexposure in the center. A byproduct of the ABR800. It's a ringflash. I shoot from about the waist-level. So the mid-section is going to come in hotter than the rest of the image because it's closer to the light.
- Motion blur in the hair. No that's not Photoshop either. It's motion blur caused by a slow flash duration (strobe set to lowest power)
- Grain, dust, speckling, scratches? Check, check, check, and check.
- Discoloration in the image. Yup, traditional cross-processed look reminiscent of the faded old-school film.

Other than that, it's a technically perfect picture :)

So why post it without correcting all the "imperfections"? Because it's perfect just the way it is.

The way I see it. If I remove the imperfections, what am I left with? Really, just another model test shot.

But with all these imperfections, this image tells a story beyond the obvious model test shot. A story with greater depth and content. A glimpse into something that was once real and tangible. It has so much more "character" with the flawed composition, visible background stands, and motion blur. In the world of perfectly flawless Photoshopped images (and I know a thing or two about perfectly Photoshopped images) this one makes no apologies for being the way that it is.

And I think that's how Magic works. Sometimes it's in a specific look. Sometimes it's a frozen frame of motion. Other times it's a combination of mistakes that captures all the subtleties. But whatever the case may be, you recognize magic when you see it. It makes you stop and stare. There's an intrinsic beauty that is magical.

Because the truth is, the way this frame was captured was a series of mistakes. Usually I shoot a crop that hides the background paper so it doesn't reveal the paper reel. And I certainly don't mean to reveal so much of the background stands because I usually Photoshop out the stands. The artifacting, motion blur, vignetting, imperfect exposure are all "mistakes". But it's exactly why mistakes are so crucial to my growth as a photographer. They allow me to see things differently because these accidents are so often the source of the magic. It's in the motion blur that's captures the model's hair toss. It's in the focus blur/depth-of-field blur/ISO grain that reveals the low-light available during dark ambient shot. It's in the problematic crop that reveals the reality of where we are and what we're doing.

There's a simple beauty that lies within the imperfections of what we do. Rather than crucify all imperfections, as photographers we should recognize that these mistakes are necessary for growth and that imperfections are sometimes the very reason that an image is perfect just the way it is.

Magic: What You're Looking For

2011-12-27T00:48:00.000-08:00

Moments In Between. Holly. D3/50mm. 1/200th, f/5.6, ISO 200.

I keep putting off the Model Interaction post because I realize Magic is predicated on so many underlying elements; all of which precede model interaction. Since these particulars determine the potential outcome of creating Magic, it behooves us to discuss these things first.

The problem with Magic is that everyone defines Magic a little differently. And depending on the concept of the shoot, the same photographer can look for different looks. For example, a look that works well for one concept might not work well for another concept. That being said, there are seemingly universal themes to Magic, elements that I look for in models as well as in the looks I want the models to portray. Simply put (for model tests) I'm trying to create an emotional connection with my audience. In much the same way a magazine editor is trying to capture the attention of the viewership (for greater advertising revenue), I'm trying to evoke an emotion from the viewer.

I suppose that's the bottom line of Magic. Magic isn't about tack-sharp images. It's not about perfectly–posed models. It's not even about shooting the most-beautiful models. Rather, it's about evoking emotions from your audience. Because that's the universal goal isn't it? To change someone's life with a single image. To get them to feel something when they see that image. Because let's face it. An image built upon technical perfection is emotionally hollow. It's a pretty face (facade) with no substance underneath. It's the same criticism surfers invoke when they compare a mass-produced machine-made soulless surfboard from China, to a hand-crafted one-of-a-kind surfboard from a local shaper. They're both surfboards but one of them lacks a soul.

It's why I seek to shoot the shot that no one has seen before. I've seen lots of pictures and as a result I'm hard to impress. So I'm looking to create images that are unique. Images that stir my own emotions. As a rule of thumb I try to shoot the looks that aren't already in that particular model's portfolio. This at least prevents me from recreating the obvious. For example, if every picture in a certain model's portfolio showcases her amazing hair, I'll instead shoot her with her hair pulled back and totally take it out of the equation. At least we'll have a different experience and unique results.

I think that's one big theme in shooting Magic. It's certainly not the "obvious" shot. Because "obvious" shot doesn't evoke an emotional response. There must be a unique element about the shot that makes the viewer do a double-take. I use myself as a litmus test and during the selection process I'm looking for images that make me say "Whoa..." Now, although that doesn't happen a whole lot, when it does it's very exciting. I'm hard to impress, especially when critiquing my own work. So if I do a double-take or stare at a certain image, it's usually a good benchmark for how others might respond.

Another powerful concepts of Magic is voyeurism. It's why I ask the models not to look into the camera. In fact, sometimes I'll ask them to "just be" and to let the camera (and subsequently the viewer) be a voyeur. Why? Because by creating voyeuristic images the viewer feels like they've gotten a glimpse of moments that they weren't supposed see. That's an emotionally-arousing concept. Like a guilty pleasure, the viewer feels like they're a part of an intimate moment. And by definition voyeurs derive (usually sexual) gratification from such activities so there are emotional implications associated with such images.

Can a dead-stare directly into the lens produce equally emotional responses? Sure, if it's done correctly. But the editorial nature of Magic lends itself better to not making eye contact with the camera. After all, the story-telling experience is ruined if the characters of the story acknowledge that they are simply fictional characters in a story.

Secondly, expressions... namely open-mouth expressions. In my images, I often capture models with an open-mouth expression. Without getting into the "how" portion of these expressions let's look at how this differs from a closed-mouth expression. An image of a model with his/her mouth closed mouth feels uninviting and largely unexpressive. If the goal is to evoke an emotional response from the viewer, then capturing a model portraying a stronger expression would yields better results. Beyond that, there's something more enticing and powerful about an open-mouth expression versus a closed-mouth expression. I'm sure you can still portray plenty of emotion with your mouth closed, but the types of expressions portrayed with an open-mouth such as angst, anger, fear, surprise, shock, awe, etc. are seemingly more powerful emotions. Images capturing stronger expressions generally yield more stronger emotional responses.

Motion is also a powerful tool when evoking emotional reactions from the audience. While every image (with exception of animated images) is a representation of a moment in time, the results of motion and the unusual effects that motion have on still image, can be captivating and emotionally-enticing. As such, some of the most emotionally-evocative images portray models tossing their hair, jumping, turning, walking, flailing (usually the wardrobe or some accessory), kicking, etc. The models don't move simply for the sake of moving but rather to communicate life and energy. And it's hard to look at an image with tremendous energy and not feel the least bit moved. The viewers' response to motion can range from amazement at the acrobatics, to simple awe at how all the moving pieces are perfectly in place during the moment of capture. This motion is something I look for when I'm reviewing images of Magic. And these actions are likewise important to consider when interacting with models during the shoot.

Another common theme I've noticed amongst evocative images is "tension". Tension it is not limited to the pose or a model's expression but rather a feeling. It's polar opposite would be "totally at ease". After all, how much fun is it to look at a picture that depicts a model just chilling? The body-language and expression of tension evokes an emotional and physical response from the audience. There's something uncontainable about the energy represented by a model that harnesses and expresses tension. And because humans usually mirror what we see; when we see tension, we feel tension. When we see a bored model, we feel bored ourselves. When that tension involves an energy that is imbalanced, or uneasy, or troubled, we can not help but feel moved and possibly and intrigued by that image. Sometimes that tension is a result of a certain pose that the audience knows can only be possible for a moment in time. A pose so imbalanced but yet so perfect in its imbalance that it's evocative because of its ephemeral nature and yet also its timelessness. That's the tension that I look for in the models that I shoot. That's also the tension in the images that I select for post-processing.

Similar to "tension", I try and capture the unpredictable and uncontrollable in an effort to create Magic. The last thing I want to shoot is something that looks planned, rehearsed, and posed. Why? Because artifice is obvious. Sure there are amazing images that are perfectly posed. But as reality TV has proven, truth is stranger (and usually whole hell of a lot more interesting) than fiction. Real life can't be rehearsed, can't be planned, and simply can't be controlled. So when you capture a moment that represents life in its most volatile, unpredictable and uncontrollable state, you're in essence capturing the human spirit. And there is something simply intriguing and emotionally evocative about the purity and honesty of an image of the human spirit.

Are there other things to look for when creating Magic? I'm sure every photographer has a recipe or checklist when trying to create emotionally-evocative images. This is my short-list of things to look for both in the models I consider and also the images I create. These are just some of the concepts that drive the Fashion-Editorial Master Class I'm teaching on January 21-22, 2012.

Will I ever get to talking about model interaction? Hopefully soon.

Magic: The Right Model

2011-12-24T23:35:00.001-08:00

Revisitation Rights. Ashley. D3/24-70mm f/2.8G. 1/200th, f6.3, ISO400 @48mm.

I was originally going to go straight into Magic: Model Interaction and suddenly realized that the entire premise of Magic rests on a very specific photographer-model interaction with the right model.

Didn't want to hear that? Thought that you could simply throw in a few key ingredients and just make magic with any random model? You and I both wish!

Let's face it, having a ModelMayhem page doesn't make you a model. And likewise, being signed by an agency doesn't make you a good model. And even if you're a working model that books work regularly, that doesn't mean you're a good model. In fact, the obvious elements of modeling (industry standard looks/measurements, being agency-represented, and having experience) are far from the most important element of finding the right model for Magic.

The single most important factor for Magic to happen is when both photographer and model want Magic to happen. What does that mean? That means the first and foremost rule of model selection is finding a model that wants to be there and wants to make Magic happen.

What do I mean by wants to be there? If you've shot enough models, especially models that you book directly from modeling agencies, then you know that models don't always want to shoot unpaid tests. Shocking isn't it? As a photographer you can book a test through an agency where the agent tells the model when and where to show up for a test. But that model may or may not have any interest in actually testing and/or testing with you. The best case scenario is that the model wants to build his/her portfolio and is openly looking to test with photographers and when you book him/her the model actually researches your work and then actually wants to shoot with you.

But boy that's a lot of conditionals.

The worst case scenario I've ever encountered is when you request a model through an agency and that model doesn't want to test and has no desire to shoot with you but shows up anyway because he/she is contractually obliged to do so. Or even worse, when the original model you wanted to shoot has now booked another job and the modeling agent is then scrambling (maybe even on the day of the actual test) to find a backup model. This (backup) model not only knows he/she wasn't your first pick, but now has to shoot with you on hours notice. If I were that model, these circumstances would certainly affect my predispositions towards the ensuing shoot, most likely in a negative manner.

And as a photographer you expect to shoot magical images with someone who is not only flustered but probably doesn't want to be there? Really?

Can it happen? I'm sure some photographers will argue "Well, I've gotten great images from models who originally didn't want to be there. If you're a good photographer you can win them over. If you're a good photographer you should be able to shoot anyone and make Magic".

I didn't say it wasn't possible. You can run a marathon with one leg, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. You can also jump out a three-story building and not break any bones, but that doesn't make it a good idea. There are so many things working against you in this world and I'm trying to help you maximize your odds of getting better images. If this concept doesn't register correctly, you can stop reading right here.

When a model wants to be there and wants to shoot with you, a world of opportunities open up. I'm talking about Magic, not the run-of-the-mill type imagery. I'm talking about ideas, angles, lighting, setups that neither you nor the model considered prior to the shoot. I'm talking about the organic stuff that comes from spontaneous and pure inspiration. When both the photographer and model are motivated on the same wavelength, all sorts of amazing ideas and potential looks can arise at any point in time. I'm not talking about getting "great images", I'm talking about creating epic images.

So how do you get the right model for Magic? The short answer is "It depends". Since the idea of Magic is predicated on the model wanting to shoot with you, then as a photographer you need to give models a fundamental reason to want to work with you. Usually that reason is that they respect your photographic talents. Sometimes that reason is that they respect your status and reputation within the industry. But the underlying reason for a model wanting to work with you should never be money because monetary gain isn't the right motivational tool for creating Magic. Why? Because any photographer can pay a model to shoot with him/her. But if a model shows up for monetary gain, then he/she isn't even in the proper mindset for creating Magic. Then it's just a job. And even though monetary gain is a powerful motivational force, it's simply the wrong motivational force for creating inspirational images. The vibe is wrong. The mojo is off. In your mind you might even question whether the model actually respects your work, which leads to doubt and I don't have to tell you that doubt is a debilitating force that consumes confidence... confidence that is necessary for creating inspirational images. Besides, at the end of the day, people try a lot harder when they simply want to do it rather than when they're paid to do it. Because the fundamental problem with paying a model to shoot is that the model does not have to respect your talent as a photographer to shoot with you. That basic respect of talent is key in getting a model to A) trust that you know what you're doing and B) give you "more" than the average set of ordinary looks.

And the truth is, the right Magic model for you does not have to be an agency model with agency measurements. He/she does not even have to have plenty of experience in front of the camera or know how to pose/move/flow. All that is really required of the model is that you specifically want to shoot him/her and that the model wants to shoot with you. That's the right model for you at any given point in time because you can get epic images from anyone who is willing to vibe with you on set. Mutual respect + desire to create Magic = better odds of creating Magic.

On that note however, I personally have a preference for models of agency standards with plenty of experience and great posing skills. Those things help inspire me to create better images but they aren't prerequisites to creating emotionally-charged images. But they're all secondary considerations. The primary consideration is finding a model that wants to be there.

So how do you find a model that wants to create powerful and evocative images with you? Simple, you let them ask to shoot with you.

Can you still make Magic with a model that you solicit first? In other words, if you ask first (before they offer) is it still possible to create Magic? Yes, of course. But when you ask first, you never know what the response is going to be. The model may or may not like your style, they may or may not be looking to test, they might simply give you their rates etc. But when a model asks to shoot with you, he/she is expressing interest and that interest has lots of implications for future interactions. Strategically-speaking, the ball is in your court when a model solicits a you for a shoot. It changes everything because out of the thousands of photographers out there, the model sought you out specifically. That's a powerful statement. And that power usually translates into an openness and receptiveness to new ideas, looks, concepts, setups, etc... a better chance at creating Magic.

How do you get models to ask you to shoot them? As we discussed before it's usually a question of talent and or status/reputation. I suggest building a strong portfolio of powerful and evocative images. Images that models want to have in their portfolios. I suggest shooting better models, preferably agency-represented to create a more desirable portfolio. I suggest getting in bed with modeling agencies. I suggest connecting with industry professionals on social networking sites such as Facebook and ModelMayhem. I suggest consistently outputting powerful images.

Just so we're clear, all of these things are just to get you more chances at creating Magic. Just because a top-tier agency model offers to shoot with you does not mean that you're necessarily going to get emotionally-evocative images. But will it increase your chances? You betcha.

Now that we've talked a little more about the right model, we'll examine the details of model interaction next.

These are the concepts that drive the Fashion-Editorial Master Class I'm teaching on January 21-22, 2012. Oh, and I get that the whole workshop concept is at odds with organically creating Magic. That doesn't mean you can't practice the fundamental actions and acquire the necessarily skill sets to produce Magic going forward. Besides, the models at my workshops are inherently magical.

Magic: The Dynamics of Volume Shooting

2011-12-23T21:43:00.000-08:00

Covering All Angles. D3/50mm. 1/200, f/4.0, ISO200.

Introduction to Volume Shooting

As the second part of Magic, I want to set the stage with one of the key ingredients; volume shooting.

Volume shooting doesn't mean you shoot willy-nilly and indiscriminately hold down the shutter release button. Rather it's about getting the most frames out of the most usable moments that your model gives you. Holding down the shutter release button will yield a frame rate limited by your camera's ability to write files to your memory card (after you've filled the buffer). And that's not a very fast frame rate. At best you'll get 1fps, 2fps if you're lucky? And while you're waiting for the memory card to clear each file from the buffer, you're going to miss a lot of potentially magical moments. Instead, you should increase your odds of creating evocative images by being selective about when you increase your shooting volume. This is also known as burst-fire.

But in addition to burst-fire moments, volume shooting should employ a brisk baseline rate of capture. We will explore the dynamics and reasoning behind this later.

Please understand that volume shooting is not a stand-alone concept. It's a shooting style that requires good model interaction, proper model selection, proficiency with lighting, familiarity with dynamic adjustments and more. The goal is that when you pair volume shooting with good preparation and real-time actions, you yield more frames that are emotionally evocative. My goal with this post is to navigate you through the pitfalls of volume shooting and reveal the benefits of volume shooting when performed correctly.

Some Objections to Volume Shooting

But doesn't volume shooting make photographers lazy? Absolutely. If you rely only on volume-shooting and neglect all other preparations, then you will become a lazy photographer. Hell, not only will you become a lazy photographer, you will also be an unprepared photographer. One that has reduced his/her chances at capturing great images. Volume shooting is not a standalone concept. Volume shooting should be combined with great pre-production legwork such as finding the right model, concept, location, storyboard, makeup, wardrobe, etc. It's a small portion of a larger framework; a framework that does not include a predetermined look/concept/pose.

But doesn't volume shooting make a photographer less precise about specific looks and set poses? Let's be clear. There is and always will be a time and a place to shoot set poses. For example, if there's an art director looking over your shoulder holding a storyboard, and that storyboard clearly states the exact pose of the shot, then you should probably shoot that exact pose for the shot. But just as there are orchestral masterpieces written by the classical masters, there is also the unwritten freestyle of improvisational jazz. And if you look far enough back into the history of classical music, even the classical masters left cadenzas in their concertos for the soloists to improvise in free-time. The key is knowing when you're the soloist and when you're just a part in the orchestra. There is a time and a place for shooting single frames to nail a specific pose and there is also a time and a place for shooting hundreds of frames to get capitalize on great flow to create something totally unscripted.

One is not better than the other. Being able to perform an improvised solo isn't better than being a part of the orchestra. Similarly, being able to create an unscripted look isn't better than being able to shoot a set pose. They are simply different parts, requiring different skill sets. Being able to perform both is best! Dogmatically dismissing one or the other eliminates the potential positive outcomes you could experience. Positive outcomes that might change your entire perspective of photography. Positive outcomes that might even generate new sources of creativity.

Volume shooting occupies more space on data storage solutions. Without a doubt, shooting more images means those images take up more space on your data storage solutions. But whereas volume shooting with film was cost-prohibitive, digital photography allows photographers to shoot much more volume at marginally greater costs. Long-term cost per GB trends lower as new technologies and greater storage capacities are introduced to market. Perhaps more important than the increase in space is the increase in time associated with reviewing and processing all these images. A good back-end workflow for volume shooting is paramount for successfully managing the increase in images.

Volume shooting is not better or worse. It's simply a different style.

Let's first examine some of the principles behind volume shooting:

1) Volume shooting creates an endless loop of positive reinforcement. Essentially when you shoot more frames, the model takes that cue as positive reinforcement and believes that he/she is doing well. This provides the model with more confidence to do "more". As the model does "more" you shoot even more frames thus propelling the vicious cycle. It's really a self-fulfilling prophecy so to speak.

2) Volume shooting increases the probability of capturing emotionally-charged moments. What's an emotionally-charged moment? What kind of looks are you specifically waiting for? We'll talk more about this with the Magic: What You're Looking For but usually you're looking for fleeting moments. Often these fleeting moments occur with motion. So you will want to capture the dynamics of turning, strutting, jumping, hair-tossing, wardrobe movements. And while you can't control these motion-driven elements with precision, it's precisely these elements that aid in the creation of emotionally-charged images. Since you can't control these elements, you'll need to increase your probability of capturing these moments by shooting more frames.

Again, this doesn't mean you should shoot indiscriminately by holding down the shutter until you run out of memory buffer/card. Instead you should be judicious in your selection of moments to burst off several frames but maintain a high rate of fire/tempo overall (e.g. 0.5frames/sec as a loose rule of thumb). Essentially you're waiting for emtionally-charged moments but in between these moments you should still be maintaining a constant rate of capture. Why? More below...

3) Volume shooting creates a fast-paced posing environment. Unless of course you're trying to capture a sad and languishing look, I recommend keeping an upbeat and high-energy environment while shooting. Maintaining a brisk shooting tempo maintains the momentum between poses and this momentum specifically pushes the model to pose quickly and encourages fluidity (we'll also talk more about fluidity later Magic: Model Interaction). Models are much less likely to fall into a posing funk or give you stale poses when the rate of shooting is brisk. Essentially you're using the rate of capture to maintain high-energy and keep the model's poses moving along. Without the base-rate of capture, models lose the constant positive reinforcement that gives them the confidence to give you "more". So between the burst-rate moments you helps to keep a brisk baseline rate of capture.

Now that we've discussed some the principles behind volume shooting, let's examine the setup for volume shooting because the proper setup (based upon your particular equipment) will determine your maximum rate of burst capture. Everything I use and the way I use it is geared towards this method of volume shooting. While I still shoot RAW files, I set my camera and lights in a way that allows my equipment to keep up with my maximum rate of capture. Here are my main considerations:

1) Fast memory cards. The faster my cards can write files, the less I have to depend on my buffer for "holding" unwritten captures. The less frames I have in the buffer, the more (and faster) I can shoot. Ideally there exists a card that could write as fast as you shoot so you would never need to rely on your camera's memory buffer at all. This would imply that you would never have to wait for your camera to write files to your card. Of course even if such a card existed, it would likely be cost-prohibitive and that speed could exceed the camera's throughput speed anyway.

2) Higher ISO settings (than baseline ISO). By shooting at a higher ISO, you decrease your dependency on light. The effect is actually two-fold. First, you can now power down your strobes for faster recycle speeds and thus shoot faster. Second, you can maintain a faster shutter speed to capture faster motion without the fear of blur (especially if your only source of light is ambient). Of course with higher ISO there is more noise. And even though high-ISO noise can be well-supressed in newer cameras and digital technologies, each photographer will need to determine how much noise he/she can tolerate for any given set of capture.

In addition, if we quickly revisit the premise of Magic and the quest for capturing emotionally-charged images, it behooves a photographer to reconsider the importance of technically perfect images e.g. low-ISO/noiseless/tack-sharp/focused images. The search for technical perfection via low-ISO, small apertures, fast shutter speeds, big strobe power, might cause a photographer to miss the opportunity of capturing that perfect emotionally evocative moment between poses. How? Because if you're afraid of ISO-noise you will need to compensate with more strobe power. And while you're waiting for the strobe to recycle, you might miss that emotionally evocative moment that occurs between poses. Or maybe you're shooting ambient light and you wanted that creamy bokeh which only exists at f/1.4? So you sacrifice focus flexibility for bokeh perfection. Let's assume that your model moves off your plane of focus between poses? Now you've lost the opportunity at a great shot because you were chasing bokeh. These are for trade-offs every photographer must consider when setting up for volume shooting. Trade-offs that could impact your ability to capture those in-between moments.

Going back to the ISO consideration, I would predetermine a maximum ISO prior to shooting and then not exceed that ISO during shooting. If I needed more exposure to maintain a rate of shooting, I would try compensating with either shutter speed or aperture.

3) Open aperture (shallower depth-of-field). Similar to higher ISO, opening the aperture allows more light to hit the sensor/film thus offsetting your dependency on light. While you're still dependent on light, a larger aperture allows you to power down your strobes for faster recycle rates thus allowing you to shoot faster. Secondly larger apertures allow you to increase your shutter speed for better motion-stopping capture ability. Just remember that focus can be an issue at shallow depths-of-field. At certain apertures, the depth-of-field can be just millimeters. Therefore, prior to shooting you should predetermine a maximum aperture that you're willing to use (given your particular setup) and not exceed that aperture during shooting. If there is any flexibility with ISO and/or shutter speed, try and compensate/balance your exposure with the other camera settings.

4) Lower power settings on the strobe. Given that there is enough exposure, you should shoot the minimum power setting on my strobes for volume shooting. A lower power setting creates multiple benefits. First, it allows the strobe to recycle faster and therefore achieve proper exposure faster between frames. Secondly, a lower power setting is less taxing on the strobe because it creates less heat per cycle and is therefore less likely to burn out the strobe's components, particularly the bulb. Thirdly, a lower power setting generates a faster flash duration for stopping motion which means the model will generate less motion-blur when moving.

5) Providing models more range of motion. For volume shooting, I set my lights with an expectation of a greater range of motion. Prior to shooting, I already know that there might be some unpredictability in the model's movements. If my goal is to create a unique look via an unstructured and unscripted set, I have to give my subjects the freedom to move and the freedom to improvise. And since I want to maximize my ability to capture these motions, my lighting setups must provide the models with the adequate flexibility for motion. In other words, by building in greater tolerance for motion, you'll be able to shoot quickly with more confidence that the model has not stepped outside your field of lighting. Which means you don't have to call a timeout just to reposition your lights. While this also depends on good model interaction, creating a more motion-tolerant light setup reassures the model that there is room to experiment. This allows the model (and photographer) to then push for more unique and hopefully more emotionally evocative looks.

6) Minimize your file outputs. If you minimize the number of files your camera creates per frame, you can increase your speed of shooting. And yes, you can even minimize file size if you're willing to purposely use an evenly-lit solid color background for the sake of reducing file size. But by limiting the number of files your camera writes per capture, you can reduce the number of files written, maximize your captures per memory card, and increase shooting speed.

How does one reduce the number of files written per capture? By setting your camera to write only the single RAW file per capture. This means not capturing a JPEG (regardless of basic, normal, fine) on top of your RAW file (whether you're writing to a single memory card or to multiple memory cards). This also means not duplicating RAW captures across multiple memory cards if you have that function (RAW + RAW). The less your camera needs to output onto your memory cards, the faster you can shoot. This will not affect your ability to preview the RAW file on your camera.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the elements behind volume shooting. Each photographer will have his/her individual style of shooting. When combined with individual requirements, each photographer will face a different combination of challenges when executing their own style of volume shooting. My proposed formula uses a brisk baseline tempo with lots of short-term burst fire sequences sprinkled in between. When combined with proper model interaction, this should increase the photographer's probability of capturing emotionally-charged images. Next, we'll examine when you should execute your burst fire sequences. I'll be demonstrating this along with all the other elements of Magic at the Master Class.

Magic: The Premise

2011-12-22T22:08:00.000-08:00

Surrender. Erica. D3/50mm. 1/5000, f/2.2 ISO200.

If you're just starting out in photography, then this post isn't for you. If you're still learning how to light, this post isn't for you either. If you're content with what you're creating, this post also isn't for you.

So who is this post for?

It's specifically for photographers that have experienced what I call "Magic". When things seemingly go right for no "apparent" reason. When you're surprised by the results of the images that you're creating. When the flow between you and the model takes a life of its own. When you capture the essence of raw emotion in a still frame.

I call it Magic because that's what it seems to be. It seems arbitrary. It seems inexplicable. It seems like it can't be replicated or made into a process. I often use the "creation of life" analogy where in a cesspool of proteins and water, lightning struck and molecules organized themselves in a way that represented the first single cell organisms (yes, I realize that's a crummy description of that theory but you get the idea).

So if you buy into the idea of Magic; if you've experienced it; if you're seeking to create more Magic, then read on. If you're not interested in creating the types of images described above, then this would be a good point for you to stop reading because in all seriousness, not every photographer has experienced Magic and not every photographer is ready to explore how one creates Magic.

As further disclaimer what I'm about to describe requires significant proficiency with camera equipment, lighting equipment, and models.

Camera equipment requirements - You should be able to operate your camera blindfolded. Or at the very least you should be able to make manual adjustments to aperture, shutter, ISO, without taking your eye off the viewfinder... even if your viewfinder doesn't have this information constantly displayed.

Lighting equipment requirements - For any given situation in the studio (or outdoors) you should be able to dial in a proper exposure within 60 seconds. Preferably within 10 seconds. For what it's worth I'm going to limit the discussion to single light setups so we can focus on the dynamics of creating Magic.

Models requirements - You should have worked with hundreds if not thousands of talents, specifically models. Your experiences with other talents such as but not limited to makeup artists, wardrobe stylists, hair stylists, art directors, etc. will all add value to this aspect of creating Magic. But none more so than real experiences working with models.

The premise of creating Magic is based off of improvisation and shooting dynamically. You're going to be shooting "without a script". What's a script? It's any preconceived notion of what's about to happen. This includes, concept, makeup, hair, wardrobe, lighting, etc. Our theoretical setup for future posts will be based on the traditional model test with 1 model, 1 camera, 1 light, and 1 solid backdrop.

Now that we've set the stage and we're all on the same page for "creating Magic" I'll proceed to write about a few key components for how I create Magic. This is the foundation for the Master Class I'm teaching in January.

Response to Perfectionism, Planning, and Improvisation

2011-12-20T22:19:00.000-08:00

Got an email from a workshop photographer about learning impasses.

My photography is at an impasse. My last three photo shoots were expensive failures and I feel I have plateaued creatively. Each shoot was well-planned, but a combination of inexperienced models, a failure to properly articulate my goals, and the pressure from my perfectionist tendencies conspired to produce poor results.

I think many photographers reach this same plateau and either fail to push forward or languish in mediocrity. I want to reach the next level and hope you can help me during our time together. Here are my strengths, photographically, I feel:

· Shoot planning
· Model interaction
· Retouching
· Technical ability

Here are my weaknesses:

· Too demanding of myself/perfectionist
· Unable to illicit the best work from my models
· Lack creative vision
· Inability to adjust quickly when initial concepts fail to work

I am hoping you can help me take my photography to the next level and I can reinvigorate my creativity. Hopefully, you can assist me in creating portfolio quality work and provide me with constructive criticism. I am a very good student and will fully value your time. I am convinced you will find just the right model for me that day and I will learn a lot from you. I am sure I will learn ways to push forward through my plateau and create better quality images. Please know that I am not trying to copy your style, but incorporate a bit of your style into mine. I strive to create something inspiring and original.

Here's my response:

Your pictures are technically great. Your retouching is definitely above average. I gather that you're busy enough with "real life" that you have limited availability for photography and therefore try to maximize your "ROI". But your perfectionism and "will to control" and seriousness (all of which I suffer to a certain extent) are holding you back from getting to the next level.

Now that's not the only thing holding you back. Your limited availability in this field means you don't have the luxury of shooting randomly (and thus learning organically via trial and error) which only adds to the pressure to perform and deliver. Some of your greatest strengths are also going to be (or result in) your greatest weaknesses. For example, great pre-production planning means that your "script" is set. A "set script" does not allow for as much interpretation and certainly not as much improvisation. Your technical eye, which I have no doubt is acutely developed, can overpower the other potential perspectives that might lend themselves to more evocative images... particularly the more artistic perspectives.

How do I know these things? I know these things because I am these things. We come from similar molds, you and I. We're challenged in the same way, only I have had the luxury (read: time) to find ways to overcome these learning impasses.

And you're absolutely right. Not only do many photographers reach these plateaus but they reach them and don't realize that they've plateau'd and/or can not articulate the specific challenges they face. As I learned by watching G. I. Joe as a child, "...knowing is half the battle".

Here are a few good reads that I strongly suggest. These ideas will not only set the foundation for our private workshop but also the Master Class I'm teaching on the 21st-22nd.

http://lucimablog.blogspot.com/2011/12/visions-nudity-and-comfort-zones.html
http://lucimablog.blogspot.com/2011/12/inspirations-visions-mutations.html
http://lucimablog.blogspot.com/2011/11/control-vs-uncontrollable.html

Fashion-Editorial Master Class January 21-22!

2011-12-19T09:17:00.000-08:00

Just posted our Fashion-Editorial Master Class up for registration! See you all there!

ASUS PA245Q Review

2011-12-15T19:07:00.000-08:00

I'm travel to Taiwan enough to buy a secondary display for permanent use when I'm here. But a couple weeks out of the year does not warrant the purchase of an Eizo CG243W which is what I use in LA.

In haste, I did a quick search and saw good feedback on the ASUS PA245Q ProArt 24.1 and requested its purchase for my arrival and use when I landed in Taipei at the equivalent of USD$575.

The following review is specific to photography-retouching and is very much a comparison with higher-end monitors such as the Eizo CG243W that I use regularly. I have also in the past used a Dell 2405FPW (PVA) and an Eizo S2402W (TN) for the same purposes.

My initial reaction was that the ASUS PA245Q was that I was looking at an extraordinary display. That's typically what happens when you look at an IPS display straight out-of-the-box. The colors are vivid, the contrast is strong, and the viewing angles are superb. Of course vivid colors and strong contrast are not requirements for color-accurate work but more for gaming and media/entertainment. Our work only requires that the display be color-accurate and consistent over time. Regardless my initial impression of the display was that it might just be as good as my Eizo CG243W.

I calibrated the display immediately with the ColorMunki and brought it immediately inline with the colors of my Eizo CG243W. I calibrated very well. The colors balanced closely compared to my display in Los Angeles.

But there's a difference in calibrating these two displays. Actually this difference exists for all comparisons to the Eizo CG243W because the CG243W utilizes hardware calibration versus software calibration. The Eizo CG-series utilizes a USB connection between the display and the computer specifically for the purpose of communicating color needs to the physical display. When you calibrate the display, you are not calibrating the software on the computer but instead you're calibrating the hardware on the display. This is supposed to generate better results though I can not verify this.

What I can tell you is that when you calibrate the CG243W, you should use ColorNavigator which is part of the proprietary Eizo calibration software since this allows the computer to calibrate the Eizo hardware via the USB uplink. In contrast, the ASUS PA245Q and all other non-hardware-calibrated displays simply use software such as the ColorMunki software that is provided in the purchase of the ColorMunki. The ColorMunki software is robust enough to calibrate for specific color-temperature such as D65 and specific luminance such as 120 cd/m2 (or in my case sometime 100-110 cd/m2).

Upon calibrating the PA245Q I felt strongly that the display was comparable in color accuracy to the CG243W. Its many settings allowed me to calibrate the User setting which is now my current default for photography-retouching work.

So why would you ever buy a CG243W when you could presumably get a similar display at nearly a quarter of the price?

I have a single stuck pixel (or dust on the panel). This is a little more than a slight annoyance since I constantly feel like I need to healing brush/clone stamp that spot on all my images. I may very well attempt to exchange this display based upon that sole fact.

Secondly the color consistency across the panel is not as good as the Eizo. There seems to be a reddish tint as you move from left to right and certainly more towards the bottom of the panel. I heard this issue also existed for many of the HP LP2475w panels. And honestly I suspect that this issue exists for many of the panels in this price range either due to quality assurance or simply due to the quality of the panels that they use. While I can not tell you the exact difference, I believe the components that exist within the Eizo CG-series are simply better since they are simply more reliable and don't suffer the same issues with cheaper panels.

That being said, if you search my blog deep enough you'll find that I was quite displeased with the evenness in panel luminance in both of the CG241W displays that I tested... which is how I came to acquire a CG243W. Fortunately the PA245Q does not exhibit this problem.

And honestly between color accuracy across the panel and backlight evenness across the panel, I would much rather have a small issue with color accuracy across the panel than uneven brightness. Uneven brightness is a much more in-your-face much like a stuck pixel. Any time you look at solid colors such as greys, blacks, and whites (as we often do in retouching) that uneven backlight will be glaring at you dead in the face. It's enough to make an photo editor go mad.

That being said, I discovered the tint shift across the panel when I was retouching multiple images of the same (photoshoot) set. These images were all converted to B&W so there should have been no color-tint issues in these images. And for some odd reason I detected slight hues of pink/red in some of these images. To test the backlight, I swapped the relative position of these images on the display (right-to-left and left-to-right). The images then revealed the opposite color tint in their new position on the display.

Other than the above issues, the PA245Q is a strong contender and a solid performer. I haven't even used the other features such as the 7-in-1 card reader. Vertical orientation for reading. And more.

In conclusion, you're spending a quarter of the price for a very comparable display. Hopefully you get one that is more consistent than mine in color-shifts across the panel.

Inspirations. Visions. Mutations.

2011-12-08T10:00:00.000-08:00

Statuesquest. Brittany. First frame of the set. This was actually a test shot. A "mistake" if you will.
D3/50mm f/1.8D, 1/200, f5, ISO200.

I was going to break this up into two posts but I think it's really one and the same and explains a lot of things. First of all don't take this the wrong way. There's no right or wrong, it's just "different". I'm about to explain to you the method to my inspirational madness.

The thing is, I don't read blogs, I don't surf YouTube, I don't spend all day on Facebook, I don't partake in forums (anymore), I don't chat online, I don't really read magazines (outside of the 1-2 I had subscriptions to).

I've said this before on my blog but I basically live in a cave. I'm "self-contained". Why? Because I'm easily overwhelmed by visuals. If I surf the web, or read magazines or play on FB etc. I'm bound to get inundated by images and those images usually have me asking, "Why didn't I think of that?" or "I wish I shot that" or "Gosh, that's awesome... my images aren't nearly as good".

Call it self-defense. I keep the outside world, mostly outside.

Where and how am I inspired? Interestingly enough, mostly "historically" and internally. "Historically" because occasionally some images will make their way through the "filters" (in this day and age how can you live without seeing billboards, commercials, etc.) and they will make a mental impact. Usually these images get filed away in my head only to surface much later in time. So by the time I think about it and process it, it's probably already very old "stuff". The best way to describe those images is that they're no longer "current"... they're just remnants of old public images that now float around in my head.

Secondly, I'm internally driven. I have ideas. Not many. But a few precious ones. They're near and dear to my heart. They are reflections of my identity and they are who I am. They can be shared but they can't be stolen because they can't be replicated. I believe you can't really "copy" a style because a style is inherently part of someone. It's why unlike other photographers, I have no fear of teaching my "so-called" style. I'm constantly evolving and changing. By the time I teach it, I'm on to something different. I don't claim to have a "style" per se anyway.

Simply put, you can't have my visions, you must have your own. It must be this way because we are different people.

What do I do to inspire myself from within?

Now keep in mind this only applies to unpaid testing where you can try new things. One thing I do is make "mistakes". Sometimes on purpose, most of the time accidental. One great thing about my shooting style is that it's completely dynamic and improvisational. It's usually not planned. I have no preconceptions of what I am going to do. Preconceptions aka. expectations can hold me back and limit what I want to do in the moment. I don't want that and so I don't have preconceptions.

When I'm shooting, I move quickly and swiftly and I don't think a whole lot. I simply go with it. I'm sure there are a billion mental calculations that are all happening at the same time but like any great jazz musician or athlete, I shoot in the moment.

And I shoot a lot of frames. Enough where I make "mistakes". Lots of them.

And like life needing mutation to evolve, I need these mistakes to grow. I need to see new versions of the old visions. Versions that I couldn't come up with cerebrally or analytically. New renditions of stuff that I've perhaps shot thousands of times and seen millions of times. I can't make this stuff up. It just happens. So my growth is organic and analogous to mutation in evolution.

What's a mistake? Maybe a misfire in a strobe? Maybe a mis-crop? Maybe a mis-angle? Maybe a mis-timed shutter? Maybe a mis-set camera? It could be anything and it could be everything. But these mistakes give me new things to look at. New ideas. New versions of the old stuff. My "mistakes" basically giving me new inspiration but inspiration that's organic and non-threatening, unlike external inspiration. External inspiration sometimes makes me question my talents. That's damaging for me. Internal inspiration is safe. For me it's fit for consumption. This way, I can preserve my fragile ego and keep developing my style.

Does it work for me? Yup. Will it work for you? Dunno. It's my cup of tea. It's how I do things because it's specific to my photography-DNA.

What's Your Favorite Shot?

2011-12-07T23:22:00.000-08:00

I've been asked this question several times so I figure I would answer it here:

I don't have a favorite shot. I don't even remember 1/2 of my shots. Today I have 200GB of unedited images on my drive. Tomorrow I shoot a video. Sunday I shoot a spec-editorial. I look at thousands of pictures everyday of my life and I retouch so many that none of them really make much of an impact.

So to answer your question, I don't have a favorite shot.

But I do remember the photography I did earlier much more than the photography I do now. Like how you remember your childhood more vividly, it simply makes more of an impact when it's fresh. When I was young and impressionable.

If I had to pick one, I'd pick this one:

Why? It reminds me of a simpler time. A time when there were no expectations of me to do great things. A time when I could learn and not be expected to produce. A time when monetary gain had no place in my career. A time when I knew nothing and had everything to learn. A time when I couldn't get a model to save my life.

So it's my favorite for sentimental reasons but nothing photography-related or photography-specific.

But there's plenty to be said about how the journey unfolds and life changes along this path. Perhaps that's the purpose of this exercise. It's got nothing to do with the photographic elements. But that was certainly a "snapshot" of my life when I was simply a budding strobist and the name "LUCIMA" hadn't even been invented.

I suppose if there's anything to be learned from this answer it's "remember where you came from". Because when things get crazy, you're going to miss this point of your life. You're going to miss the innocence and simplicity of being a student. Hopefully you never lose the curiosity and thirst for knowledge.

Cheers!

Windstorms

2011-12-07T15:38:00.000-08:00

I just went 7 days without power. Living in Southern California is pretty great almost all the time. Real earthquakes haven't happened in 20+ years and other than the occasional forest fire and permanent drought, we sit pretty all year every year.

But we (especially the cities near the foothills) just got destroyed by some gale force winds.

I live in Arcadia (between Pasadena and Monrovia)

They said it would be the worst winds in 7-10 years.

Try 70 years. My gardener said he'd never seen it this bad in the 30 years of being in this business as well as the 50 years of living here. On the morning after the windstorm I woke up to find 2 toppled tree, one that was originally 30 feet lying face down in our backyard. It tore the roof off my dog house. The howling winds were deafening, to the point that I couldn't hear trees falling. On the way to the gym the night before, I saw a transformer explode 100 yards from where I parked my car.

As I made my way to the street, it was like a scene from the movies in which all the residents came out of their homes to see what had happened. Kids were taking pictures. Neighbors that I had never seen were out and about and chatting up a storm. And for good reason because no one could make it out to a main street. We were completely trapped by a toppled tree in every direction. No one was getting to work that morning.

I became a refugee. While I still showered at home after the power went out, I couldn't stand the 50-60º water. I began showering at the gym. And while I stayed at my house for 3 consecutive nights after the windstorm, it all came to an abrupt end on Sunday morning when I awoke to at a 49º thermostat. Thereafter I slept at my aunt's house.

My schedule revolved around making rounds to go home and then the studio. I had to juggle shoots and haul my workstation (fortunately mostly mobile) to the studio and work there. I would leave the studio at 1AM and then sleep at home for the first couple nights.

Traffic was a nightmare. None of the lights worked. It took 30 minutes to drive what usually took 10 minutes. Now that's what I call a "transaction cost". Just going to get food was a chore.

Internet? I was tethering with my iPhone. I won't be surprised if AT&T calls me up and tells going to put me on the tethering plan as a result of the 4GB I used up during those 7 days without Internet.

Retouching? Nearly impossible. Hard enough to juggle when I had 2 more shoots to add on top of the 3 existing shoots, so now I'm 5 shoots behind. Even harder without being at my workstation at home.

But what's the point of all this? There is no point. I just felt like sharing a small part of my life with you all so you'd understand the ebb and flows of what I go through. Yes, this windstorm was an externality. Hopefully something I never have to deal with again. It could have been a lot worse. Lives could have been lost. And yes, 7 days without power pales in comparison to what real refugees endure in the real disaster-stricken parts of the world. Oh, I get it. I'm not (really) complaining. On the other hand, if I could dedicate my life to being a refugee, none of this would be so bad. But life goes on and the world expects no less of me regardless of whether or not I have electricity, heat or hot water. The clients still want their images on time, the students still need a professor, shoots still need to happen.

So in the words of Tim Gunn "Make it work". What took the biggest hit in my schedule? My Ironman training. In addition to catching the flu, I haven't trained for over a week now. You make sacrifices to balance things out. I'm not usually this busy but when shit hits the fan, you must make sure your priorities are straight. Parties? Get togethers? If it even makes the priority list, it's at the bottom of the pile for me.

As 'Pac said, "You do what you gotta do... to survive."

Visions, Nudity, and Comfort Zones

2011-12-01T22:03:00.000-08:00

From my buddy Maximilian on Facebook,

"I wanted to ask you "how do you go about asking models to break out of their comfort zone and give you emotion/beautiful art" I wanna push the models I work with to give me more emotion then hands on the hip peace sign pictures."

I have so many sentiments on this subject it's not even funny. But first let met get in my rant of the day.

As a male photographer, I feel that we're pretty much all the same. Yes, you, me and every other guy that enjoys seeing a model without her clothes on. Yeah, I said it. It's a universal truth and we can deny it all we want but unless you're gay, as a straight-male photographer you can not deny your appreciation of a naked female model. Hell, even the gay photographers appreciate a naked female model. So pretty much if the photographer is a dude, then he wants to see the model naked.

The issue is "portrayal" and I'll go full-circle to this issue throughout the post. It's why I'm extremely curious as to how female photographers portray female models and how gay photographers portray female models. They have such different perspectives. It's not about the nudity. It's not about T and A. It's about something completely different and that interests me. From my perspective pretty much every straight-male photographer I know sexualizes (in one way or another) the model as a subject. In my personal style, I try to balance sexualizing the model by juxtaposing their strength and vulnerability in the same image. But still, I myself know there's a fair amount of "sexualization" going on in my images.

And yes, you can easily get hung up on the nudity part of the equation. But once you get over the nudity then you can really disseminate the "portrayal" and the vision of the photographer and hopefully create "art". As I mentioned above, my images are about juxtaposition of strength and vulnerability. Each is its own merit but together they create a greater whole. Personally, shooting vulnerability for vulnerability's sake is boring because I hate ineptitude. Equally boring is portraying strength in strong women because that's been done to death by every career-driven woman in this day and age. The nuances of the balance between the two are much more interesting than each alone.

So what's my secret? It's not a secret but an entire recipe. It's harks back to the previous post about having multiple ingredients, a good game plan and then hoping lighting strikes. If you search "lightning" and "magic" and "luck" you'll find multiple blog entries that would have you thinking I'm straight out of Hogwart's with this madness. But it's never just one thing. (I think the search function is broken in this template though...)

Firstly, I start with models that aren't afraid of being naked. You know how I know this? I ask them beforehand. And they either oblige or they don't. I don't force anyone to shoot nudes, but it's a barrier to entry with me. Why? Because to me being comfortability in the buff usually translates well into a model's ability to express herself and hopefully translates into an ability to push the proverbial envelope. What I'm looking for is to explore the elements of art and hopefully make artistic breakthroughs of my own. This is a lot easier with a model who is willing to walk that path with me into unfamiliar territory. To put it bluntly, if you start with a better model, you won't have to worry about pushing the models.

Now, about comfort zones. It's not a bad thing and it's not a good thing either. It's simply a reference point.

What is a comfort zone? It's the point at which the model is going to give you her 10-20 poses, rinsed and repeated over and over again.

Which is why I like to keep my models just slightly "off-kilter" when I shoot. It's based upon being almost comfortable but definitely out of their comfort zone. So I guide them along throughout a set and I'm asking them to "turn, express, evoke more emotion, give me intensity, strength, softness, strut, mind the light, etc." all at the same time. In fact, I verbally deliver all those things in the previous things in the quotation marks. Incessantly.

And that's exactly the point, because if I'm constantly barking out new commands, a model is never able to quite fall into her own rhythm and get into her "comfort zone"... which means I won't see those 10-20 poses over and over again but rather, new looks, new angles, new positions. On the other hand, you can't push her so hard that she feels totally out of whack and totally awkward.

And a lot of what I do isn't even in the words, it's in the motions that I make with my own head, hands, and body when I want them to move a certain way. They'll naturally mirror me so there's a lot of "unsaid communication" happening in real-time outside of the verbal commands. Which means you have to be a good model yourself. I think I have an interview of myself saying this...

And if you surveyed the models, you wouldn't hear that our shoot felt clumsy. You wouldn't hear that they felt like we were shooting an awkward rhythm. You wouldn't hear that it wasn't graceful.

Because it should still be elegant, graceful, and in unison. Going back to the dance analogy, it's simply a new "dance step" that the model hasn't done before. It's a fast tempo and very close-quarters and simultaneously requires great familiarity and precognition (of what's about to happen)... and yet it's still an improvisational dance.

Of course you're probably asking "What if that's the first time that you're shooting with them?"

The same thing applies.

Of course there are benefits of shooting with a model more than once. You know each other and you're more comfortable with each other. But IMHO, the era of the muse is dead... a muse being a model that you work with over and over and over again :) Furthermore, in being more comfortable, a model's "comfort zone" becomes harder to break out of in subsequent shoots. They aren't as on-edge and off-kilter with you as a photographer... they might relax and then they go back into giving you the same 10-20 poses over and over again. This makes is a lot harder to explore unfamiliar territory and get them to create new looks.

And I blame myself too! Let's be fair! It's easy to point the finger and ask how many new poses a model learns between your first shoot and the second shoot with her... but it's a lot harder to ask yourself how much better you have gotten as a photographer! Have you grown so much as an artist since the first shoot? If not, what makes you think that you're going to get anything that you haven't already seen before?

And "what I haven't seen before" is exactly what I'm trying to get out of every model. I don't want anything I've seen before, especially not in her portfolio. I am trying to create something unique, something that makes both of us say, "Whoa..." Of course the more you shoot, the harder that is to come by, which makes it that much more important for me to push myself to try new things. Things that make me uncomfortable and put myself off-kilter so I can explore facets of my own visions that I haven't seen before.

Going back to off-kilter. It's exactly why I don't shoot a regular rhythmic pace. A long time ago, I used to encourage that photographers shoot predictably, like a metronome. That way, you and your model can time the poses and work on capturing those looks together.

But that's the problem with rhythm. It's predictable. And rhythm is monotonous and predictable so you won't get "art".

Because art is not predictable. And emotion is not predictable. So "predictability" loses its place in the equation to it's even twin "unpredictability". Not to say predictability isn't part of the equation at all, but the elements that are predictable are not the ones that are going to help you capture "life".

Anyway, that's my long-winded response to Maximilian's question for now!

Control vs. The Uncontrollable

2011-11-29T23:40:00.001-08:00

Duck and Model. Nikon D3, 50mm f/1.8D, ISO 3200, 1/250th, f/2.8

I should apologize for the new layout because it's more difficult to navigate. I'm experimenting with this layout as I'm working on my website (www.lucima.com) because it is more uniform with my website design.

As I was looking for a specific quote by Richard Avedon, I stumbled across the following:

I think all art is about control - the encounter between control and the uncontrollable. - Richard Avedon

And it gave me the chills thinking about the process by which I walk that fine line between control and the uncontrollable.

If you've read this blog then you know that I've always preached a good technical foundation for every photographer. Learn the ratios, lighting setups, camera settings, etc. You'll need to know these things like the back of your hand so you can improvise.

But art is unpredictable and uncontrollable. When I step onto a shoot, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to get "art". I know for sure I'll get great images, but the magic that transcends ordinary images is transient and hard to create. You might have all the right ingredients and still not be able to create "art".

And it explains why I shoot a lot of frames. I don't hold down the shutter indiscriminately though. I'm looking for certain angles, certain looks, a certain feeling. When I see those stars align, I will burst fire many shots. So at the end of the day I can easily shoot thousand of frames because what I'm looking for is fleeting and instantaneous, totally magical, and impossible to reproduce. I'll throw away lots of frames if it means I can have that one single perfect instant in time.

It's like jazz. We've got all the basic pieces of the band, maybe a baseline, a tempo, a general structure to the song... but the in-between parts? It's a dance. No one really knows what is going to happen. It's impromptu and elementally alive. It's the baring of souls. It's consuming and rapturous and carnivorous.

And control is an illusion. We do our best though, set our lights, balance our exposure, choose a background, model, makeup, wardrobe, etc. but once the "dance" starts, all bets are off and you either come along for the ride or get left behind. Besides, if at any point in time you feel like you're totally in control, chances are you're getting sterile, flat, boring and predictable images.

It's why the greatest artists seem like raging lunatics. Only they're not completely crazy. They've got just enough sanity to keep a few toes on the ground to channel the visions, sight, and sounds of the heavens back down to Earth. They walk that fine line between control and the uncontrollable.It's the best part about what I do.

It reminds me of surfing on days that I am leery of the waves because they might be too big. After all, if "excitement" is the anticipation of the unexpected then I can't be excited if I know exactly what is going to happen. So I've got to push myself both as an athlete and an artist to explore the "scarier" parts of who I am and what I do. In photography that might mean trying things that scare me or make me uncomfortable because I feel like I'm not totally in control... like shooting angles, using lenses I don't like, ISO's above 3200, putting the model is strangle positions, and more. Hell, all of what I've described went into making the image above. As far as for surfing, it means paddling out on a day that could end my life.

But if I make it back alive. Oh the images I could make and the stories I could tell.

Trying something new

2011-11-25T00:51:00.000-08:00

While it feels like I haven't experimented with shooting anything new in a while, today I had the opportunity to step outside my comfort zone.

There's something to be said about stepping outside your comfort zone. I do this best when I'm comfortable that my mistakes won't come under fire when/if they occur. Which is why I don't experiment when I'm shooting a big production for a paid client. Too risky on all levels.

When do I experiment? On my test shoots. I don't have nearly as much time as I used to, but I test as often as I can to keep my skills current and broaden my skill-sets. Testing allows me to balance my schedule, stay sharp, meet new people, feel the pulse of the industry, practice what I know, find out what I don't know, amongst other wonderful benefits.

I won't go into the specifics of what I tried because that's not the point of this post. The point is that like anyone else, I can fall into a rut and do the same thing over and over again. Fortunately I get bored quickly and usually try something new.

My model today was wonderfully accommodating which allowed me to comfortably be uncomfortable. Like coaxing a turtle out of its shell, I'll stick my neck out if I know the coast is clear.

Below is one of the things I did differently today. Balancing ambient with a shot of strobe lighting creates a dreamy effect that I plan on practicing more in the future. Keep trying new things!

Black Box Marketing

2011-11-20T14:58:00.000-08:00

Below is my response with an Internet Brands administrator regarding the EDU content I have on ModelMayhem. We've been discussing the effect of the negative responses on EDU to all the contributors' posts and changes going forward. For reference, many of my posts on MM EDU have been reprinted from this blog. None of them have been adapted for the MM audience. And at the heart of the LUCIMA blog lie personal philosophies, many of which are driving forces in my photography. And with the fledgling MM EDU not fully stating or understanding its own purpose and direction, there has been a disconnect between the content delivered and the feedback received. Below is the resulting discussion:

Great suggestions of articles from Melissa Rodwell's site. The first one is great. Very basic how-to article about technical information. Very informative. Difficult to argue otherwise. But regarding the second article, you and I both know that getting into a PhaseOne versus Hasselblad or Canon versus Nikon argument is opening a can of worms with the trolls on MM :)

I suppose it goes back to the impetus of blogging. I had never thought of using my blog as a vehicle for advertising the brand. Up until now it had been strictly for me to share my ideas and occasionally vent. The content was purely editorial and has been for since its inception. Early on, I had lots of technical posts but I've since I've moved away from how-to's and tutorials because that stuff doesn't interest me anymore. Of course as I look forward, I see that the blog must be integrated into the entire marketing machine and whether I like it or not, I must bring the blog's content and purpose in-line with marketing LUCIMA correctly.

But before I pollute it by spewing marketing madness let me for my own sake explain why I write editorially. Here's an example:

Terry Richardson is one of the most successful and famous photographers in the world. He shoots celebrities and for luxury brands all over the world like the shot below of the President. He's also one of the most controversial photographers ever.

Now for all intents and purposes Terry does not employ or display any spectacular technical prowess. In fact, quite the contrary Terry is known for his antics (such as shooting naked). For his lack of technical expertise, I used to hate this guy. "What a schmuck! The dude uses a pop-up flash or a disposable camera and calls it fashion!".

But once I got over his lack of technical abilities, I realized that his brilliance lay elsewhere. Namely in his ability to evoke emotion and unusual expressions and behaviors from his subjects. You see that picture of Barack above? That's a happy dude who's smiling and laughing pretty hard about something. How many photographers can get the President to reveal that kind of emotion?

;)

At the highest level of this strange art is transcendence and escape from technical perfection. Something human, raw, elemental, and tangible. The stuff that memories and dreams are made of. That's the stuff that fuels what I blog about. It's the stuff that sets LUCIMA apart from the rest because I'm more than happy to share my philosophies because those are the things that drives me. And often when I talk about this stuff I'm talking about the "latest and greatest" of what I know. So yes it's 100% editorial and unfortunately leaves me exposed to being attacked.

Take the light-meter post for example, I'm arguing a philosophy of weaning photographers off mechanical over-dependency. I get that it's not everyone's cup of tea but IRAC or not that particular argument was fairly bulletproof. Is it up to "MM-bulletproof spec"? Definitely not. Hell, I don't think anything is. Trolls will be trolls. If you lend them your ear they'll tell you the sky isn't blue :)

Besides, as you mentioned before having everyone agree on one thing is boring... but with EDU's shift to "how-to's" and more knowledge/information-laden posts, readers will/should have no choice but to agree on the blog content... which reduces the lashback and hopefully increases MM's EDU traffic. But we both know that boring technical posts don't deliver optimal traffic so there must be a happy medium between pure editorial and pure informational.

But I have some thinking to do and perhaps some mental adjustments to make myself. Going forward I *should* ensure that my blog content considers first and foremost the best interest of the LUCIMA brand. But, let me admit to you that makes me sad on an fundamental level. Why? Because in the words of Tyler Durden "The things you own end up owning you". I left the corporate world with a bad taste in my mouth. I had had it with the bullshit politics and the "bottom-line". My training was in finance and business so yes I understand all that. But in my heart of hearts exists an underdog rebel (maybe even an artist) that is very much anti-establishment. So a large part of me (mostly the ego part) wants to say "F--- marketing, PR and the trolls on MM! The brand exists for me and not the other way around. Don't sell out to the bottom line Charles. Remember that your followers love you for who you are, because you tell it like it is. So don't give into the pressure to conform! You will regret this!"

But we both know that that kind of thinking can only go so far. Or could we go all the way? Because if I had done things the "right way", I'd have closed up shop long ago.

I employ a healthy dose of unorthodox practices in running the brand. Some of them are intentional. Some of them are not. All of them have repercussions. But that's the nature of being the chief executive. You have to make all the decisions whether or not you're well-informed and/or well-prepared. The question of branding and marketing is a constant one that I struggle with. It's all new to me. And as I mentioned before, my marketing/branding practices are often black-box experiments. Or maybe just a box of chocolates as Forrest Gump would say :)

But it's a great dilemma to have! Considering the alternative would be back at the cubicle of the accounting software firm.

There's time yet to talk about the changes going forward for EDU and my contribution to EDU! Thanks for sharing.

Cheers bud!

Workshop Q/A

2011-11-18T10:34:00.001-08:00

Monday Mornings. Jordan Daniele.

Here's an excerpt of a conversation I'm having with a future workshop student

I think I would have to do two days with you then, I just have to figure out how to work it into my budget.

I would like to learn how you do your post process work, how you pick a good picture from a great picture, how you retouch, dodge and burn technique, how you network, get noticed, and work with agencies. (west Michigan is more of a wedding photography area) How you interact with the model, how to pick what model to work with for different projects, and how to get published. I would like to spend half the day learning about this with you (would you mind if I bring a recording device to take note, it would be for my own use) the other half I would like to spend shooting with you.

I think the second day (if I can manage it), I would like to spend building my portfolio just shooting indoors and out, with different locations outdoor. I would like to book a second model for this day.

I don't need to learn about setups, lighting, metering or anything that has to do with studio work seeing how I don't own a studio (yet hopefully). I will eventually have to learn, but I feel like I can learn that stuff from local photographers.

I shoot with a canon 5d mark ii, what lens do you recommend? I only own two lens so with your recommendation I would rent one or two for the trip. My fav lens that I always go to is my 70-200mm f/2.8 and the second one I own is the 24-105mm f/4 (I'm thinking about selling this one because I rarely use it)

My response follows:

Don't sell the 24-105mm f/4 because that's the lens of choice I recommend for your use this time around.

My primary lens is 24-70mm f/2.8 (or was).

And also the 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if you have it).

Why? Well, particularly outdoors, I don't always have room to step back far enough to capture a full-length shot of the model. With the 70-200mm f/2.8 (which WAS my favorite lens), I find I'm limited by space when capturing full-length shots. Also the more physical distance between you and the model, the less of a "bond" however real or perceived this may actually be. Physical distance can be used to put the model more at ease. But these days the girls I work with don't mind if I'm standing on top of them working at close quarters. If anything, I want the models to respond more and not be too much at ease but that's another post I'll have to write shortly on my blog at a later point in time.

If you have one, bring a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 since they are so cheap.

We won't be shooting much between 24-50mm length. Most of your use of the 24-105mm f/4 will be between 50-105mm. We don't want distortion if we can help it. It's not a fashion look.

Since you don't have a studio, I won't harp on the lighting setups. However I will force you to see lighting from a studio photographer's perspective. The flaw of most wedding photographers and ambient light shooters is that they rely on soft ambient light (like overcast, shade, etc.) and they think that all ambient light is good light. Not so. You can still get raccoon eyes with ambient light if you don't watch the light. And because it's harder to detect (because of soft edges), most ambient light shooters never learn how to light correctly. They always carry that ambient light crutch that fools them into thinking their shots will be fine as long as there is cloud cover, shade cover, etc. We will do what you would do without a studio but we will build your mental lighting framework to ensure you're "lighting" well even when you can't move the sun. I'll show you how I shoot outdoors with or without reflectors (mostly without), how I select a backdrop, what makes a good backdrop, and of course how to use the sun to your advantage regardless of time of day.

We have several outdoor locations at our disposal.

Post-processing, absolutely.

Image selection is critical. It's arguably the most important post-processing skill. Can't polish a turd right? Aligning your "eye" with the client, model, MUA, editor, art director, wardrobe stylist, and/or model agent is critical. Being able to see from their points of view will land you bigger and better jobs.

Model-photographer interaction. You must ask me to demonstrate. I don't always do so but I employ subtle techniques from the point of contact to image delivery that ensures a smooth "transaction" all while building the relationship and level of comfort. There's enough for me to teach an entire class just on that topic alone.

We could actually talk about the contents of your second paragraph for days. I teach an entire business workshop that's a 2-day event that covers, networking, getting noticed, working with agencies (that's ANOTHER 2-day event), getting published, etc.

You can record as long as you don't share the recording.

Come with specific questions. Bring a notebook to write on and preferably a notebook computer to share your images so we can do post-processing together.

Over the course of these 2-days my objective is to raise your comfort level with shooting along with all the other aspects of photography that you're involved in so that you leave LA feeling like you elevated your photography game by multiple levels. But we must focus, ask specific questions and really gear to learn. The learning won't stop after the end of the second day, quite the contrary. It's simply impossible to assimilate all the stuff we'll cover so you'll slowly be absorbing knowledge for the next 2 weeks. But you have to prepare yourself to do so to the optimal degree.

Let me know if you have any other questions ;)

Fast Glass

2011-11-10T23:29:00.000-08:00

I've always hated the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D. For me it was always somewhat hazy and lacked contrast and sharpness.

It's not even the best 50mm that Nikon makes. The f/1.4 opens up even more at 3x the price.

Actually this is actually my second 50mm f/1.8D. My first 50mm, I purchased second-hand and after minimal usage, the aperture stopped responding to electrical commands. The physical blades still opened and closed but it just stopped working properly on my digital body.

Today I pulled out the 50mm f/1.8D. My rationale was that I was tired of the lousy bokeh on the 24-70mm f/2.8G. Great lens. Sharp. Great for zooming. But ugly bokeh. Prime lenses do much better in that department so I decided to pull out the nifty fifty and take it for a spin.

In fact, I had recently shot a paid test with the 50mm f/1.8D (because my 24-70mm f/2.4G was in the shop) and I knew that although the "nifty fifty" lacked contrast, the downsides of the lens were very manageable.

In fact, the lack of contrast seems to act as a physical filter to increase the sensor's ability to capture greater dynamic range. The shadows just aren't as dark and the highlights just aren't as bright... hence seemingly capturing more dynamic range. Whether or not this is actually what's going on is arguable, but l believe this lens holds shadows and highlights better.

The lack of an internal focus motor lost me a few frames here and there. Speaking of focus, the lack of contrast probably caused the difficulty focusing in the darker studio settings. I usually don't have problems with the 24-70mm f/2.8G.

Where the "nifty fifty" does best is open apertures. I shot my first set at 1/200th, f/1.8, ISO3200 and aside from the grain and softness (both of which I can tolerate) the images came out wonderfully. I obviously couldn't have done this with the 24-70mm f/2.8G. I was shooting ambient light which happens to be a 4'x6' skylight 18 feet above the ground. So not much light at all. And of course no lens is sharpest wide-open, but sharpness isn't paramount for me anymore.

The focal length forced me to foot-zoom but it also forced me to be more deliberate about my crop and moving in-and-out. This happened when I shot my Hasselblad a lot because I only have fixed focal-length glass. In fact Hasselblad only makes 1 or 2 zoom lenses. So I got more exercise today running back and forth.

The result of shooting the day with the 50mm however makes me reconsider the lens as well as my need for fast glass. But as my shooting has recently been more ambient-dependent, fast-glass has been more useful than ever.

Too many full-layered .TIFs

2011-11-09T22:45:00.000-08:00

I keep all my edited images in their full-layered states in the event I want to go back and play around and/or re-edit an image.

Problem is that my file names are usually DSC_XXXX.

Recently I've been encountering the following error message:

Thinking Photoshop was lying to me, I have been saving anyway. Little did I know that I was overwriting existing files. My rationale was, "That's impossible, I just shot this. How could there already be a file with that name on my computer?!?"

Simple, my file names have been used and reused because it only records 4 digits (DSC_XXXX).

So I have recently changed my file name to write DSD_XXXX for new file names that won't recycle at least for a while.

"Tilting"

2011-11-09T21:45:00.000-08:00

Bekka at Vasquaz Rocks

I've been asked to talk about "tilting".

I had no idea it even had a name. I think "tilting" refers to shooting an image without regards to the horizon being flat and straight. My initial response was that I hadn't thought about it enough to verbalize an intelligent response.

Well, here's my attempt at verbalizing an intelligent response.

I know sometimes "tilting" for me is a matter of trying to fit more of the model into the frame. And if that model is sitting or lying down or in an different position, the traditional landscape or portrait angle isn't going to work. So #1, practicality.

Other times, it's simply accidental. I am constantly moving as often as the model is moving so along with zooming and other adjustments, I'm also rotating my camera. So #2, pure accident.

Truth is, I don't do it as often as I should. Most of the time I do it, it's a closer crop with less focus on the background because no one will be bothered by the misaligned horizon. So I guess #3, when the background doesn't matter as much.

So there you have it, a faint verbalization of "tilting". Truth is, it's one of those things that just happens for me and I don't put that much thought into it.

Workflow: Retouching and printing II

2011-10-25T16:08:00.000-07:00

Yonex Isometric Tour 300. Circa 1995.

This is an addendum to my original post. I've been asked to touch more upon either (or both) of these subjects. Though that post was written over a year ago, it rings truer than ever.

When I played high school badminton for my school in Taipei carbon technologies (like graphite) were finding their way into the racquets we used. The "best" racquets were integrated "unibody" racquets where the handle, shaft, and head were all a single monocoque piece. Traditionally racquets were made of some metal in multiple pieces and then welded together. These "newer" racquets were not only lighter due to their materials but were also lighter without sacrificing structural integrity. For all intents and purposes these racquets were more structurally sound because they were designed as a single piece and not welded together. That being said, traditional welding was pretty good and I wouldn't necessarily bet on an old racquet falling apart at the welds.

I raise this example because the workflow of modern-day photographers has advanced in the same way that modern-day racquets are made; from a single integral unit. Retouching is no longer an addendum to the workflow. It is the workflow; an integral part that can not be separated out. I will go so far as to argue that the photographer should also be the retoucher (or at the very least have that core competency to oversee the post-process). This ensures that the retouching is not an afterthought but rather a follow-through of the artistic direction of the work. Clients and art directors appreciate this the most because they are reassured that at no point during the process does the work get outsourced to some poor chap (someone who literally lives in poverty) in a third world country who wasn't at the original concept/design meeting. Sure it's cheaper to get someone else to do it. But more important than the monetary costs of retouching is the quality control of that retouching. Can you really afford to lose creative control of the process? Can you really ensure that the artistic direction of the work stays uniform throughout the process? Hopefully so. But it's much safer if you (and your team) perform this integral function of the workflow internally. The transaction costs from outsourcing (without control) reminds me of playing "telephone" where the final returned message is some mutilated version of the original message.

To quote Ghost Dog quoting Hagakure, “It is bad when one thing becomes two” :)

Everything that has a beginning has an end...

2011-10-24T02:21:00.000-07:00

Nearly two months ago I received a letter at the studio that the property management company was terminating my lease at the current location for LUCIMA Studio. For 20 months I've been operating out of a 1,300 sf. warehouse space in Alhambra that I've called "home". It wasn't anything spectacular but it was the beginning of LUCIMA Studio. While I didn't have any immediate plans to leave, I also knew I wasn't going to be at that location forever. I had purposely signed a 1-year lease at the beginning so I wouldn't get stuck with a long-term contract. At the time I had no idea if I could sustain the cost of the studio...

20 months later I'm not only still here but have signed a 3-year lease for a 2,100 s.f. space. much closer to my house.

Tomorrow I move out of my current space and move into the new studio.

Tonight I reminisce the time spent at the old space.

Scalable Storage and Backup III

2011-10-15T11:30:00.000-07:00

OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2

Since January/February, I've been running an OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2 with 4 Western Digital 1.5TB Caviar Green drives.

The Caviar Greens are not rated for RAID but they are cheap and easily acquired and have served me well so far.

Until last weekend when one of the drives failed. The drive light began to flash and the audible beep came on. I turned off the beep. Reset the box. It came one again. I pulled out the drive, reset the box and still it refused to go away.

Ordered a new drive, put it in. Rebuild light came on, beep went away, flashing drive light went away.

Sent in the old drive to WD and got a (presumably) new one back. You're advised (by Lloyd Chambers) to always keep a spare in case this stuff happens. You don't want to sit around too long without protection. If a second drive fails, there's a high likelihood of data loss. Then you're SOL.

Then your backup solution comes into play. Do you have a backup of that box? What if you get robbed and someone steals the box AND your backup solution? Yeah, both drives at the same time. Highly likely if they're sitting next to each other as mine are.

Always have an off-site backup even if it's a few weeks old. Rotate through so you are protected against "mayhem" as the Allstate guy would say.

If you're curious just do a search for "Scalable Storage" in the search box to your right.

The Revolving Door of Models

2011-10-15T01:01:00.000-07:00

Around and around we go. Saint Tropez. September 4, 2011.

I subscribe to the revolving door philosophy for models. Specifically that models come and models go. As a photographer you should never get hung up about a model because there will always be others that can replace her (or him).

This of course doesn't apply to your muse(s).

I'm talking about seeing a model's profile and going gaga over her beauty and then jumping through hoops to shoot her. Tell me, when in the history of mankind has that technique ever worked out well for the one jumping through the hoops? Odds are it (she) isn't worth it. Beyond that, you're selling yourself short and if the model finds out how desperate you are to shoot her she'll lose all respect for you anyway.

Maybe I'm jaded? Because when I first started out as a photographer, I couldn't get a good model to save my life. As I slowly built my budding portfolio, I came across several models that I thought were "goddesses" for whom I would have done anything to shoot. I'd solicit them to shoot and inevitably get shot down or ignored. I even remember a conversation with one "professional" photographer that mentioned a model that he (and I) had always wanted to shoot, and we both concurred that she was "one of a kind".

Oh how wrong I was.

Sorry to say this but models are a dime a dozen.

Perhaps I've been lucky in that I have the opportunity to work with many girls from various backgrounds, experience levels, agencies, etc. From that experience I can honestly say that there isn't a model out there that's worth going through all that trouble for... I suppose I'm so used to being solicited that I can't imagine going back to asking models to shoot... much less travel long distances, getting a hotel room, just for the opportunity to shoot any one model.

It begs the question, "Are you trying to work with her or have sex with her?" If you've fallen head over heels in love with her at first sight then all bets are off. You, my friend, can do whatever you want because the rules of engagement no longer apply to you :)

But if this is your profession, then it makes no sense. It's a bad business decision from all respects to go to unusual lengths to shoot with any one model. Your resources are better used elsewhere and certainly no one model is irreplaceable. Unless they have the capacity to launch your career or something unusual of that nature like a Giselle or Adriana.

There are lots of caveats to this argument. I live in a big market for models. I work with the major agencies in this market. I do this professionally and not as a weekend warrior. So I have better access and opportunities to work with good models. Yes, I understand this doesn't apply to muses. Yes, I understand sometimes that "love at first sight" reaction propels art and creativity. Yes, I get all of that.

But given those "caveats" you have to concede that it's absolutely silly to jump through hoops to shoot any one model. Models come and models go. Wait a little while and another a fresh batch eagerly awaits. Thus it makes absolutely no logical sense to go gaga over a model. Of course historically speaking, humans have been known to behave rather illogically. And historically it has never made logical sense to attempt to rationalize human behavior especially as it pertains to the emotions and the arts. Fine, if that's the case then do whatever you want... I'm just saying that you don't have to. Did I just lose an argument to myself? WTF.

Why I rarely use skin-processing techniques anymore...

2011-10-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

100% crop of a full-length image I am currently working on. Courtney from Next Models. H3DII/HC 80. 1/250th f/2.8 ISO 200. No skin techniques applied.

Had a conversation with a fellow photographer yesterday and I realized a few things about skin-processing techniques that I wasn't consciously aware of.

Imagenomics Portraiture, frequency-separation, high-pass, even Gaussian Blur all do the same thing... they attempt to make skin more evenly toned through blurring.

This is true of every technique above. Even though you might not know what's happening in Portraiture, it's really just automating the frequency-separation technique and that includes blurring (I use the Surface Blur with frequency-separation).

But what each of these techniques fails to accomplish is to discriminately attack the problem areas. What it does is provides you a more even skin tone across the board (face). And therefore by definition these techniques behave indiscriminately.

One will argue "But then we can mask in only the effects where we want them"

That will make your overall image better but it doesn't change the fact that these techniques are blurring luminosity differences without consideration to content. It doesn't know (or care) that the problem skin is right next to the fragile details of the eyeball and (depending on the parameters) can very well blur the details of the eyeball into the skin. What now?

"Well we can always set more specific parameters"

You sure can, but with those parameters now it's not nearly as effective with larger patches of problem skin.

"But we can do 2 passes on the blurs one for more detail and one for less detail"

The band-aid arguments go on and on...

Don't get me wrong. These techniques have their place in the workplace. With careful manipulation they can allow you to retouch more images with less time assuming the "effect" is not detrimental to the image and the client is tolerant of the results. Furthermore if you "clean up" the skin before applying these techniques you can apply extremely stringent parameters and achieve amazing results. But regardless of the parameters, what always ends up happening (to various degrees) is that the middle frequency of skin tones disappears. You get great overall skin tone (and great pore detail if you use frequency-separation or Portraiture) but the local skin tones (middle frequency) get lost.

It's something of a conundrum really. It's exactly why until programmers develop an "intelligent blur" that understands the human face, retouchers will always have a place in this industry. The decisions I make when I'm dodging/burning, healing, or clone-stamping are all dependent on the area of the face I'm working on. I operate on the "conditionals" provided by the way the light interacts with that particular human face (and bone structure) so I can intelligently manipulate uneven skin tones. Thus I am incredibly discriminate. I darken what should be darkened and lighten what should be lightened. I don't apply an "average" across the board.

Plus I don't shoot as much beauty anymore but even when I do, skin-techniques such as the above are the last thing I reach for in my bag of tricks!

The "What if..." game

2011-10-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

San Gabriel Canyon Road approximately 3,500ft elevation. iPhone4 HDR'd.

The overarching LUCIMA philosophy that drives my learning is the question, "What if..."

Curiosity perhaps? Maybe. It manifests itself in many different aspects of my life. As an example, I was jogging in the mountains as part of my triathlon training and I kept wanting to see what was around every corner uphill. This caused me to run at least 1.5 miles uphill.

The following day I cycled 20 miles into that mountain. Of course, around every corner was another corner and just more mountain to cycle.

But without that curiosity, I wouldn't know what was around those corners. Without that curiosity I wouldn't have startled a doe not more than 30 feet away, seen a snake on the road, or observed change in plant life with increased elevation.

"What if..." is a powerful question. It opens doors. It allows you to explore innocently without judgment. More importantly however, it allows you to grow.

I still play the "What if..." game in the studio when I'm itching to try a new lighting setup or background setup. And I continue to play the "What if..." game when I'm retouching. In fact, I've noticed this game has allowed me to continue to explore the various aspects of Photoshop in depths that I would not have attained otherwise; often in the form of combining effects for multiple interactions. It allows me to question what I think I know and solidify what I really know and then build on that knowledge.

I suppose at the heart of hearts, "What if..." is a game of examining/questioning your assumptions. If your assumptions are true, then the expected outcome of this game will be totally predictable.

But more often than not, I'm surprised by what I could not foresee... and that's a powerful driver. In my workshops, students often attempt what I deem "classic lighting/photography" mistakes, and I always allow them to do so saying "Let's find out!". This experiment always serves two purposes: 1) It allows them to learn through their mistakes and 2) It always me to check my assumptions.

Because what if I'm wrong and they've discovered the best thing since sliced bread? :)

Because without "What if..." I wouldn't be here today.

The Baggage of Film

2011-10-08T01:43:00.000-07:00

Jessica Stam by Mariano Vivanco. Numéro Korea.

People tend to like to comment on conflagratory posts so here's another one that many of you will balk at.

First my personal disclaimer. I didn't really shoot film. Sure I had a 35mm film camera like everyone else. As a kid I had my negatives developed at the local camera store or sometimes at the supermarket. Never spent any time in a dark room.

For me that's worked out just fine.

Why? Because I'm a digital photographer. I can't be bound to 16 or 32 frames (MF 120 or 220, yeah I actually shot a few rolls before purchasing the Hasselblad). Just not my style.

It goes back to my What's in an Image post. I'm looking for the fleeting editorial moments that aren't "poses". I can't tell you when these moments will happen. It's much like trying to predict when lighting will strike. But when lightning strikes, the earth shakes, the heavens rumble, and sometimes one can create life (Frankenstein, Short Circuit, creation of life, etc.). But in order to catch lightning in a bottle, you have to be prepared for those moments, and you also have to shoot a lot of frames...

But shooting a lot of frames is hard for photographers that have lived through the days when film was so expensive. Back in the olden days photographers had to be precise about their metering, focus, and lighting because not only did they only have a limited number of frames, they had a limited bankroll to spend on film. As a result, film photographers were forced to be very specific about models' poses.

Those days are gone.

And while most of those same film photographers now own digital Canons and Nikons, few of them have adopted the volume-shooting style that digital technology affords. Instead, these photographers insist that their "take-as-few-frames-as-possible-precision" is the right way of shooting because it's exact and yields predictable and repeatable results every time. To that extent, they are absolutely correct. But what these photographers will never experience is (as I've stated before) "lightning in a bottle" because they feel wasteful when they shoot lots of frames.

It's the equivalent of someone insisting on getting their water from the well in the backyard even though there is running water connected to the house.

Why carry the baggage around from yesteryear? Things change. Embrace change.

But the baggage doesn't end with just shooting-style. These same photographers used to spend hours in the lab developing their film. Perhaps for this reason they resent Photoshop's ability to manipulate images with ease. Some of these same photographers will say retouching is "cheating" and that you should get the shot "right" in the camera to begin with.

Sound familiar?

This issue is not limited to film photographers. It can be seen in human beings across the board in various aspects of life. We all know someone who is "afraid" of the computer and doesn't have email. Or someone who refuses to carry a cell phone because back in the old days, people didn't have cell phones. Or even people that still schedule their lives around their favorite TV shows because they don't own DVRs.

Look, I get it. It's a reluctance to change. One day, I'll have my hangups about adopting new technologies. And sure, one can argue that digital photographers aren't nearly as precise and use "volume-shooting" as a crutch for not having a clear vision. Sure I get that. Or that Photoshop is just a crutch for not capturing things right to begin with. I understand that argument too. But being that this is a fashion-specific blog, I challenge you to open a copy of W, V, Vogue, Numéro and describe the current style of images. Gone are the overly-posed looks. What you see today is fleeting, motion, emotion, attitude, that is unpredictable and certainly not choreographed or staged or posed. It's real. It's candid. It's human. And it's alive.

Certainly, there are no wrong answers. Posed is not better or worse than natural. But being limited by archaic thinking and outdated practices will only hold you back from current trends and future growth. Use the lessons of film in the past and adapt that knowledge to the technologies available today. You'll be that much stronger and better than those that haven't had the experience of true physical photo-manipulation. Don't let the baggage of film weigh you down on your photoshoots.

The Way People Respond

2011-09-28T22:15:00.001-07:00

This is in response to the feedback I've been getting on ModelMayhem's EDU section. A while back I wrote a blog post about "Blondes do have more fun... in B&W"

My wife manages my MM account these days so I get updates from her frequently about stuff I should know about. Apparently my latest EDU post on MM has created quite the stir!

As background information, I've been working with an MM administrator to publish some of my blog posts. All of them have been aired here before being published there. So if you're reading it here, it's the latest and greatest. They are reposts over at MM.

The fact is that these posts are screened and sometimes edited for "public consumption"... meaning that this particular MM administrator approves all posts before publishing them on the MM EDU section... including the one in question.

Now, admittedly I haven't read the responses over there. And I'm not going to. What I have done is reread my original post. And of the many posts that I have, this one is one of the least inflammatory post in my recollection. So based upon my wife's feedback it surprises me how some people respond to this stuff.

And if the post were truly racist, I'm sure the moderator would not put it on EDU.

But seriously, y'all need to take a chill pill and take things for face value and not look for underlying messages (that don't exist). Same goes for people who read this blog. I keep a comments section here because I think like to see how people respond to the posts, but if y'all are just going to take things out of context and argue about nothing then either I'm going to delete your post or just take down the commenting function. You come here and read my blog. You don't have to be here. Especially if you're going to hate. I don't walk past your house and leave hate-mail in your mailbox regarding your lawn fixtures and garden gnomes. Just mosey on by... nothing to see :)

Now for those of you who are tried-and-true followers that have been here for a long time, I'm sorry that I haven't posted more often. You know I've been busy and I know that's hardly an excuse. Things move at a faster pace than I can honestly keep up with and these days I'm barely doing any personal projects of my own because of the work. I invite you to add me on Facebook or join the L U C I M A Workshop page on Facebook to see some of my latest work/events. Hope you all are well! Cheers!

Product Differentiation

2011-09-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

A while back a photographer friend asked me "What differentiates you from other photographers?"

Having just become a full-time photographer long before this question, I replied "I'm not really sure..."

Fast forward many moons later and I can answer this question in a few sentences.

I am a fashion photographer (including but not limited to beauty, editorial, and commercial photography) with project management skills from the corporate world and an MBA (and MA in Psychology) from the academic world. My client list includes many modeling/talent agencies, models/actors, designers, and fashion-related companies around the world. I have a fully-equipped studio in Los Angeles at my disposal to cater to small and medium-sized shoots. For larger productions I partner with several large-scale studios.

I'm a full-time photographer. Not a weekend warrior. Not available only after 6PM to answer your calls. There are plenty of hobbyists out there. I'm not one of them.

I own and shoot a $30k medium-format digital (Hasselblad) system to deliver high-resolution, print-level quality along with tethering functionality for creative directors and teams to preview images.

I retouch my own images which provides vertical integration of pre-production, photography, and post-production. Not only is this more effective for creative direction but this usually translates into a more cost-effective overall production as well. This way, the post-processing is seamlessly integrated into the entire production rather than an "afterthought".

A photographer is only as good as his network of talented individuals. My network of modeling agencies, models, makeup artists and hair stylists, designers, stylists, showrooms, etc. span the globe and are some of the most talented individuals in their respective professions. Together we can procure and deliver any part of a photo-shoot production such as storyboarding, casting, and video.

Above and beyond all however, the quality is in the images. Please see my portfolio for further details.

The question of product differentiation is really a question of monetizing your images. There are a great many artists (much less photographers) that possess gifts from God, yet they are financially dirt poor (like Van Gogh). The vast majority of clients can't differentiate A from B from 2 simple images. Of course as professional photographers we are quick to spot the "better picture" and keen on the differences. But without the ability to translate these differences in a dollars and cents explanation to your client, you probably won't get the sale.

As an example, a good friend of mine runs an online dating agency and recently their company added some high-value services that include individual matchmaking. As part of this service they've included portfolio images for the client. My friend suggested to the client that she should use me as a photographer but requested some old pricing that I had given him a while back. I told him my new rates he balked at them. I was very honest with him and suggested that my services are overkill for what he and his client needed. The level of perfection and fashion-orientation nature of my images are a poor fit for his dating agency needs. If he didn't need perfection, he shouldn't pay for it. I suggested there were plenty of weekend warriors with equally good cameras that could shoot his client for free.

Now that's not a good example of product differentiation. That's a good example of where the client can't see the difference between you and Joe Schmo. Since he was my friend, I was happy to leave things at that. Dating-agency portfolio images fall outside my genre of photography and I don't need that kind of work. But he's a friend and I'm willing to oblige if he can play by my rules. At the end of the day he's trying to save his client money and I can understand that. Interestingly, at the end of the day his client insisted that I shoot her portfolio regardless of the higher rates.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Throughout the workshop, I'll be telling more involving stories where I've had to build the value in the clients' eyes... on the spot. Some of them are funny. Some of them are not :) Hope to see you at the business workshop!

Growth in Workshop Students

2011-09-14T10:44:00.000-07:00

One of the things I love seeing is progression in people. As long as you're "falling forward" as my old boss would say, things will be okay. And on that note, I love reading about the successes and progress of the photographers that have come to my workshop. The ones that have been approved by modeling agencies after coming to my workshop, the ones that are creating incredible and powerful images after a lighting course, or even the ones that simply feel like they're on another level after doing a workshop.

It's these little things that validate my role as an educator. I love seeing your new work. I love knowing that I made a difference large or small. So feel free to show off your new images! :)

Looking for Reasons to Say No

2011-09-14T07:47:00.001-07:00

Displacement: V8 6.162 L w/ (Eaton) TVS Supercharger & Intercooler
Horsepower: 638 bhp at 6500 rpm
Torque: 604 ft·lb
Bore: 103.25 mm
Stroke: 92.0 mm
Compression: 9.1:1
Supercharger maximum boost: 10.5 psi (0.7 bar)
Redline: 6600 rpm
Brakes front: Brembo 15.5 in (390 mm)
Brakes rear: Brembo 15.0 in (380 mm)
Front/rear balance: 52/48
Curb weight: estimated 3,352 lb (1,520 kg)
0-60 mph: 3.3
Top speed: 205 mph (330 km/h)
Quarter mile time: 11.2
Quarter mile speed: est. 135 mph (217 km/h)
Production: 2000 units per year (estimated)
Price: US$111,120 to US$121,100
Lateral acceleration: 1.10 g

Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1 specs

I thought this would be an interesting article to write. Not sure how much fun this will be to read because I already kinda know how this is going to sound, but I write these for myself so it doesn't bother me too much how it reads.

The question is, what makes me say "yes" to testing a model. Or more importantly what makes me say "no" to testing a model. We're talking unpaid tests. I don't shoot many unpaid tests anymore but when I do, I have to make my time count. So the question is what are the red flags?

1. Measurements. I work off of pretty strict industry guidelines. I think I wrote about this a while back. 5'9"+ 110lbs are typical measurements for me. Deviations from the rule make me say no.

2. Range of Expression. This is a big one for me. Sometimes, people suggest models for me to shoot. One time, my wife suggested a particular model who she thought was great. When I looked at her port, I cringed. Why? The expression (singular because there was only 1) across every image in her portfolio was the same. My wife didn't believe me. So I did what any rational person would do. I took 2 random images (from different shoots) in her portfolio and Photoshopped her face out from one and pasted it over the other. The before and after pictures were identical. Needless to say I won that argument. Additionally, I was very proud of myself for being able to demonstrate my point so poignantly.

3. Who have you worked with? If a model does well, she probably shoots with people I know. Take Kate Compton for instance. She went from oblivion to billboards in LA in only a couple of months. She's shot with most of the good LA photographers.

4. Experience. I don't like working with New Faces. That's the division of new models at an agency. These girls are usually too young, too green (inexperienced), too shy, the list continues. Additionally on certain websites like Model Mayhem, there's a "join date". Anything less than a year is usually a big red flag to me.

5. Escorts. I don't mind escorts. But real models don't bring escorts. Because real models trust the agents they work with and the jobs (and photographers) they are sent to.

6. Too many images from the same shoot. If you've done enough shoots, you won't need to pull 10 pictures from the same shoot to fill out your portfolio. This usually means you don't have enough experience.

6.1 Not enough images. This usually means you don't have enough experience. At least you're honest about it and aren't putting up 10 pictures from the same shoot.

7. Too many images from the same angle. What about the other side of your face? How do I know you don't look like Darkman from the other side? Or too many pictures of just your face but none of your body? How am I supposed to infer your actual measurements? I'm not just a beauty photographer ya know.

8. Won't shoot nudes. Sorry, but for me this is a red flag because the models I work with must be confident with nudity. I don't always shoot nudity but not having that option limits our overall styling options. One time a designer brought this great-looking model but she wouldn't shoot in lingerie (much less sheers) because she eventually wanted to be a politician and couldn't have those kind of pictures floating around. That's great for her. But that's a deal-breaker for me.

9. Generic messages. When I receive generic messages or messages that aren't specifically titled to "Charles or Lucima" I know that the model was simply too lazy to write a real message. I know cut and paste when I see it. I know because I do it all the time but at least I take the time to address the message specifically to my recipient. At least I give them the respect that I actually know their name or have taken the time to read their profile when there is one.

10. Padding your stats (or your bra). You think I can't deduce your measurements from looking at your pictures? :) I hate looking at measurements stats only to later look through your images and say, "That's bullshit, she can't be [fill in the blank]". I hate liars.

11. Too young or too old. Sure there are exceptions. But if you're not 18 we can't work together because you'll need a chaperone. If you're over 24 we can't work together because I don't want to spend all day retouching your skin.

12. Too many piercings/tattoos. This is fashion. When was the last time you opened an edition of W or V and saw models with full sleeves gracing the editorials? Too many permanent alterations means less "range of transformation". You're supposed to be a blank canvas. How am I supposed to paint something new on an existing painting?

13. Fake boobs. Again, this is fashion. Fake boobs are for glamour.

14. Genre differences. Does your port look chalk full of fetish, glamour, commercial, etc? If so, we're not even on the same page so to speak.

15. Are you a dude? Seriously. How many men do you see in my portfolio? The only guys I shoot are for paid work.

16. I don't like your look. I can't apologize for this. Sorry :)

Well that was fun for me! I'm sure I've offended a lot of models but you can't blame me for being honest. Truth is, I'm just looking for a reason to say no. I don't have enough time to work with all the models that are out there so I have to be extremely picky :)

What's in a Modeling Agency Image?

2011-08-30T10:33:00.001-07:00

I found this on ModelMayhem.com and I thought I would share my response to the question:

So I did a test shoot with model for a model agency last week. They emailed a few comp cards of girls requiring new shots, so the first was done last week.

I felt the shots were lovely and asked for feedback moving foward, but was told this by the agent involved: "I must admit although they are nice shots I don't feel they are quite strong enough for the models folio's I feel they look like "TEST" shots. At this stage I might hold off doing another shoot."

While I'm disappointed, I don't let stuff like this get me down. Anyway, here's a link to one of the shots (more are on my page) and I was wondering if people have this kind of photography experience could help by telling me where it is I went wrong?

thanks folks

My response follows:

I'm going to try to do this gently because it could come off wrong but just as a disclaimer, I actually think this is a nice image but from an agency's perspective it does nothing for them.

The objective of the agency is to "sell" the models. Usually this happens in 2 steps. The client reviews the portfolios (nowadays online) and then selects to see them in person.

The objective of your images is to help them (the models and the agencies) get to step #2.

So you have to ask yourself: From the perspective of a client, would this image sell the model to me? If you asked me this question I would have to say no. Because as a client I'm probably interested in her proportions and I can't deduce that from the image because the dress is too long and she's sitting. This is why many agency polaroids are shot in swimsuits (and standing) or at the very least a tank top and jean shorts. Even within the models' portfolios you'll find many images that reveal a lot of skin. This informs the client better of what they're getting.

I've briefly reviewed Chadwick's and Vivien's for reference into the Sydney market. It confirms that although I'm in Los Angeles, the overall look and feel of the agency images are the same: simple, clean, showcasing the model and not the photographer skill, and certainly not makeup/wardrobe.

There are other little things that a client might read into this image. The Mona Lisa smile and the slightly hunched forward leaning posture... neither of which really inspire much confidence in me (as a client) to hire this model. She seems like she might lack confidence. Personally I wouldn't want my brand represented that way. These are the things that agents consider when they evaluate your images to them.

As far as the "test" comment. I think he/she is implying that this looks like a "test" shot (where you were testing your light) and not a "test shoot image".

Tip of the day: Mind your Background Exposure

2011-08-30T01:15:00.000-07:00

Kate. The Grotto.

Goddamnit. Goddamnit. Goddamnit.

That's what I said today after seeing the images on my camera when I didn't mind my background exposure.

The primary issue is dynamic range. A background with an extreme exposure range usually looks bad. Blown highlights next to dark shadows usually = EPIC FAIL.

The above image of Kate was balanced in-post tremendously to be presentable. In its original state, I almost deleted it. Hell, if it weren't for the fact I captioned it "The Grotto", this image might not even make sense.

The issue as I mentioned is usually dynamic range. To our eyeballs a sun-soaked ocean in the same frame as a shaded piece of rock looks just fine. To the Nikon D3 sensor, it's basically a blown-out patch of white next to a lost patch of black. So if you only mind your subject's exposure (in this case Kate, who has been properly exposed), you're going to wind up with an epic fail on your hands when you get home and find a large blown highlight next to a large black patch of shadow.

Mind your background exposure in capture so you don't wind up cussing yourself out later in post!

My Official Stance on Light Meters

2011-08-30T00:47:00.000-07:00

Screen capture from Forrest Gump. Forrest as a boy wearing leg braces to correct his crooked spine.

My relationship with light meters has had more ups and downs than the recent stock market.

When I first started shooting, I shot without a light meter.

Then after reading up on how professionals did things, I bought a Sekonic L-308S.

After using it a while, I got the knack of lighting and then lighting without a light meter. I was faster, stronger, and smarter. My eyeballs told me whether or not I was on-point with my lighting.

And then after teaching a few workshops, I started using my light meter again. Partially because students wanted to learn how to use light meters properly. Hell it's actually attached to my belt right now.

But I've been lazy. I'm less situationally aware. I'm less acutely aware of my exposure because I've been relying on my light meter.

I've decided. Going forward I am going to officially recommend that photographers ditch their light meters.

The problem with the light meter is that it's often used as a crutch for weak lighting knowledge and lack of situational awareness. When you depend on a device to tell you if you've exposed a scene properly, you're relying on a set of numbers rather than your own vision and judgment. That's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, you aren't even thinking anymore. At the end of the day the light meter is just a machine. It can't tell you if you're properly exposed or not. It'll just spit out a set of numbers. You have to determine how to act on that dataset.

The problem with most photographers is that we "set-and-forget". We set our lights and then start shooting and neglect the fact that the model is moving, that we're moving, and that everything is therefore dynamic. We think we can shoot hundreds of frames and the light settings will stay the same. And then we forget to check our lighting because our light meters told us everything was "dialed-in".

It's a crutch. A poor one at that.

With my L-308S I have been lazy about checking my lighting, checking my exposures, and checking my exposure evenness throughout the set. Sure, I am dialed in at the beginning of the set. But by the end of the set, I'm all over the place. Without my light meter, I'd be forced to assess the exposure evenness in the beginning and then also be forced to compare that first frame to the subsequent frames much later. Without a light meter I would be more vigilant about my exposure. Without a light meter my situational awareness would be much sharper.

Yes there's a proper way to use your light meter. The problem is that I believe most of us don't use it to our advantage, but rather to our disadvantage. It's a valuable tool no doubt, but it prevents most of us from developing the proper visual sensitivity to exposure. Hence it's a crutch that prevents most photographers from learning how to light properly. And like Forrest, we must ditch the leg braces before we can learn how to run. And then run we shall.

AdSense

2011-08-30T00:46:00.000-07:00

No thank you AdSense but I will not be flooding my blog with advertisement.

While You Were Sleeping

2011-08-26T10:08:00.000-07:00

I haven't found any consistency with capitalizing my titles. Sometimes it feels wrong, particularly when it's a phrase. I think about stupid things like that

Some of my favorite days are ones that I get to sit in front of the computer and just edit. Sadly those days are too few and far between in my life. The last time I spent any significant time in front of my computer was the weekend of July 4th. On Friday July 1st, I met Jay to discuss Kate's video (Project X). We shot Project X all Saturday July 2nd. On July 3rd and 4th I had 2 blissful days of pure editing.

I didn't see a single firework. I didn't go to any parties. In fact I slept early. And I stayed in my office all weekend long.

But the beauty of it all was that I knew that no one was going to bother me for 2 days. My phone was not going to ring. I wasn't going to get any messages or emails about work. I didn't have to do anything for anyone for 2 days. I got 2 days of freedom that I could play catchup and finally get some work done. It was as if the world were on pause and I was the only one in motion.

I miss those days. And it's exactly for that reason that I look forward to holidays and weekends. Not so I can go buck wild but rather so I can work without interruption.

Choice

2011-08-22T23:15:00.000-07:00

Ernie in the Challenge Stradale. iPhone4 & Camera+.

"Choice. The problem is choice." - Neo

It was the foundation of The Matrix movies. That humans must choose their reality in order to "survive".

It's also the foundation of real life.

This past week, I had a chance to partake in a "bucket list" event. Drive Pacific Coast Highway, down the Californian coast, in a Ferrari with my car enthusiast friends. What made it even better was that one of my friends was purchasing his first Ferrari, something that he'd wanted to do since he was a child. Sharing this event with these individuals was an opportunity that I would not miss. Even though I had a major client to shoot for a day later, I chose to go on this journey.

One of our friends did not make this journey. I think he wanted to go, but the weight of the world was on this individual and the realities of life were bearing down on him like none other. He elected not to go.

On the drive up to Monterey (from Los Angeles), I marveled at the starry night sky and thought how lucky I was to be able to be a part of this journey. How the paths of 4 individuals crossed so many years ago and brought us to this point so many years later. I was honored to be there sitting in the back of a Prius to pick up my friend's Ferrari. Even more important was the fact that I had the freedom to make such a choice.

Had I been working in the corporate world. I don't know that I could make this choice.

And like our friend who elected not to go, I would have probably regretted it to some level many years later.

As Neo said so eloquently, "The problem is choice."

Because the safe answer is "No".

"No" never puts you in harms way. "No" is safe. "No" is status quo. "No" is resistance to change. "No" would have meant me sitting at home the day before a big shoot, just retouching and making sure I was not 350 miles away from the studio.

But "No" doesn't get you anywhere... nowhere new at least.

When I chose to become a photographer, it was the first of many "Yes's" It was empowering and liberating. Taking control of my life on a level that wouldn't be possible in the corporate world. "Yes" got me to become an entrepreneur. "Yes" got me to teach workshops in Las Vegas and Calumet. "Yes" got me onto this trip to drive a Ferrari down PCH.

And yes, these choices are exactly what I live for on this journey. To know that it's my life and I'm getting paid to do something that I love. The client shoot went spectacularly and reaffirms why I do what I do.

The fear of jumping ship and becoming a photographer is purely the anticipation of the unknowns. It's like the clicking of a roller coaster taking you to the top of the tracks. But once you get to the top of the tracks and take that first drop, the rest is pure exhilaration.

There Are No Guarantees

2011-08-21T10:50:00.000-07:00

Did I know I would find success as a photographer when I jumped into this field?

Hell no.

But like any major decision, e.g. getting married, having children, buying a house, etc... there simply are no guarantees.

The best you can do is perform your due diligence and hope for the best. The rest is up to Lady Luck.

Of course, hard work, perseverance, and a little bit of talent don't hurt your odds.

I say this because I know many of you are thinking about leaving your 9-to-5 jobs and dream of pursuing a career in fashion photography. Or you're already moonlighting as a fashion photographer on the weekends. But you're scared to completely jump ship into the wonderful world of fashion for fear of financial instability.

Your fears are well-founded. Which is to say, "You should be scared"

Because most fashion photographers can't make enough to support themselves full-time and either quit or get a part-time job to support themselves. To this day, I'm still a little surprised I "made" it given the odds. Historically when people are willing to do something for free, you'll find it difficult getting paid for the same thing.

So no, there are no guarantees. In fact, there's a high likelihood that you'll fail.

So what is there to look forward to then? ;) I'll talk a little about this in my next post.

L U C I M A Fashion Photography Business Workshop

2011-08-18T12:24:00.000-07:00

Just posted the business workshop details! :) Click on the image for the jump!

L U C I M A | Kate Compton

2011-08-16T10:47:00.001-07:00

Also known internally as Project X ;)

Choosing the Wrong Images

2011-08-16T10:32:00.000-07:00

It had to be said.

Not every photographer's eye is as acutely developed as the next.

When Anna Wintour looks through images, she sees things that I might not even consider.

Similarly when I look through images, I judge by a different set of criteria than most others do.

As an example, in my last workshop I saw some amazing images on one photographer's camera as we reviewed them... literally on the back of his camera. Later on however, these same amazing images failed to find their way onto the LUCIMA Workshop Facebook group. Instead the photographer uploaded other images. Much to my chagrin these images he chose instead paled in comparison to the ones that I saw on the day of the workshop.

I bet if I went on his computer, I'd find better images of the models.

So why did he choose the "wrong images"?

Honestly I don't know. Actually I do know, but I'm going to answer this question in a roundabout way as I usually do. The point of the story is that I've developed my "photographer's eye" by having my wrist slapped time and time again. By models. By model agents. By designers. By makeup artists. By wardrobe stylists. By hair stylists. Sometimes they ask me to capture a different angle during the shoot. Sometimes they ask me to find another image in the set to retouch (instead of the one I already edited).

Time and time again I've been "corrected" in my selection process. Each time I evaluate their concern. Each time, I realize that they are (mostly) right and that I "missed something".

Without these experiences, without having your "wrist slapped" over and over again, you'll just defer to what you think looks good.

And boy, lemme be the first to tell you. You don't know what looks good. The bland expression. Awkward pose. Chopped off limb. Hand coming out of nowhere. Scrunching the model with lens distortion making her look fat and short. The list goes on and on.

Some of y'all need a good wrist slap or two. You need to hear it from someone like me because you'd rather not hear it from a paying client. Or a modeling agent.

Good thing we'll cover this in the Business Photography Workshop!

LUCIMA Business Photography Workshop

2011-08-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to do this workshop for a long time and I'm currently putting together the presentation material on it and it's a doozie! :)

Seriously, who says "It's a doozie!" anymore???

And what the hell's a doozie?

Apparently it comes from a reference to the Deusenburg automobile which in its day was one of the biggest and most impressive cars on the road. Doozie is short for Deusenburg. Reference.

LOL.

Anyway. The business workshop is a followup to my Working with Modeling Agencies Workshop and will tackle the most often asked question I receive, "How do you find your clients/work". It breaks down to the following pieces:

DAY 1

Understanding your Revenue Streams - Creating your own sub-niche
Marketing / Market Positioning / Market Perception - Making a name for yourself in the marketplace and how!
Sales / Negotiation - Ensuring you maximize your sales potential from each transaction
Balancing the Budget - Managing the financial equation
Reinventing Yourself - Keeping inspired and staying creative

We'll also tackle:

Professional Photography Workflow - What happens after the shoot? How do you manage your images?
Managing Difficult People - Strategies for dealing with douchebags.
Image Review and Critique - One of the weakest points of amateur turned professional photographers; selecting the right image.

DAY 2

We'll spend a day shooting and retouching and examining the elements from a "live" shoot. Wardrobe and makeup will be a factor. We'll also focus on model/photographer interaction and how to elicit the best responses to create powerful images.

This is just a rough outline of the topics that we'll cover! Stay tuned :)

J.J. Abrams' mystery box

2011-08-12T10:39:00.000-07:00

Corruption

2011-08-11T10:43:00.001-07:00

The days get longer and more drawn out with the things that I do and it leaves me blog-less. This bodes poorly for the future of this blog but here's a snapshot into my life.

I was sitting with a client yesterday and when I clicked on some edited images from Lr to show, the images suddenly shifted to a transformed, wrong color, whacky corrupted version of the original file. No amount of restarting, rebooting, etc. would do the trick. Even the full TIFF files with all the layers intact were corrupt. Backups were NOT made of these files most likely because they were corrupt and even if the backups were made, the backups themselves would be bad too.

What happened?

I had been editing a video for a few days (okay over a week) and I suspect that as my page file grew to over 16GB large, and the system started slowing down and becoming very taxed with After Effects, Lr, and PS being open all at the same time, that the saving of the files that I had been working on somehow got messed up. I conclude it's not a disk issue because I verified the disk and it checks out okay. Furthermore other than those 3 files that were corrupted, nothing else is bad. After getting the massive video project done, I rebooted and removed that chunk of data off my drives and my files save just fine.

I can only conclude that those 3 files were affected because of some glitch in the system and regardless of how disheartening that situation is, I should be happy it's just 3 files. In all honesty it was about 1 hour's worth of work. Here are 2 of the files I lost. This is all I recovered (a web-size image) of the files.

What could I have done differently? Well for starters when I looked at the full TIFF files, they were much smaller than the other full TIFF files in my folder. Less the 1/2 the size so that's an indicator that not all the marbles are there. Secondly maybe I shouldn't be working off a 16GB page file. That being said, it's unlike Mac OS to screw up like this up. Perhaps it's a Adobe thing as well as an OSX thing.

I have since re-examined my backup solution and ensured that they are working correctly. As my vault grows larger, I will be needing a more backup space shortly.

LUCIMA Workshop Facebook Group

2011-07-25T18:37:00.000-07:00

I'd like to invite you all to the LUCIMA Workshop group over at Facebook. It's an open group so you can peruse the images that we created this past weekend in addition to the workshops in the past.

It all started in April for our Las Vegas workshop but I figured we could showcase these images for current and future workshop photographers to enjoy!

I had great fun working with the various photographers that attended our Working with Modeling Agencies Workshop. We had 12 photographers from as far as Belgium! Day 1 we discussed the various techniques and approaches to working with modeling agencies as well as shooting studio work conducive toward agency work. For Sunday, we worked an amazing outdoor location again conducive towards modeling agency portfolio work.

After 2 days of amazing fun, it's hard to return to real life!

There's Something Sterile about Technical Perfection

2011-07-20T21:11:00.000-07:00

You've heard it before but I will attempt to explain it.

Digital cameras produce "sterile" images.

When you say sterile. I think impotence. Not in the ED sort of way but more like spaying or neutering for animals.

Advances in technology make engineers feel like gods. And in their search for new technology they push for more and more perfection. That's why digital sensors are amazing at greater resolution at reduced noise levels. Gone are the days of hot pixels, vignetting (lens issue more than anything else), and grain.

Yet we find ways to put grain back into the images (Lr).

Hell, we find ways to put light leaks and heavy vignetting back into the images so we can make them more "analog".

Because there's something human, soulful, familiar and endearing about "flaws". It probably explain why the Dianas, Holgas, etc. are making a huge comeback. It explains why Hipstamatic is a top iPhone camera app.

Technical perfection pushes the boundaries of becoming godlike, yet it removes all the familiar attributes of what it is to be human.

That's the point. Images aren't about perfection. They're not about perfect ratios and lighting and composition. They're about life. They're about soul. They're about the human spirit.

It explains exactly why I love this image below so much.

Admittedly it was blurry. The focus was off. Angie was moving. I was moving. It was shot with natural light at a low shutter, high iso, shallow DoF so you can imagine everything was working against capture. Hell, her arm is sharper than her face which means my focusing was really off.

Who cares?

Armchair quarterbacks and pixel peepers that's who. But you'll never see those guys create great images.

But in order to break the rules you should know what the rules are. I'm only here because I've spent thousands of hours trying to refine and understand "perfection". But now that I have accumulated an entire portfolio of "soulless" images. I'm trying to create life.

So screw technical perfection :)

Resilience vs. Adaptation (or lack thereof)

2011-07-10T21:56:00.000-07:00

Here's a riddle: What kind of person gets food poisoning on three separate occasions from eating the same exact thing each time?

The answer? Someone who is incredibly resilient or incredibly stupid.

I originally titled this post "Resilience vs. Stupidity" but I realized I wasn't arguing in the favor of stupidity. Admittedly, I am the person in the riddle above. I ingested a Costco hot dog on 3 separate occasions, each time resulting in food poisoning that produced high fever, body aches, nausea, loss of appetite, chills, dehydration... the usual. I would tack vomiting to the list but dry heaving doesn't count. I can't ever seem to barf anything up :)

Also, I couldn't argue for "stupidity" because it was exactly because I was overtly-logical that I ate the same thing 3 times with the same results. Logically speaking you can't convince me that thousands of people eating Costco dogs everyday are writhing in food-poisoning-misery. It can't possibly be the case. So before the 3rd incident, I chalked off the first two events as "coincidence", "bad luck", "random events"... you name it, I found a way to justify it. I mean, what's more likely that everyone eating Costco hot dogs are barfing their brains out or that I got unlucky twice in a row?

But where is the line between resilience and adaptation? When do you stick to your guns and when do you say "evolve or die"?

On Friday night, I decided to stick to my guns. It was not entirely implausible that I could eat a (now 3rd) Costco hot dog without getting food poisoning. I dunno, perhaps I possess some degree of irrationality that pushes me to tempt fate. Perhaps I believe that I am above reproach. That the normal laws of physics don't apply to me. But honestly, I was just betting that it was bad luck that I fell ill the first two times. And had I been fine from the 3rd incident, I would have said, "See I told you it wasn't the hot dog".

Instead, I have to listen to my wife saying "See I told you so".

But my bout with food poisoning isn't the topic of conversation. Rather the topic is when we should be resilient and when we should adapt to circumstances. This is an interesting question because far too often we find examples of humans repeating the same mistakes. And I think only humans make the same mistakes over and over again because I don't think animals have the mental capacity to rationalize making the same mistakes over time. Plus, it's too costly. If an animal makes a mistake, it could very well result in death.

Sure we've heard of artists overcoming all their naysayers that told them they'd never make it. They listened to their hearts, blocked everyone else out, and in the end they became wildly successful.

But then there are those that will eat the same thing three times in a row and get food poisoning three times in a row.

I watched a boxing match this weekend where Paul Williams fought Erislandy Lara. Williams had previously been knocked out cold by Sergio Martinez from a left hook that Williams did not (and potentially could not) see.

When asked about what he would do differently in this match with Erislandy Lara, Williams replied that it was basically "bad luck" that he got caught blind with that left hook by Martinez. Therefore, he would not and did not change anything about his fighting style. He made no adjustments for the Lara bout that would shore up weaknesses potentially leading to his knock out by Sergio Martinez.

And as a direct result, Erislandy Lara repeatedly landed left hooks that clocked Paul Williams.

It seems like a stupid decision for Paul Williams to adjust to unseen left hooks? But one can understand how the "stupid decision" could have very well swung in his favor. Had Martinez's KO been a fluke, Williams would have been stupid to change his style of boxing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... right?

So is it broke?

Well I dunno, is it? Really only you can determine that. Everyone has a different willingness to repeat the same mistakes. One might change after the first failure while another might repeat the same failure 10x over before changing... it really depends on the individual.

But in the ever-changing photography industry one has to adapt, learn, grow, and change... on the fly. There isn't enough time for us to make mistakes much less repeat them.

And yet, far too often I see photographers plateauing and repeating their same "achievements". Nothing changes for these photographers. The product the same images just with different models. While it's not as bad as repeating the same mistakes over and over again it's almost as bad. You rinse and repeat the same actions and achieve the same average results over time. That's great if you're one foot in the grave and you're on your way out. That's not so great if you're looking to make a name for yourself as many of you are.

So when do I adapt? When it pains me more to stay the same (obviously I'm quite tolerant or forgetful of physical pain). But those sentiments are different for each process. There are certain processes where I don't mind the status quo. I don't mind dealing with agencies to get top models. I don't mind exclusively working on Apple products. I don't mind shooting Nikon even though it doesn't do video well.

But when the status quo pisses me off enough or causes me enough pain not to address them... well the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Or in my case, I just replace the entire wheel altogether. I look for solutions that resolve the cause of the pain (and not band-aid solutions, I hate band-aid solutions). That's why I look at things holistically and systemically. I don't like piece-mealing processes together because without a good systems approach, gears/wheels/cogs won't fit nearly as well. I like thinking things through before executing on the plan because good pre-production is good production. But it doesn't mean that I'm not constantly evaluating and reevaluating my processes. Entire sections of the machine can be discarded if necessary.

So in a futile attempt to make this post about photography and not about my personal life. I'm saying look at what's not working in your processes and change it. Can't get enough tear sheets? Talk to more editors. Not getting enough jobs? Get more clients. There's a simple solution to everything. Change isn't hard. People make it hard.

So, fight or flight (resilience vs. adaptation)? Depends on whether the battle is worth fighting. What the odds are of winning/losing. And what you stand to win/lose. As for the Costco hot dogs that resulted in 3 KO's in the first round... I'm not looking for a rematch... yet :)

Tip of the day: Managing Difficult People

2011-06-29T15:50:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about this for a few days and it's an experience every experienced photographer has endured at some point in their journeys.

Difficult people. Whether they be stylists or models (because usually it's the stylist or it's the model). And yes you can quote me on that :) Difficult people need to be managed.

Let's break it down. Why are difficult people difficult? In my experience it boils down to some deficiency. This deficiency is usually lack of self-confidence/worth/love manifesting itself as a bad attitude or poor behavior. With that said however, I'm not qualified to psychologically analyze these personality defects. But what I can tell you is how these situations arise and how I've manage them.

It usually starts early in the shoot. If it's a model, she usually tells you how much experience they have shooting, traveling, etc. basically trying to convince you that they're good models. It quickly escalates to being very picky about makeup and wardrobe and sometimes refusing to wear certain wardrobe. In extreme situations they question the lighting and nonverbally (though they probably think it) you as a photographer. They always want to see how they look on camera and their usual responses is "Oh that's terrible" or "I don't like this".

What's really happening is the model is expressing a lack of confidence in the way she looks. Regardless of what she says, the truth is she is not a confident model. Most of the time this experience is paired with the fact that she is a bad model, meaning she can't pose. The objections to wardrobe/makeup/etc. are simply deflections of the true problem at hand; that she doesn't feel good about herself.

As a photographer you need to nip these situations in the bud early and often. Because like a weed, once that seed is planted it sprouts quickly and infests everywhere and is difficult to remove. It's has the potential to fester and ruin everything, especially the mojo of the shoot.

As an inexperienced photographer I didn't know what to say, I would agree with the model and take her suggestions and play along... not knowing that this was the worst thing that I could do. By agreeing or simply by accepting suggestions you are implicitly saying "You're right. Your concerns are valid. Yes, there's something wrong with the makeup/wardrobe/lighting/photography. Yes, we should listen to you. Please tell me what else is wrong."

None of which is helpful. All of which are extremely detrimental to the shoot.

Let's play this out. Or better yet, let me tell you a story where I did exactly that.

It was a shoot with a reputable agency when I had just begun that relationship with the agency and wanted to "prove myself" to the agent. They sent a model with all of the above issues. Bad attitude, everything was wrong, didn't want to wear certain wardrobe, even questioned my lighting. Stupidly I obliged to her suggestions. When I reviewed the images on the computer, I knew I had made huge mistakes. For example, the model wanted a more dramatic effect and wanted more darkness under the eyes. I obliged and moved the light more overhead, in effect making the lighting angle more steep and thus causing some major racoon-eye-action. When the agent received the images, she asked why the lighting was so harsh? I found myself in a conundrum; I didn't want to say "Well because the model asked for it" and I couldn't say "Yeah, it was my idea and it didn't work". But regardless of what I said, it was my fault. That was the last time I ever listened to the model when it came down to lighting.

Fast-forward many shoots later and a similar model walks through the door. First questioning the wardrobe, then the lighting, etc. Immediately I knew we were going down the same path; the path of no return. When we reviewed the images she would say "I don't like this" or "This doesn't look good" or "I'm not feeling it". In our dialogue I explained to her that she shouldn't sweat the details but instead focus on the feeling/emotion. She insisted she needed perfection and began making suggestions. Instead of obliging to suggestions or questions however, I postured and played the following card:

1. I know your agents better than you know your agents.
2. I teach a class on "Working with Modeling Agencies" because/hence I know what agents want.
3.1 I know what agents want because I know why clients hire models... and it's certainly not because of technically perfect images.
3.2. Clients hire models because they're sold on what you can be for them. Whether it's your look, your feeling/vibe, or what you represent.
3.3. But your images should first capture the viewers attention and then deliver the above message. Technical perfection has nothing to do with any of this.
4.1 You're a pretty girl but your images are flat. You need to give the viewer a reason to look at and remember you.
4.2 So let's instead focus in on your posing and your vibe. I'm seeing too many images with the same look/face/pose.
5. Why should you trust me? Because you've seen the caliber of images on the studio walls. Let me do what I do best.

I know that seems like a 5-card hand but it's really just one trump card. It's the "No, you're wrong" card. And not only are you wrong but I can explain to you why you're wrong and why you should listen to me.

Of course without enough experience you wouldn't know how to play that card or know that you even have that card to play.

But it's the most important card in the hand, albeit the last card in your hand. When someone expresses the above doubts about makeup, wardrobe, lighting, etc. they're really saying "I am challenging your expertise because A) I'm not confident in myself and B) I have no confidence in you". By obliging to suggestions you are basically saying "Yeah, you're right. I have no idea what I'm doing" which escalates that vicious cycle. Now your model truly believes she knows more than you know.

The "No, you're wrong" card puts the power back into your hands and stops the vicious cycle from spiraling out of control. That cards says "I'm in control and we will get amazing images with this makeup, wardrobe, lighting". This card quells the fears that dwell in the model's mind and instead plants the idea that she's made faulty assumptions of the situation. This isn't hard because this type of model is full of doubt and false assumptions. Raising additional doubts that are predicated on her being wrong is very natural. Yes, again. I said it. You can quote me on that :)

These types of challenges should always be addressed and answered with a strong hand. A better strategy is to completely preempt the occurrence of these events with so much clout and reputation that the model knows she's wrong before even asking the question. For example, no model in her right mind could dispute Meisel's choice of makeup, wardrobe, or lighting. But you're not Meisel...

Of course now I have to address the disclaimers. Yes, you should sometimes listen to the model particularly if they're soft-spoken and making harmless and occasionally useful suggestions. No, you shouldn't be overbearing and overtly sensitive to "challenges". As you grow more confident in your own skills, the less likely you'll see simple questions and legitimate concerns as threats. What you don't want to do is launch a nuclear warhead in response to a pebble tossed your way. What I'm suggesting is that in extreme situations, extreme measures must be taken to prevent extreme outcomes. Every situation is different and there isn't a single personality archetype that creates these situations. You have to be sensitive and situationally-aware to nip these issues in the bud... but only when required. The rest of the time you can/should enjoy the interaction and potential brain-storming of new ideas and suggestions.

Got it? Good ;)

Winds of Change

2011-06-29T15:40:00.000-07:00

5 posts in June.

That's pitiful. Really.

But if you've been following me on flickr (click any of the images on the photostream above) you'll see that I've been busy.

A better way to describe how I feel is stretched.

Things are changing around here and the LUCIMA brand as well as the studio is incorporating new pieces to expand our ability to be recognized as a photography powerhouse (for lack of a better expression). Lots of moving parts and modularity allows for me to think of the LUCIMA brand as a machine that is constantly being upgraded to perform well, better.

And of course as all of this happens I'm bound to experience to growing pains. It's been stressful sitting in front of the computer because it seems like I can't make a dent in the workload. I finally had a chance to write down all the things I have on my plate and I had to categorize the items on the list because without breaking things down the list began looking unusually long and extensive.

As things reveal themselves to me, I expect to reveal them to... in due time ;)

I sometimes wonder whether it's a matter of perspective. Perhaps things are a lot more comfortable than I think it's just that I choose to my circumstance as uncomfortable and challenging. Whether or not that's true, the reality remains that I'm having trouble falling asleep which is for me always an indication of higher levels of stress.

I sure miss Hawaii right about now :)

And while this is totally beside the point, I've decided to run the 2012 New York City Ironman Triathlon. I figured, my life wasn't nearly complicated and challenging enough so I really ought to do more. Yay me. Hooray for intelligent decision making.

The Perverse Reality of Fashion

2011-06-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

I'd been discussing with a model about weight versus my archetype of the perfect model and wanted to share with you my views.

When I got into fashion photography I didn't sign up for creating body disorder issues. I'm a health-conscious person. I exercise a lot and believe in well-being.

That being said, I can't apologize for the ideals that I adhere to and the archetype of model that I use. And often times these ideals "don't exist"; in other words, in real life the girls I shoot don't look exactly like my images. Whether it be the flawlessness of their skin or the incredible length of their legs or the size of their waist, I subscribe to an archetype that does not truly exist (or does very rarely)... Hence, ideals ;)

To non-fashion people it's a perverse reality to only work with girls that are size 0, 5'9"+, at <115lbs. But with that being said, neither do I try and mold girls into that ridiculous standard. You can only do so much to alter your look. Genetics, bone structure, etc. take precedence. And in the long-run, loving yourself is much more important than ruining your health to create fantastical images ;)

So it's a double-edged sword. On one end I'm only looking for girls that adhere to a certain look. On the other end, I don't want to tell you to lose weight so you can fall into that archetype. It's quite the conundrum. I suppose when I can reconcile these differences, I'll have volumes to say.

Must have dexterity

2011-06-14T23:46:00.001-07:00

There are a lot of jobs that require dexterity. Athletes, artists, and musicians alike all require some level of dexterity to excel at their occupation... unless you play soccer and you're not a goalie but you know what I mean :)

In the jobs I've held in the past, I've never needed dexterity. I've always worked in an office. Peter Drucker called us "knowledge workers" in that we used our knowledge and our brains to produce services/services and/or facilitate the production of goods/services.

Photography requiring dexterity? Not so much. Anything with an opposable thumb can hold and push buttons.

Retouching on the other hand... very much so.

And so it dawned on me that some of us don't quite have that level of hand-eye coordination. That's it's hard to smooth out medium frequency skin tones with the dodge and burn tool. That the Wacom tablet is hard on the wrists.

I had forgotten about this. The dexterity required to get in some difficult spots to retouch blemishes came very naturally to me. It wasn't long before I was totally at home with my tablet. Now several years later, the tablet is the most important tool I use to create what I create. I've said this before but I could shoot on a Canon (instead of Nikon), use Aperture (instead of Lr), and Gimp instead of PS. I couldn't use a mouse or trackpad instead of my tablet.

What if you aren't comfortable with the tablet? What if you aren't blessed with as much dexterity?

Practice, practice, and practice. This level of familiarity come with thousands of hours of practice. It becomes second nature and it shouldn't be that far off from writing/calligraphy. The only way to get good at it is if you want to improve and constantly work towards a more refined product.

For what it's worth I use the small Intuos4 because I don't enjoy the extra real estate because I draw with my wrist and not with my arm.

Decisive Moment

2011-06-13T21:56:00.000-07:00

Found this on Matthew Jordan Smith's blog and have been listening to this in the background while working/editing. What a gem!

Tomorrow's Beauty Workshop

2011-06-11T00:57:00.000-07:00

This will be the second time that I'm teaching beauty. The more I think about traditional beauty, the more I realize that it's not just a genre of photography (that's a subset of fashion) but it's a whole mindset of photography. I believe the biggest topic for tomorrow's workshop is:

How do you create beauty?

Of course there's the obvious. Find a great model, have a spanking concept, of course an incredible makeup artist like Kathleen Ty and then great lighting and voila!

But then there's all the little things that underly beauty... like how do you make a model feel beautiful? How do you interact with a model to give her confidence while getting the looks that you need? Those are things that I will hopefully reveal during the workshop tomorrow. It'll be the first time that workshop photographers get to see me in action working with a model that I have never worked with before. Those first steps and interactions are filled with subtleties... all of which matter.

Looking forward to seeing you guys tomorrow! It's going to be a blast! :)

What's in an image?

2011-06-07T14:53:00.000-07:00

Las Vegas Workshop. Anneliese, Bekka, Brett, and Kaley. D3/24-70mm/SB-800.

I always say, "A technically perfect image is just that... technically perfect"

Emphasis on the "just".

Though it's been a while since the Las Vegas workshop. The change in my approach to "what's in an image" has stuck. Namely that I continue to shoot more interesting images and less technically perfect images. If you look closely, there are all sorts of technical "mistakes" in the frames above. Yet, I purposely and knowingly captured these frames that way. Lots of motion blur from slow shutters, moving subjects, moving backgrounds, overexposure, underexposure, even lens perspective distortion.

But they make for interesting images.

After all, don't you think I could have shot these technically perfect? :)

So in a personal movement away from the mundane and towards the fleeting and magical moments that make an eternal impression, I've made it a point to attempt to capture what can't be "created".

It goes back to my Captivating, Emotional, Connections post. If you pose your models and try to exact a certain vision, you'll get exactly what you want. Or at least you should. But you'll never get magic. You'll never be surprised. You'll never capture "the moment". Neither will you capture motion, but that's understandable if you're posing your models to a T.

I suppose that there's an element of life that I'm trying to capture in my images. Something that lives in the image. Something that allows the viewer to also live through the image. You'd think two-dimensional images would be dead and for lack of a better word, flat. Your goal should be to make a two-dimensional image feel three-dimensional and alive. Your goal should be to allow viewers to connect with your image because that will make them look longer and furthermore remember your image. In a world where images are ubiquitous that's the only separation your image will have from the others.

Now don't get me wrong, my photography was born from fundamental technicalities. My ability to speak technical perfection fluently is what allows me to break from tradition and do things that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do. See things I wouldn't be able to see. It wasn't until my understanding of the mechanics of photography was fluid that I could manipulate settings and light successfully. When I was still thinking about metering and lighting, I sure as hell wasn't thinking about connecting with the model. I dare say that you have to have a fundamental understanding of the mechanics first... you have to know the rules before you can break the rules. Otherwise, you're just doing things willy-nilly with no repeatable success. And sometimes you'll get lucky but you won't even know how you got lucky.

So what's in an image? Hopefully a little bit of life and a little bit of magic.

Your move Phamiya!

2011-05-29T02:31:00.000-07:00

Holy mother of 200 megapixels Hasselblad!

I'm officially impressed by Hasselblad.

You know you're good-looking when...

2011-05-27T11:11:00.001-07:00

Yeah, I'm breaking my cardinal rule about this being a "talking blog" but it's my blog, I'll do what I want.

I had the opportunity to shoot Raina Hein again and Raina is without a doubt one of the most beautiful models I have ever shot. How good-looking you ask? Well, so good-looking that I thought I'd put together a "You know you're good-looking when..." list:

1. You know you're good-looking when all you need is some hair and lips in the frame and the image is stunning. See bottom-right above.

2. You know you're good-looking when you alter the retoucher's workflow in post-processing. True story, I didn't even bother copying the background layer in Photoshop for the 10 images I retouched of Raina for this set. For nearly all of these images my D&B/healing brush/clone stamp never touched her face.

3. You know you're good-looking when you make everyone around you look like a monkey. The story behind this actually stems from my lunch experience with Raina. Our team was too big to sit at 1 table, so we created 2 tables of 4 people. I sat facing Raina but at another table. And because we were at separate tables, I would momentarily forget that she was eating lunch with us. And as I would glance around the area, my eyes would lock onto her face and suddenly I'd be stunned... all over again... and I thought to myself, "Whoa, who is that girl? She's breathtaking..." only to realize that I came to lunch with her literally 10 minutes ago :)

Well there you have it. A short-list of things I discovered on my most recent shoot with Raina ;)

on Modeling Experience

2011-05-26T21:42:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: If you don't find this funny, then you should stop reading this blog immediately ;)

I was putting together some video for something else and I got into a discussion about models with "modeling experience" with my wife Catherine. The following is my take on the discussion :)

Growth II

2011-05-24T13:18:00.000-07:00

My boss Dave used to say "When they say they have 20 years of sales experience it's really just 1 year repeated 20 times".

He was referring to the way most people stop growing after they feel like they've "gotten the hang of things".

Now, I don't think he meant it literally. It's nearly impossible to rinse and repeat a single year 20 times over. I think what he was getting at was that salespeople (people in general) are resistant to change and therefore don't grow. And it's not unique to salespeople nor is it really that surprising. People like what they know. They like familiarity. They like routine. They don't like surprises. And they don't like change. Growth means change. Change is hard.

But growth and change can easily separate the boys from the men.

But I know far too many people regardless of profession that stagnate and repeat 1 year of experience 20 times over...

Of course as time passes and you generate revenue with the "routines" it's hard to break tradition and reinvent yourself. Sometimes reinventing yourself can feel like you're reinventing the wheel especially when you have a recipe for current success. Then you start asking yourself, "If it ain't broke why fix it?" And though it may be increasingly difficult to find time throughout the day to teach yourself a new trick, it's paramount to continuous success.

For example, I've been trying to learn FCP7 (Final Cut Pro 7) for a while now and it's difficult to set aside any time to just learn. Things aren't the same anymore. Definitely not like when I was learning Photoshop where 1) I could just spend days at a time on the computer and 2) upload my newbie-unpolished (but unscrutinuzed) crap out there for people to see. But I still feel that adding this skill-set to my repertoire is important so it's still on my to-learn list. Ultimately I feel it makes me a better photographer and definitely provides me a rekindled source of inspiration. The point is I understand how hard it is as a working pro to set aside time to "reinvent yourself".

But I am constantly evaluating and re-evaluating my game plan. Who knows when RED will shoot 20MP at 1/1000th shutter speeds and high ISO :)

Tip of the day: O P [ ]

2011-05-18T18:07:00.000-07:00

That's where my left hand resides 90% of the time I'm retouching. These are the shortcuts that I use regularly off the top of my head. This is my hand positioning but it might not work for you.

Stylus has OPTION bound to front button
Stylus has CMD Z (undo) bound to back button

O - Dodge/burn tool (holding the OPTION key when dodge tool is selected is burn)
[ - Decrease brush size and cycles through options
] - Increase brush size and cycles through options
CMD + (thumb and middle finger) - Zoom in
CMD - (thumb and middle finger) - Zoom out
J (with pinky) - Healing brush
OPTION [ (stylus OPTION) - Navigate layer below
OPTION ] (stylus OPTION) - Navigate layer above
B (big reach with pinky) - Brush tool
L - Lasso tool
M (with pinky) - Marquee tool

Left hand on ASDF
CMD Z - Undo/redo
CMD OPTION Z - Undo multiple
CMD SHIFT Z - Redo multiple
SHIFT CMD X - Liquify
F - Full screen
S - Clone stamp
CMD SHIFT E - Flatten all layers
CMD S - Save
CMD SHIFT S - Save as

Please don't confuse honesty with malice

2011-05-17T23:14:00.000-07:00

I have about 15-20 files open in Photoshop but I need to address this for my own sake.

Please don't confuse honesty with malice... you can just as easily convey what you want to say without hurting the person's feelings.

Especially when that person is yourself.

Which is to say I owe myself a big apology for being so goddamn harsh in my criticisms of myself over all these years. Years of beating myself under the pretense of honesty.

I thought I was warding off self-delusion. Instead I was just harboring self-loathing which has festered and grown into doubt, fear, greed, and a myriad of other demons.

And for years the people around me told me "Charles, you're too hard on yourself"

"Bullshit", I thought. "I'm not hard enough on myself, otherwise I wouldn't have failed at [fill in the blank]"

And like the coach who pushes his son harder than any of the other kids on the team, I figured I could take it. Because I had to hold myself to a higher standard. And that higher standard meant no bullshit and no excuses and no pulled punches and no sugar-coating the goddamn truth.

I'm the guy who thinks T-ball is the cause for the everyone-deserves-a-medal delusional mentality of our society. So I sure as hell wasn't about to go soft in my self-critism.

Hell, I believe no one deserves a medal and especially not myself.

And I did this in the name of self-defense of all delusional reasons! That if I beat myself up, that if I were my own biggest critic, I could protect myself from the pain that I would endure in the hands of others.

Boy was I wrong.

This self-inflicted mental torture makes waterboarding look like a bar mitzvah.

So stop.

And I'm talking to you too.

There's something about you guys out there that still somehow find your way onto this blog. You share in many of the same pains I've experienced. Sometimes greater. Perhaps you find solace in my stories because you've walked similar paths. And I believe that a good number of you feel the same way I do and can treat yourselves poorly.

So stop.

There's no reason we can't be gentle in the deliverance of the same message. You can be honest without being malicious.

That's all.

Captivating, Emotional, Connections

2011-05-16T22:25:00.000-07:00

I am trying to develop an emotion or feel through my images... to be honest [my images are] – boring – uncaptivating & unemotional – I would love any direction you could give me. One things that became obvious to me – is that I need to spend more time talking to the models ... & less time shooting. Maybe also be a bit more focused in the shots I want. I almost never find out any sort of backstory about the model, find music that may change the mood or expression ... so, incorporating elements like this may be a step in the right direction.

Got an email from Justin that I've been meaning to answer for weeks now and interestingly, I was asked similar if not the same questions from a photographer at my Calumet workshop today.

Actually within this question are a series of questions that I'm just going to answer and in shotgun-fashion, hope that I hit a/the target.

Uncaptivating & unemotional - It starts at at capture and of course even in prep. The more prepared you are with a concept, the better you can realize a vision. While realizing a vision doesn't guarantee that the resulting images will automatically be captivating and emotional, it does increase the odds that the resulting images will captivate you and move you. What moves you may not move me. But moving you is more important than moving me. We're each on a journey and we need to adhere to those concepts and ideas that move us otherwise we'll fall flat.

Image selection is also critical. I always choose the images that make me do a "double-take". Or something that captures my attention. Usually the images I retouch jump off the screen and scream "Pick me damnit!!!" Of course those are the easy ones to choose. Again, you just have to choose the ones that move you.

And though I'm jumping around here, I find that the more captivated and moved I am when I'm shooting, the more often I'm captivated and moved by the images later on in post-processing. Which leads me to...

Connecting with the model - I've written about this in different forms but connecting with the model in some relatable way is paramount to getting a good shot and creating something that is both captivating and emotional. As a backstory, I recently did a private workshop with a photographer that didn't say 2 words to the model when she was doing hair and makeup. During this time the photographer would get on her computer and either do photoshop, or surf the Interwebz or chat with the wardrobe stylist. This is a prime example of what not to do.

It's bad enough we don't (often) have muses in this day and age. I think the relationship between photographer and muse is broken. I don't think those relationships exist anymore. At least not in the same way that they used to exist. So basically each time you shoot a model, you are usually just meeting her for the first time. Which means you have approximately the time it takes to do hair and makeup to build enough rapport to get some captivating and emotional images.

Yes, there are days I don't want to talk to the model. Those days are rare. And even if I don't want to talk to the model, I still talk to her enough to ensure that she believes we are going to create some incredible images. She has to trust me as a photographer. I have to believe in her as a model.

What do I say? I don't know. It depends on what I can find out about her to connect with her on some human level. Think of it as speed-dating of sorts. Or a 5-minute sell. I mean answer me this: Why should she open up to the camera and reveal parts of her personality that are vulnerable? Why should she push the limits of her expressions, her poses, and try stuff she's not sure will work?

Well if she doesn't know and trust you as a photographer, I can pretty much guarantee she won't.

Captivating and emotional are adjectives that transcend two-dimentional images. They are abstract "things" (for lack of a better word) that can be captured by images. I don't know how. Nor will I attempt to explain why. But I do have a feeling that it has something to do with the human spirit, chemistry, feeling, personality, moment, emotion, etc. So call me a mad scientist but what I think we're after as photographers is to create all the right conditions that are conducive to creating "life". Adding all the ingredients into the "primordial soup" if you will. And hoping beyond hope that life emerges from it.

It's not easy. I'm not sure what the exact ingredients are. I'm not even sure that it's necessarily possible. But we try. Because we've seen it happen. We just aren't sure exactly how and why and when it happens. But the results are addictive and we want more.

So absolutely. Understanding your model can only make it more likely that you'll create something captivating and emotional throughout your shoot!