Simon Gerzina Photography Blog

Music to Shoot By

2010-04-01T12:12:00.000-04:00

I'm on the road with clients for the next week, so you'll have to excuse this slouch of a post.

Curious what's on heavy rotation on the studio stereo while we're working? Read on!

Be warned: this represents my taste and no one else's. One of the few places I can totally pull rank in the studio is being the boss of the playlist. Usually. Well, sometimes.

In no particular order:

1. TV on the Radio, "Halfway Home"
2. TV on the Radio, "Golden Age"
3. Nine Inch Nails, "Discipline"
4. Spoon, "I Turn My Camera On"
5. Flight of the Conchords, "Business Time"
6. Mark Ronson, "Oh My God"
7. The Grassy Knoll, Positive
8. MGMT, "Electric Feel"
9. Girls Against Boys, "One Perfect Thing"
10. The Hives, "Tick Tick Boom"
11. The Von Bondies, "C'mon C'mon"
12. Jet, "Are You Gonna Be My Girl"
13. Phoenix, "1901"
14. Radiohead, "Reckoner"
15. Shiny Toy Guns, "Ghost Town"
16. Keane, "Again & Again"

Something else I should be listening to? Put it in the comments!

Posing: Megan & Adesuwa

2010-03-28T21:04:00.000-04:00

If 75% of being a model is about having the look, then the remaining 25% is definitely about knowing what to do with it.

Posing is one of those things about modeling that doesn't come naturally in the least: it's a learned, practiced thing; like dancing or gymnastics, it's about understanding how your body moves and what the camera sees. For models, that means lots of time in front of the mirror and lots of time in front of the camera.

As a photographer, when you work with a model who both has the look and knows how to use it...well, it's a dream. Suddenly you understand what all of the fuss is about. You're no longer working with a model, you're working with a Model.

The image at left is Megan from Muse NYC from a test shoot this week. Click through for behind the scenes video and info!

First off, a video: watch both Megan and Adesuwa move through the entire setup in time lapse, paired up with every frame that was shot in the setup! Head over to Vimeo to watch it large, if you like.

A little background: this was the final setup of the day for both Megan and Adesuwa, though we had one more model coming in after them. We had already shot both "clean" studio and natural-light looks with both of them, so I wanted this to go in a very different direction. I knew from the beginning of the day that I wanted to use this look, and knew that it would require heavier makeup and hair styling than the others, so it was naturally moved to the last setup for each girl.

The lighting setup:

The background lights are set to pretty safely blow out the background, as I wanted to ensure a clean, graphic white, but the reflector panels minimize any blowback onto the models. I wanted a crisp, moody foreground light, so a single head with 40-degree grid rakes across the models from high and camera-right. It's close enough that there's a pronounced falloff of light across the model's body, soft enough to render smooth and beautiful skin but hard enough to leave detail in hair and fabric.

The direction to the models was pretty simple: move. We wanted dramatic shapes and poses, which meant moving. So we cranked up the music, turned on the fan and let 'er rip!

Images are below.

Workshops

For those of you within a reasonable distance of NYC, don't forget that the April 10-11 workshop sessions will be using an entire day to cover model directing and posing! Visit the workshop page for more info, registration or to get on the mailing list.

Held Together by Chewing Gum and Paperclips

2010-03-22T16:59:00.000-04:00

Image via the always-entertaining Photoshop Disasters blog (though this seems to be a "Lack-of-Photoshop Disaster").

Posted to make a point: much like the earlier post about makeup, people need to remember that fashion photography is artifice. People aren't that perfect, clothes don't magically hug every curve of everyone other than you.

By the time we're done styling a model she can frequently only be shot from one angle...because the other is covered in clothespins and binder clips and tape.

Does the shirt pooch out a little bit over her tummy? Clothespin it. Waist is a little loose on those pants? Safety pins in the waistband. Model doesn't have quite the perfect cleavage in that tanktop? Stick a couple of "chicken cutlets" in her bra (silicone pads that, well, put things where you want them). And this is before the actual Photoshop, where models are routinely rearranged and rebuilt such that they don't even resemble themselves.

Remember, it's all about control...before you start snapping, look at what's in front of you and ask yourself, "is this what I want it to look like?"

Anna Webber makes some touch-ups on Sylvia before we shoot a commercial look.

On the Importance of Makeup

2010-03-16T13:02:00.004-04:00

I know that there are photographers who revel in the idea that their power over the final image is absolute, that anything that falls short in-camera can be saved in Photoshop.

If that describes you, cover your ears.

I call bullshit. As photographers who construct images, rather than document the world around us as it already exists, one of the most important skills we can have is marshaling the talents of others and playing director...and two of the most important talents we can have at our disposal are makeup application and hairstyling. These two things, when done well, can be all that is necessary to elevate a photo from pedestrian to polished and complete.

That model over there to the right, that experienced fashion model from a major agency, that girl in the prime of her life and blessed with genes that most people would gnaw off a limb for, surely she walks into the studio looking like that, right?

Read on, friend.

Taken with a point-and-shoot first thing after she got her coat off.

You can expect the best models in the world to arrive looking like this. No makeup, hair unstyled, wearing jeans and t-shirts and sneakers. Usually Converse All-Stars, at least in NYC. In fact, you want them to arrive looking like this.

Because photography, any kind of constructed photography, is about control.

When a model arrives with makeup done or hair styled, you either have to have them redone or you shoot them as they are...you give up control. When a model arrives wearing the clothes you're going to shoot her in you have less control over the wardrobe...and it's now got whatever wear and tear it received in transit.

When a model shows up with hair and makeup done, and you have no makeup artist or hairstylist on-hand, you're now committed to shooting it whether you like it or not. Would you book a model for a shoot sight-unseen? Get dressed in the morning with your eyes closed? Cook dinner by reaching into the pantry for each ingredient without looking at what you were ending up with?

Why trust such an important part of your images to the judgment of other people and give up the ability to fix it if it becomes a problem?

In fashion, it's standard to request that a model arrives "clean-faced" and ready for styling: this means showered with clean hair, no makeup, preferably nothing on her skin more than light lotion, nails trimmed and clean, body hair recently-shaved as necessary, eyebrows maintained but not over-pruned. Everything else will be done on the premises - which is to say that everything will be done on the premises. Because that way we can not only ensure that it's being done by professionals, but we can ensure that it's being done the way we want it to be. Control.

"But Simon," you say, "not everyone has the luxury of bringing a swarm of stylists to every shoot! (you spoiled bastard)"

True enough, I say. Often your subject is doing her own makeup and that's just that. But the idea still applies - it's important to have these things done in your presence, to your specifications, so that you maintain control over your images. Whether it's a fashion shoot, a low-budget model portfolio, an actor's headshot, a private portrait...my request is the same: I'd rather have someone bring a bag of makeup and have to wait the 45 minutes it might take for them to do it at the studio. Because it's being done the way I know it should be.

One of the parts of my fashion workshops that I enjoy most is having one of my makeup artists, like Anna Webber or Dana Dodson (from the NH workshop), come by and give a primer on collaborating with and directing a makeup artist at a photoshoot. As photographers, we don't need to be able to do makeup ourselves, but we do need to be able to speak that language and understand what's involved in achieving a certain end result. You don't have to do it yourself, but you do have to be prepared to direct someone else's doing of it.

I firmly believe this is why I'm able to keep production so simple, retouching so minimal: when you have excellent makeup, excellent hair, excellent wardrobe...well, you're almost all of the way there. A big part of what's left is just not screwing up.

Another shout-out to Anna Webber and Annie Reynor who did the makeup and hair in these images, respectively, and Bryn Taylor who styled the wardrobe.

One from the Mailbag: Wardrobe for Spec Editorials

2010-03-15T14:43:00.000-04:00

Here's an email I received that I thought might be of general interest to folks. Chris writes:

"Hey I have a question on putting an editorial spec together, this is something I'd love to do- I have talked to some people about it and also caught your blog about it - but it seems the biggest challenge is pulling current season clothing without magazine backing, how do you approach this, or do you go with a more abstract idea that doesn't focus on brand clothes? Do you talk to editors to see what sort of editorials they would be interested in or just go with an idea you like?"

First of all, I've been called on not properly defining my terms, so I should point out: a "spec" editorial, or any project really, means you're doing it "on speculation"...there's no client attached nor any promise of publication, but you intend to shoot it as if there were and then shop it around after the fact. With a spec editorial that means casting, producing, shooting and editing the story to magazine-quality, then sending it around in hopes of someone being interested in publishing it. Ad agencies also design spec ad campaigns in hopes of winning a client's attention, screenwriters draft spec scripts for TV shows, graphic designers mock up spec layouts or packaging designs for existing products, etc. In essence, it's a way of proving your chops when people aren't willing to give you a shot on faith.

Now, to the question at hand: it's actually even more complicated than that, Chris. Not only do you need to obtain the wardrobe without a magazine's endorsement (or "pull letter"), you need to obtain next season's wardrobe. Yeah. It just gets better and better.

The idea is that the fashion in an editorial should be current and relevant (if not cutting-edge and prescient) when the magazine hits newsstands, so that means being ahead of the curve...potentially several months ahead of the curve to accommodate the time necessary for a magazine to be edited and prepped for print. Luckily the fashion industry is built around this, with new collections designed and executed a season in advance to allow for garments to be shopped to wholesalers/retailers and mass-produced - prototypes, or "samples", may be available even though the final product isn't.

Your best bet is hiring or collaborating with fashion stylists who have their own relationships with designers, know what looks and styles are on the verge of hitting the public and can borrow samples more-casually - you may not get next season's BCBG or Hugo Boss or Prada but you will get clothes that people haven't seen yet.

And here's another good tip: if you're shopping to smaller independent magazines, smaller independent designers' wardrobe may be the ticket anyway. The designers will be hungry for exposure that they couldn't otherwise afford, the magazines will appreciate seeing something a little different and you could be building a relationship that you'll return to in the future.

Getting an idea of preferences from a magazine's art director, photo editor or fashion editor will certainly give you a leg up, but there's a lot you can learn just by doing your research: pull every recent back issue of the magazine you can find and get a sense for their taste and what kind of fashion they're using.

Upcoming Workshops

Just a reminder for folks in the greater NYC area, the next photo workshops have been scheduled for April 10-11 and registration is currently open! Head over to the workshop page for descriptions of the sessions and more information.

Workshops, Past and Future

2010-03-10T11:48:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know I've been a little quiet - bad blogger, bad! I promise you'll be seeing some more informational posts right quick.

But first, some housekeeping.

I want to thank everyone who attended February's workshop in Nashua - as a trial run for taking these workshops on the road I thought it was a rousing success and we had a great group of attendees that made my job that much easier! Thanks also go out to Sid Ceaser for playing host and opening up his studio to all of us miscreants, Maggie Inc. out of Boston for supplying the lovely Gianna and Shaina to model for us and my son for managing to sleep for the better part of the drive there and back.

A few things struck me during the weekend.

First, when I lead these workshops in New York the crowd skews pretty young: I'm 36, and I'd say that I sit on the older side of the room (figuratively - the "Old Guy Seats" aren't mandatory). In Nashua, that wasn't the case at all. I can't tell you guys how much I respect your commitment to picking up and sharpening new skills when you've already established yourselves in other areas and, in some cases, have entire careers under your belts. I love seeing that the learning never ends.

Second, it hit me how much more important cross-training is in a smaller market: in NYC people can afford to focus solely on fashion or portraiture or what-have-you, but the New Englanders tended to be shooting in any number of different disciplines. It's an important reminder that you can't let your vision narrow too far and need to be able to adjust your creative approach and direction for any number of different kinds of client.

Third: hot dogs with Feta and olives? Holy cow. I'm going to start making those at home. Good call, Sid!

The next workshop will be back in NYC on April 10-11, and we'll be doing a repeat of the fashion crash course, as it seems to be really popular with folks. I'm excited to also be doing an entire day on just model directing, posing and interaction, which I think is a totally underrepresented aspect of photographing people that tends to get lost when we start talking about gear and technique and the nuts-and-bolts stuff.

Click through the link above for more info, and I look forward to seeing everyone!

Shooting an Editorial: Pre-Production

2010-01-20T13:32:00.000-05:00

I've written about and posted to my Flickr stream plenty of technical info about my shoots, but what about the operational stuff? The nitty-gritty planning and pre-production that has to happen before I get to pick up a camera and make pictures?

In this case, I've got a fashion editorial "spec submission" that I'm shooting later this week that I think makes a perfect case study.

In a nutshell, a fashion editorial is a series of images run in a magazine that tell a "story" or speak to a central concept or brief. It could be "vintage air travel", "liquid", "Day-Glo futurism"...it's just a matter of designing a series of photos and fashion looks around that initial brief.

A "spec submission" is something that the photographer and team are shooting with no guarantee or expectation of publication by a particular magazine. We're going to produce, shoot and edit the story on our own, then shop it around as a finished piece to any number of magazines to see if we can find a good home for it. It's not uncommon, but not having a magazine's name attached can make it harder to source wardrobe and other resources.

So, that said, this was my process.

Three weeks before shoot:
I've had an idea rattling around in my head for a couple of months now but just haven't had the steam to make it happen. Basically, it involves using long swaths of raw fabric to fashion makeshift dresses on models, then matching each "dress" with appropriate hair/makeup and jewelry. Given that it's currently frickin' freezing in NYC, this is definitely a studio shoot. I decide I'm picturing it as a study in monochromes - black/white fabric, simple and clean.

I get on the phone and pitch it to a wardrobe stylist I've been working with lately and she's into it. We decide that it really sounds like an accessories story - the fashion that it'll really be about is jewelry, shoes, bags, etc. The "dresses" will be a stylistic backdrop to those other items. She also says she'll be comfortable handling the draping and forming of the "dresses", so that's one less other person we will need on the team. We pencil a date into our calendars and give ourselves mutual to-do lists.

The stylist mentions that, without a "pull letter" (the proof that a magazine is agreeing to publish the results of a shoot) it might be tough to get mainstream or major label wardrobe, so we agree that we'll end up pulling from independent and younger designers that she has relationships with. In general, this means that we'll also end up shopping the photos to more-independent magazines.

Two weeks before shoot:
I confirm the date with the hairstylist and makeup artist that I want to work with - both of whom I've worked with in the past and know I'll be on the same page with.

I run the shoot past my first-choice model agency to check availability for models - in this case, Ford Models here in NYC. I've had nothing but great experiences with them and the booker I work with there has taken wonderful care of me, so if she's interested and has girls available it'll make my life much easier. I ask for two models and mention that I'd prefer that they be of similar "type".

Ford emails me a "model package" - basically a link to a lightbox on their website that shows a hand-selected group of models and their stats, electronic portfolios and polaroids. The booker also suggests that one of the models included is someone she'd really prefer that I include if possible - luckily she's one that I would have chosen anyway.

I accept that girl and agree to select the other and finalize details the following week, once I have confirmation on our wardrobe pull. I also download PDF versions of the portfolios for the girls I like so that I can keep them for reference and distribute them to the rest of my team. Since we're fashioning the wardrobe ourselves, sizing is less of an issue that normal...we're basically going by the models' general looks and whether we think they'll bring something interesting and exciting to the shoot.

Wardrobe stylist mentions that she's found a great jewelry designer with some cool pieces available for loan but that the designer is asking for insurance or collateral - I email over a PDF of my proof-of-insurance certificate demonstrating $2,000,000 loss/damage coverage.

Five days before shoot:
I pop out emails to a couple of guys I know to see if they'd be interested in shadowing the shoot and do some light-duty assisting.

Wardrobe stylist confirms that she's either getting or gotten the items she wants for the shoot and feels confident about everything. We make a date to get on the phone and talk through a loose shot-list, so that we have a sense of how many "dresses" we'll be making and what shapes they'll take.

Already having a studio means I know where I'll be shooting and all of my gear is already in line, otherwise I'd be calling around to reserve lighting equipment and a rental space right around now.

Three days before shoot:
I confirm the models with Ford only to find out that one of my choices has been booked to another job in the interim, so they send me another model package with suggested replacements. Three of the four I like, but one of them is listed as having a 10.5 shoe size - the model we already have reserved is an 8.5. I verify with the wardrobe stylist that this will pose a problem for the wardrobe pull and eliminate her, leaving two models to consider. The booker loves them both, so the stylist and I choose the one that we think would bring the best energy and counterpoint to the shoot.

We set model call times and nail down the details.

I confirm call times with the assistants and team, then start planning out my shooting day: first model will arrive at the studio at 9:30am, so I'll have the team arrive at 9, the assistants at 8:30 and I'll arrive at 8. I'll get the heat turned on and pull my lighting gear out, then once the assistants arrive we'll repaint the cyclorama and start staging lights. Second model will be arriving at 1pm, so that gives me a sense of how quickly we'll need to move: if we do 3-4 looks per model and expect to lose 90 minutes/model to hair and makeup, I can expect to have about 2 hours of shooting time per girl...let's call it 20 minutes/look to be safe.

...and that brings us to today.

Stay tuned for the shoot itself!

Location Scouting

2010-01-17T18:22:00.000-05:00

Let's get this one out right away: location scouting? Not my favorite thing in the world, not at all.

I've got so much respect for the people who do it professionally. Back when I worked in television I was always blown away when the scouts would pop open their location info binder and have first choices plus multiple backups for everything, multiple Polaroids of each location, contact info for the owners, maps to everything...and I had absolutely no interest in being the guy collecting all of that stuff.

But let's face it - being in the studio can get boring sometimes. I love "happy accidents", and that kind of unexpected inspiration comes more readily when you're out in the world. Sometimes you've got to take the shoot outside and give up a little of that control if you want the really cool stuff. And that means finding places to take the shoot to.

There was a time in my life when I spent a lot of my time just ambling around the city. Between being social, running errands, having free time to kill and having really depressingly-small NYC apartments (and roommates!) I probably walked 10 miles a day - it's not hard to build up a mental database of cool locations that way. Now I'm old and sedentary and domestic, so it takes a little more organization.

It's not that I don't still come across great spots unexpectedly, it's just that I put a little more care into keeping track of them.

My first helpful trick: iPhone. This isn't going to be a big product plug - I think it's a cool little device, but "Jesusphone" it ain't. I've got a love/hate relationship with Apple, but this is definitely one of the bonuses: always having a GPS-enabled camera in my pocket. I can't speak to the other models, but my 3GS geotags every photo I take with it, meaning no more carrying around a little notebook for scribbling down street addresses and descriptions. See a cool spot? Snap a few images and go on my way.

For getting those images off my phone, I use Pixelpipe. It's not perfect, but it does several things pretty well: batch-uploading multiple files, can upload to any number of destinations and it leaves that precious geotagging intact. At the end of the day, that's all I need.

And where do I send them? For better or worse, to Flickr. But not just to anywhere on Flickr - to a private, friends-only photoset full of nothing but location scouting images. Because Flickr uses the Yahoo Maps API, it takes advantage of the geotagging info and places those photos on a map for me, meaning I've now got a browseable database of locations with snapshots of what they look like, plus I can put additional info in the image captions at any time. It's not perfect, but it's easy.

I'm prone to pulling over to snap reference images on my regular bike rides, walking around my neighborhood, on my way to meet friends for dinner or drinks, whatever. See someplace interesting? Snap. Upload when I think of it, done. If I have a part of town in mind, or I'm traveling someplace I think I might be back to, I'll go out and walk or drive in circles just to document things worth coming back to. When I need something for a shoot I can browse by thumbnail or by location on the map.

But I'm always looking for something better! How do you guys track and organize your location info?

KISS

2010-01-07T23:35:00.001-05:00

Keep. It. Simple. (Stupid.)

Listen, we all have our "look", our creative point of view, we all want to put our personal stamp on images and make them stand out from the crowd. I get it. But we become like kids let loose in the kitchen to make dessert: adding sprinkles, adding frosting, adding hot fudge, adding, adding, adding, adding.

What's wrong with a nice sugar cookie?

What's wrong with subtracting?

It's something you see all the time on Flickr or other community sites: folks just getting their feet wet with studio lighting or serious photography and wanting to use every trick they can get their hands on...opposing kickers, tone-mapping, comping multiple frames, replacing backgrounds.

How many posts per week are there about trying to get the "Dave Hill Look"? Last year it was the "Jill Greenberg Look", right? The year before it was "Draganizing"?

And yet, so little time spent thinking about the subject of our photos. When you're spending so much time and energy constructing that much stuff around an image, how much time and energy is left for the person you're photographing?

I'm finding myself working with just a single strobe more and more. It can be nervewracking - look at all those shadows! But it's freeing at the same time: once that light is placed and looking good you get to be done with the production, it gets to be time to think about the person. Thinking about the performance, the styling, the mood.

The photo of McKenzie at the top of the post was done with just a single beauty dish against a white cyc, a white reflector panel in front to lift the shadows a bit. The photos of Isabella to the right were lit with a large octabox against the same white cyc. In both cases there are probably a number of things I could have done by adding additional lights or modifiers - if I sit and look at them long enough I'll find five things about each that I would do differently. But for every ten minutes I spend futzing with gear and tweaking and revising I'm losing ten minutes of time with my subject...and I'm losing ten minutes of their patience and interest. I think it pushes me ten minutes further away from the photo that could have been.

Perhaps my creative point of view is all about getting out of the way and letting my subject speak for themselves?

January 23-24 Photo Workshops

2010-01-07T17:23:00.000-05:00

Just a little reminder that we're still taking registrations for my studio photography/lighting workshops, being held on January 23rd and 24th! Space is getting limited for the 24th but there are still one or two spots available.

Saturday's session will be a solid primer on studio photography and lighting for the advanced amateur or intermediate photographer. We'll be looking at things from the perspective of a portrait or fashion photographer and covering studio basics, metering, use of accessories like appleboxes and flags, grey cards and utilizing simple one- and two-light setups.

Sunday's session will be intended for photographers with a focus on fashion work. We'll spend much of the day discussing self-promotion, working with model agencies, constructing a portfolio, testing, the differences between shooting for a "real person" and shooting for wardrobe, working with a team. Additionally, we'll be demonstrating and working with several lighting setups especially-suited to fashion work.

More information is available at my site - if you have any questions or would like to register, just send me an email at booking@simongerzina.com.

What is "Testing"?

2010-01-02T12:43:00.003-05:00

Let's think of this as "one from the mailbag". It comes up a lot on community sites and message boards, via email, in my workshops:

What does "testing" mean? I see it referred to a lot in reference to fashion shoots and I'm a little confused.

One caveat: my answer is in the context of a major industry market (New York City, in my case) and may not apply the same way in smaller and local markets. In general, the major markets (NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami...London, Paris, Milan, Tokyo, Shanghai) all behave in the same way...but all bets are off in the smaller markets, where every agency and client and photographer is reinventing the wheel.

Let me start with what "testing" doesn't mean:

It doesn't mean "I'm shooting a proof-of-concept for a commercial/client project and I'm going to use a model to stand in for it so I can try out a technique and show the results to my client before we pay the real talent."

It doesn't mean "come stand in for me while I test out new equipment."

It doesn't mean "a model agency is going to have a model do a dry-run photo shoot in order to decide whether he/she is worth signing."

It doesn't mean "you're going to model for me for free for a quick shoot in order for me to decide whether you're worth paying to model for a longer shoot."

So what does it mean?

Generally, it's the process of photographers shooting for model agencies to develop the models' portfolios. For the photographer, it's a way of updating their portfolios, building relationships with agencies, making sure their portfolios are full of images of working models with "current" and modern styling and generating imagery that might be different than what their clients are hiring them to shoot. For models, it's a way of gaining modeling experience and building out their portfolios - keep in mind that your average major-agency model will probably have a portfolio consisting of 4 photos when he or she is signed: standing in front of a white wall in the agency, taken with a point-and-shoot camera, a series of straight-on, profiles and full-length. That's it. They're referred to as "Polaroids" and they're the only images most models start their careers with.

A test shoot generally involves a "team" - hair and makeup at the minimum, usually a wardrobe stylist as well. It will mean shooting several different "looks", whether on studio or location.

There is both paid testing and unpaid testing, but most photographers will only experience the latter. The reality is that only a very select few photographers establish such a strong relationship with an agency that they become an agency's "go-to" for developing their models - and there's rarely a shortage of photographers lining up just hoping to get a foot in the door. Even being selected for unpaid testing with a major agency is a testament to the quality of one's work and that agency's appreciation for it - being hired for paid testing is the product of years of networking, proving oneself and building a reputation.

Even some of the world's most-renowned photographers continue to test - it's not something that's only done on the upswing of one's career. Basically, testing is an opportunity to shoot something with notable and significant talent but without a client attached. The editorials that you see in major fashion magazines often are created on spec as test shoots.

In the online world, people use terms like "TFCD" and "TFP" in a way that approximates testing, but those terms really don't exist in the brick-and-mortar industry any more than "port" and "tog". Testing is a process and concept with a long history in fashion and modeling, something that's understood and done in every major market - "TF*" will mean something different to every person you speak to.

Later - the process and contents of a test shoot!

Dance Project

2009-12-31T11:08:00.048-05:00

As much as I spend most of my time playing with fashion photography these days I think I still consider myself a portraitist at heart - even when the goal is to make something "pretty" I'm still striving to make it "interesting" first and foremost. I'm sure the fault is all mine, but it's felt like I've had fewer opportunities for shooting portraits lately, so it was time to make my own!

I'm not ashamed to admit that I've caught the same Dance Fever that's been going around for the last year or two...I'm huddled around "Glee" and "So You Think You Can Dance" as much as everyone else is, though my wife gets the credit for providing the gateway drugs on those. So when it came time to create my own excuse for a portrait project, and a little self-assignment for the slow season, shooting dancers seemed as good one as any.

My thinking was this: we all see dance as motion - whether it's fluid or aggressive, we're used to seeing the entire progression of dance or dance steps, not frozen moments. We see the whole, or larger parts of it, not really little fractions of seconds that might stand out on their own. It seemed like an interesting opportunity for still photography.

Living in New York, you get used to seeing performers out of their element (or, at least, out of the element of performance): celebrities rolling out of bed and hitting their local coffeeshop, models in jeans and flipflops and sweatshirts dashing through SoHo with their portfolios, dancers in leotards and legwarmers on the street heading to ballet class. I love the idea of comparing the dancer out of their element to the frozen moments of performance - stillness from motion.

My gut just said there might be interesting juxtapositions to be had. And it might beat sitting around watching Dr. Phil.

Here's Mallory, Lemington and Solomon, taken from two of the shoots. She's a modern dancer turned hiphop dancer, they're choreographers and same-sex ballroom partners.

In doing these I decided to keep the lighting and staging as simple and consistent as possible for every shoot, just so one wasn't looking at the production instead of the subject. I thought it was important for my presence to take a backseat to theirs - essentially the opposite of shooting fashion.

So far the project has been a blast and is resulting in some really interesting images! I'll be collecting selected images in a Flickr group and expect to eventually make a little art book out of them, even just for myself. It's turned into a perfect way to keep busy during down time!

Bag of Tricks

2009-12-28T10:18:00.001-05:00

I'm still recovering from the holiday festivities and travel, but I wanted to sit down and address something that comes up a lot in emails to me and that I address in my workshops. The question goes something like:

"When you're lighting a shoot or setup, are you starting from scratch every time?"

And the answer is: yes and no.

Basically, I do approach every shoot as its own thing and requiring its own creative process and considerations. But that said, it's rare that you've got enough time on every shoot to explore and play and fiddle and see what works and what doesn't, especially on a portrait or fashion shoot where you're responsible for nailing a few different looks in a short time and expected to get a reasonable amount of coverage on each look. You aren't always going to have the luxury of saying "let's see if this works" and just winging it.

And thus enters what I like to call my Bag of Tricks!

Every photographer has one, whether they know it or not. In the worst case, it's the lazy habits and creative crutch that you rely on to get you through a shoot without breaking a sweat. In the best case, it's a series of tried-and-true techniques, creative approaches and lighting setups that you know you can employ to get a reliable result...that way you still have time to try something that might or might not pay off.

I think of it like this: when a model agency sends me a model for portfolio development, there's an expectation that I'll send back at least 2-3 looks, with a bunch of options within each look, that are appropriate for use in that model's portfolio. Those looks should probably mean different lighting setups, wardrobe changes and hair/makeup styling from one to the next - that's a lot of ground to cover in a short time, and the fallout from not hitting that mark isn't pleasant. In order to stay consistent and reliable, 1 or 2 of those 2-3 looks are going to be setups that I've shot any number of times in the past, have shown to the agency and gotten positive feedback on, and know that I can duplicate with a minimum of fuss.

By "minimum of fuss" I mean "can get the camera and lighting ready for it in under 5 minutes." I want to be waiting on hair, makeup and wardrobe, not having those things waiting on me. Or, even better, I want to be shooting a different look with a different model and still able to be ready for the next thing.

When it comes to fashion, one of those go-to looks for me is what I call my "Gap Look" - it's simple, clean and somewhere between editorial and catalog:

It's worth noting that the same lighting setup and approach works just as well for beauty:

And even for portraits:

All three of those are the same single light and modifier, just in different positions and relative distances. The setup time is minimal and I know that I can get at least those looks without additional gear or time lost to a swap. They're also versatile enough that they become starting points for layering on other touches or variations, yet they're still recognizably my work and style.

I might have four or five similar setups that require minimal gear, give me a reliable result and that I know the value of to my clients. Relying on them for a shoot frees up time that I can spend experimenting, trying something new or different, throwing in an extra setup just for kicks without having to stress out over whether it's going to be a dud. I'm still trying new things and seeing what the situation might allow for, but after I've gotten the tried-and-true shots that let me say that I've already nailed the shoot.

For anyone in the position of needing to achieve proven results quickly and efficiently, developing your own Bag of Tricks is a basic necessity.

Slideshow: Anna & Kaitlyn

2009-12-18T12:37:00.001-05:00

On the tail end of the previous post, here's a little video slideshow of the complete shoot! I find it really interesting seeing every frame I shot as a progression, not to mention seeing the variations and similarities I make in the moment.

Anatomy of a Shoot: Kaitlyn & Anna

2009-12-15T18:46:00.004-05:00

This is an "anatomy of a shoot" post that I previously wrote up for Fred Miranda, but I thought it would make a great inaugural post for this blog as well. This dates back to October or so, so don't get confused by the seasonality of it!

I wanted to get a little bit of outdoor shooting done before it got too cold out, so I lined up a couple of models from Ford Models and Basic Model Management for a test shoot. I blocked out one model for the morning for the location work, then another for the afternoon so we could overlap the two on studio looks. We set an 8am call time at the studio so we could do initial hair/makeup and pre-sort the wardrobe, then hit the road out to Jones Beach on Long Island.

Continues after the jump!

As per usual, this is where things start to go off the rails a little bit. Jones Beach doesn't have the sections that I'd scouted the week before open to the public, so we end up on a different section. And the lovely, perfectly overcast day that I'd hoped for (so that we could shoot cool Autumn looks) turned into a bright, hot, sunny, summery day as soon as we arrived. And it turns out that my light meter has died overnight, leaving me feeling totally hamstrung and moronic. No problem, let's shoot!

(The images posted in this thread have gotten only basic editing and no retouching, so be kind!)

We start out doing some very simple natural-light commercial looks, more for myself than for the agency. Here's Anita, the hair and makeup artist, doing a little touch-up on Kaitlyn:

And one of the resulting shots:

That's just natural light with a small Lastolite Tri-Grip diffusing the sun landing on her face. Not going to post them all, but we do roughly 3 wardrobe changes and setups along these lines.

Then we move on to a more editorial look so that Kaitlyn's booker doesn't get pissed off at me. I break out the Profoto AcuteB and a large Softlighter, mount it to a monopod as a quickie boom, move up onto one of the dunes. I enlist Anita and Francesca, the wardrobe stylist, to keep everything from blowing away:

And here's one of the resulting shots:

Then we realize we're running late, so we make a quick pee break then hop in the car and head back to the city.

Anna, the next model, turns out to be running a few minutes late, so we unpack at the studio and grab a quick lunch, then start with the next setup. Anna goes through hair and makeup first while we do a fitting of the next looks on Kaitlyn, then I reset lights and start with Anna while Kaitlyn goes into makeup.

We're shooting a simple, clean, retro studio look of a pseudo editorial "story" using a bunch of vintage rock'n'roll t-shirts. Here's a quick setup shot:

Lighting was a 5' octa to camera left with just the inner diffuser installed, an Acute2 ringflash on the camera with the WideSoft adapter on it, some of the shots had another head with a 40-deg grid behind the models to camera-right. There was generally a fan on the models as well. Here's a diagram:

And resulting shots of Anna and Kaitlyn:

While waiting on a hair/makeup change for Kaitlyn I set up a quick second lighting scheme for Anna that didn't disturb the first (added a Profoto backlight with just Zoom reflector, kept the ringflash at the same setting and just removed the octa from the previous look):

These are the kind of images that I know may not work at all, but the 10 minutes it took to setup for them is more than worthwhile - between an additional setup and a cigarette break for the team I'll usually pick the additional setup. We were getting close to running out of time on Anna after a couple of wardrobe changes, so we did one last change and ran outside to do a quick natural-light look in the same hair and makeup:

And a behind the scenes on that:

That's Francesca again, holding a large piece of white/silver foamcore to get a little more light in Anna's face. After that we called Anna a car service and sent her packing. Kaitlyn had no other plans for the afternoon, so she stuck around. We finished out the rock look and decided to do two clean portrait looks for her agency, which required another hair/makeup change, one of which I don't have samples yet for but one I do. Here's one of the shots:

And here's a diagram:

After that we called a couple more car services, cleaned up the studio and went home for a later dinner!

All said, about 900 exposures were made of 8 setups across 3 locations with about 10 wardrobe and 6 hair/makeup changes.

Welcome back!

2009-12-15T18:20:00.000-05:00

So after several years of leaving this blog to gather dust (last updated in 2006!) I've decided to start actively posting content again. Keep an eye open for behind the scenes on photo shoots, stream of consciousness editorial info, videos, random musings while I wait for planes...in other words, nothing that promises to be entertaining. Good times!