Jan Klier's Blog

Posts now published on LinkedIn

2015-04-08T08:16:00.004-04:00

Please follow my posts on LinkedIn's long-form platform for more recent posts, thoughts, and musings. This blog will stay around for a while as archive of old content.

Changing Social Media Focus

2014-09-14T11:57:00.001-04:00

It's time to re-prioritize my social media presence. I've been on social media probably for the better part of 10 years now and have significant followings on many platforms. I also had definite and measurable impact on my business through my social media presence.

But in recent months I've found that my time investment, and my audience didn't align as much anymore with my goals for social media. I've been spending significant time on FB, and occasional time on the other networks - enough to maintain them, but not enough to grow and really leverage them.

FB for me is reasonably engaging and social, and there are some important connections in my FB network, but they're mostly peers and talent I work with, and people I like to stay in touch with. They're not the people that are influencers and decision makers in the industry. So while it is important to stay in touch and nurture the part of my network that are important resources, that can only be one part of the story, and time invested has to proportional.

Twitter has a much more broad and interesting sphere of people, and if properly used allows for good engagement, or relationship building. Similarly Instagram also if properly used can build a good network. There are many important people I need to stay in touch with or stay on their radar, who are not on FB, but who I can easily reach via Twitter and Instagram.

LinkedIn is of course a good source of staying connected, and following more corporate elements in my network. And Pinterest is an interesting sleeper in the bunch. I use Pinterest mostly as a public mood board, but get very steady traffic on it, that I haven't really converted properly.

In the coming months I will spent more focused effort on Twitter and Instagram to get more traction and experiment with best ways as a commercial fashion photographer to engage with the right people. This may include some focused Twitter Advertising.

The last several months I have invested quite a bit of time into our photography collective, and Paid Google Ads to drive traffic. That, in combination with my recent website redesign has resulted in good improvement of my organic search traffic and I now rank on the first page through our collective website, and middle of the second page for 'New York Fashion Photographer' with my own website.

For the upcoming Spring book of Workbook I've upgraded to a double-spread which bumps me up in the search ranking there, which also has had a good impact on traffic and referrals.

If you have any ideas on what has worked best on various social media platforms, I'd love to exchange ideas and data. Email me or lets have a conversation in the comments.

How To Pick Your Genre And Why It Matters

2014-08-13T08:16:00.001-04:00

I just got a referral from a friend who is trying to break into photography, and we got talking about what genre he would like to shoot. So we discussed the process and importance of that.

It is important that what you shoot matches your personality and your interests beyond photography!

Generally speaking the age of the generalist is over, unless you are in a very small market. The primary reason for that is that photography has turned into a commodity and in order to demand a living wage you have to be able to tell a story about the images you took. And the story that 'I shoot everything that someone pays me to shoot' is just not particularly convincing. See yesterday's blog post "Organic, Free Range, Cruelty Free Commercial Photography" which plays off Seth's eggs and substitutes musings.

So if one is not a generalist, well, how does one figure out what you are? Here is my journey over the last 8 years that lead me to be a fashion photographer in NYC:

When I started out on this journey about 8 years ago (after a 15 year career in corporate) I was shooting all kinds of crap. If you look on flickr or FB or other photo sharing sites you can usually spot the early shooters (no judgement, it’s part of the journey) because they take all the same type of photos of items in their environment. There are the duck shots, and the squirrel, and the flower in the backyard. All the classics. It’s a rite of passage. But it serves a purpose of training the eye and building muscle memory on operating the camera and managing composition.

Once I got past the ducks, I took all kinds of workshops. And I would do the obvious genres that are fairly accessible - landscape and portraits. Early on we have small budgets and no production experience. It's impossible to shoot some of complex genres and fantastic images, because we don't have the infrastructure nor the experience to do so.

But there are always mountains, beaches, and sunsets to shoot. And there are always lots of people to shoot, and plenty of people willing to pose for the camera without too much twisting of arms. And that was the time food bloggers came into fame, and I like to cook, so I shot food. Easy to do in your kitchen. And because I had kids I shot lots of sports, including an occasional high-school football game.

But I refined my tastes from there. I dropped landscape first. For two reasons: Business wise as a fine art shooter you have to sell prints. That’s a declining market and a difficult market. And landscape photography is a lonely gig. You drive forever, get up at ungodly times to catch the golden hour, and sit for hours to get the right moment. There are only a few variations of subjects - about 10 different basic scenes (sunrise, sunset, mountain, lake, …) and maybe about 100 national monuments and famous places. Sure you can perfect it with technique, but I didn’t find the creative opportunity in it. It’s more of a documentary sport for my taste.

The final straw was that a good friend of mine and good landscape shooter who spends at least a week every year in Yellowstone came home and proudly showed a gorgeous shot of an elk standing in the river against the sunset. Wonderful photo. So I asked him, how many other people where there taking the same shot? About 100 photographers standing right next to him. Of course everyone had a slightly different angle, maybe a different filter or aperture setting. But in general they all had the same shot with minor quality variations. Doesn’t seem creative enough for me. If I go through all this trouble, I want to come up with something unique, not just the best executed of a 100 variations of the same theme.

Of course that may sound a bit flip, and some great landscape shooters may say, well, all those fashion images in the magazines look fake and the same to me, overly photoshopped, what have you. Fair enough. That's why picking a genre has to fit your personality and preferences. No right or wrong answer. But going back to the introduction, if the genre that you shoot doesn't fit your personality, then your story about those images won't sound very authentic.

A good majority of photographers are introverts. That's why many are attracted to landscape, product/still life and genres that keep them locked up in a cave for days or with no living souls within a 100mi radius. Another reason to match your genre to your Meyer-Briggs test result.

I also shot a lot of people. I like interacting with people. I shot portraits, head shots, seniors. But there too, you’re fighting an uphill battle in the market. There are many people that think that they can get good enough a picture with their phone or their own DSLR. Consumer photography, with the exception of weddings which is a growing segment, is generally in decline from its heyday. There is still a fair amount, but prices are low, it’s mostly just files not prints anymore. And worst of all, not everyone really wants to be there. Most people getting head shots done dread the day you shoot them. Of course if you’re good they leave happy, but it’s still an emotionally draining process to win them over to your side day after day after day.

I did take a workshop from a really good wedding photographer. I learned two things from that: He was very average in terms of technique and gear, not that there is anything wrong with that. But he made a killing in business. He could clear $80K from a single wedding. The reason is that he primarily had the mentality and personality of a car salesman with camera in hand. He was the perfect sales person, but just an average photographer. The second thing I learned is that the reason he could sell so well, is because he learned to totally relate to the emotions of the couple. He could get into their head.

That is btw the same requirement for a good sports photographer. The best sports shooters understand the game. To get the memorable shot, you need to be able to anticipate it, so that your camera is ready. That means you need to understand the game, follow the game, and know what might happen next. The correlation to that is the movie camera man. If they didn’t rehearse the movie scene, set their focus marks and their framing marks, you would constantly see the camera chasing the actor in focus and framing. Always a step behind. It would look ridiculous. Of course you don’t see this in the good movies, because the camera man already knows exactly where every actor will go relative to his frame, and exactly which focal length will keep the right part of the scene in focus. That's what sets a pro apart from an amateur DSLR video.

So the lesson from this is, in order to be at the top of your game in any genre, you not only need to understand photography, you also need to understand the subject you are shooting. Whether that is knowing how to play football, and what each player’s strengths and blunders are. Or relate to weddings and marriage if you shoot weddings. And you need to understand food if you shoot foot.

For me the problem is, while I’m married, I don’t relate to the wedding industry and the big productions everyone puts on. When I got married it was 3 people and two horses, that’s it. I’m not a great wedding photographer. Can I shoot weddings? Sure. Have done quite a few of them. And I got good shots. But for different reasons. I’m totally not into sports. I understand the very basic rules of most games, but that’s it. So shooting sports isn’t really a good choice for me either. I like to cook, and I got pretty good and unique at shooting food.

Based on my experience in corporate and my personality, I do a lot better working with and for business clients. So I've eliminated all consumer clients from my photography.

Another consideration is that there are different business practices in different genres. Pricing fine art prints and getting your images into a gallery show is a very unique process. Pricing and figuring out tax on consumer photography for weddings and seniors is a different game. How to mass market to the consumer is very different than getting on an art buyer's radar. Getting your portfolio reviewed by an agency is different than creating a Facebook fan page for all your seniors. And pricing a big bill board usage, or getting your editorial into an A-list magazine, or hiring a model from Ford or Wilhelmina is thing into itself.

This means some genres go well together, while others are like oil and water for the daily business routine. And someone might enjoy marketing to the consumer, while others do better in one-to-one business transactions.

The genre that I settled on in the end after my onion was peeled all the way, was fashion. For a few reasons: There is a market for it (thought it’s an even more fickle one), it is one of the genres that has tremendous artistic expression in it, where you can be very creative and make unique images, and tell stories. And you work with large teams on set, all of which are their by choice and because they are professionals. My last editorial shoot had 20 people on set, everyone doing a specific job. It was me and I had two assistants with specific roles. I had a hair stylist, a make-up artist, both of which had one assistant each, we had a manicurist, a stylist, three models, the designer, the designer had I think 3 employees, and then there were a couple of random interns. 10 hours on set. It’s finely choreographed dance and beautiful if it works. It takes weeks of pre-production to set it up. I enjoy that. It leverages my skills from my corporate life where I managed large hairy projects and big teams. It can be very stressful because there are huge risks and lots on the line. I totally get that this is not everyone’s cup of tea. But it's totally my cup of tea.

For me anticipating the shot is that I know the right moment to shoot a model on the runway to hit all the right notes. That I can pre-visualize an image in an editorial weeks before I shoot it, and then assemble all the pieces. That I know what lighting works best on what type of fabrics and color, because the designer has to sell the clothes, not the cool lighting on the model's face.

To stay with the part that you need to understand your target/client industry. I spend more time networking in the fashion industry than I do in the photo industry. I was the regional director for an fashion industry professional organization. I dress the part. Most photographers prefer sneakers and jeans, and if you sit on a mountain waiting for the sun, that is the best choice. As a fashion photographer in NYC, I have to have a sizable clothing budget so my personal brand fits the environment in which I work.

So to pick a genre as a photographer, it's best to make a short list that fits one's personality and one's business goals. Don't pick genres just because they're convenient or one has existing experience. The genres have to meet the right long-term goals. After shooting that short list, it's time to peel the onion over time, until there is only one or two left standing, depending on the size of market you play in.

Seth on Substitutes & Telling Stories About Photographs

2014-08-12T08:57:00.004-04:00

So Seth Godin wrote another great post that has applications to commercial photography (thanks to Kate Baldwin for pointing it out on the ASMP Seattle listserv):

Seth Godin - Understanding Substitutes

We encounter some of these troubles daily as we price commercial gigs for our clients. Except for the veteran art buyers the value of quality commercial photography is a nebulous thing. The ROI of hiring a pro vs. asking your friend with the DSLR are not clear, and in the age where we all have to do more with less, if we can't articulate the ROI, well, we just buy the cheapest eggs. I certainly would if I sat on the other side of the table, wouldn't you?

"[..] we don't buy very often and that we can't tell if it's better (or if the story is true) until after we buy it."

With photography, unless you are an industry veteran marketer with campaigns under your belt and metrics that judged their success, it is hard to know whether the more expensive images will make or break the project? It's even harder to say if the extra 10% for the premium photographer is going to make the campaign yet better than those made by the cheapest professional photographer, or just the guy with a camera that has a day job.

"In situations like this, our instinct is to assume that the thing is generic, a commodity, not worth extra."

That's essentially what the market in general has decided about photography. The average business person can no longer tell the value of photography and the difference between the image a friend took with a DSLR, and a carefully crafted image created by an experienced professional. So they assume it's a generic commodity, which means it's not worth paying a premium for. And if it's digital, maybe it should be free in the first place.

"Right next to those eggs, though, are eggs with a story. Eggs that are free range or organic or cruelty-free or high in this or low in that. And these eggs cost more. Some people happily buy these eggs, substituting them for normal eggs, because to them, they’re worth more."

So the solution Seth suggests for this marketing dilemma? We need to have a story that sets our work apart form the guy with a camera. Of course, most photographers will now go and say - well, my images do tell a story. Wrong, that is the content of the images.

Seth's not talking about the story in the image. It's the story about the images, and how they came to be. And that story, most photographers suck at telling. Go look up 10 random photographer websites and read their about pages. If they actually have one, it probably will mention at which age their parent gave them a camera and that was it.

If you are an art buyer, does it matter if the photographer you hire got his camera at 4 or at 11? Bet not. Does it matter however, how a photographer approaches his work, if he can articulate why and what he will do different if you work with him? How he thinks about your project, and how much he knows about your industry?

Most likely the art buyer you deal with has to justify the budget spend. So whoever hires you probably needs to tell others why you are the best choice to get the required approvals. So in a way we need to arm the art buyer with the story they need to sell us to the ultimate decision makers and everybody in-between. That better be a damn-good story they enjoy telling.

Time for organic, free range, cruelty-free professional commercial photography.

I've been working on my about page for quite a while. It's not perfect by any means, but it's improving:

I talk about why I work with clients in the fashion industry, I talk about why I like taking images as a way of telling stories. I talk about that my primary purpose is solving my clients problem. And I have client testimonials (sourced from my LinkedIn recommendations) that have others talk about me.

It hopefully tells a story what type of experience my clients have by hiring me, and it tells them what I will do for them and why that is valuable to them. I don't work with clients because I like getting paid for playing with my camera, I work with clients because I like solving their problems.

That's also why networking is more critical than old style advertising in today's relationship economy. Networking is a form of mass one-on-one storytelling.

Liquid Blonde

2014-08-03T17:46:00.001-04:00

The last few weeks I had several editorial portrait assignments that made for a nice change of pace. Two of the assignments were for the upcoming band Liquid Blonde, whose bass guitar player is my good friend Brianna, who I have worked with on countless shoots.

I got a call early in the morning to shoot the band that night at their rehearsal in a rental studio just off Penn Station from 10pm-12am. Followed by shooting the band members on location at a party in one of Manhattan's night clubs.

I shot the band through rehearsal from many different angles, and we had set the last 5 minutes of their studio time aside for a group shot. A corner of the studio with stacks of amps made for a good background. And everyone was fully energized from the playing and singing of the last two hours.

The images ran in Interview magazine and made it to the home page of Interview.

On location at the night club the lighting was challenging as it was almost complete darkness. While I had strobes with me, I didn't want to use them as they would give the feel of a bad party picture. I needed to capture the ambience of the band and environment. A staircase had the only meaningful light around, and we got our other shots between lots of people pushing up and down the stairs.

A few days later I got to photograph the band again as they were headlining a show at the Highline Ballroom. Not quite as much under the gun as the magazine photos which had to be delivered the next morning, I took a bit more liberty with my camera choices, opting for the RZ67 with a digital back.

And the week prior I had an assignment from Moda & Estilo to get some editorial portraits of music industry heavyweight Porfirio Pina, who now runs his own company, but previously has signed many big names in Latin music for BMI.

We started at his apartment in Brooklyn and then moved on to the backyard studio in Queens.

Those images ran as part of the Moda & Estilo 'Man to Know' feature on Porfirio 'Popi' Pina.

Natural Poses

2014-06-30T12:20:00.000-04:00

As a fashion photographer I'm always amazed at the weird way we pose models.

Yes, sometimes what we ask models to do is not natural, so we can make a garment look good, avoid wrinkles, create flattering lines, work with the light, or many other considerations. But there is difference in what happens on set and how the camera reads it.

The end result should always be something that the viewer perceives as a natural moment, or a moment they could see themselves in an aspirational world. After all that is the goal.

Nobody wants to stand with their face against the wall, hold their arm high above their head for no good reason, or twist their body. It's the models and the photographer's job to pose in a way that finds the right balance between all the things that need to be shown, yet make it look effortless. It does not require compromising fashion or aspiration.

Here is a collection of wonderful poses that work perfectly as an editorial or campaign photo, but also look effortless and how you might envision a moment.

And there still is lots of room for editorial expression as well, without abandoning this ideal of effortless and natural:

You can see more in my Pinterest board which I use as a running inspiration mood board: Fashion Inspiration, Finds, Commentary

And here are some counter example of trying to hard, and not really working (at least for me):

Data Are Your Friend

2014-06-19T09:07:00.001-04:00

In my last blog post about my new website I did mention briefly the use of Google Analytics. Here is a bit more detail about how I'm using it not only to measure traffic, but also interesting behavior about my site visitors and with it important market data about my images.

Ever since I started having my Workbook portfolio, I enjoyed their portfolio statistics, which tell you how people looking at your images found you, and which images they looked at, giving you a quick read on which images resonate with your viewers, and which ones are a dud.

And often that is not intuitive. As creatives, we love certain images often because of some emotional attachment to the image that may not come through. Maybe it was the shoot, and what it took to get that image. Maybe it was your favorite creative team, location, who you shot it for, or one of many different factors that made you hate or love a certain image.

But your visitor doesn't know the backstory. They have 5s or less to either like or hate that image simply based on what they see that moment, what they're interested in, and in some shape or form what is next to the image, or what they just looked at. Getting this unbiased view is very helpful - a form of constant and large audience portfolio review, with the grain of salt that it's a broader audience.

In addition to just tracking pageviews Google Analytics has a rich API that allows for the tracking of custom events with just a few lines of code. I've been using it for quite a while, but with this new website design and the custom gallery code, I had the opportunity to track image views more granular and inspired by the analytics that Workbook as built for their site.

There is the performance data - making sure my site loads fast enough. I get the average time it takes for the grid to be visible, and the average time for all thumbnails to be loaded - 5s and 12s respectively at the moment.

There is the layout data - which screen size layout is used most often (mobile, table, medium desktop, large desktop), and how many of the devices are touch enabled. That is important so I can make sure my layout is working well on the popular formats.

There is the navigation data - how often each one of the category tags is clicked at the top. It tells me which of the categories resonate with the visitors. And how often does someone open the about and contact details. Since those are no longer separate pages, the standard pageview tracking doesn't cover them anymore.

And most importantly image details - which image did someone view in the enlarged slideshow. And what was the image that made them click and open the slideshow, and which image caused them to abandon the slideshow before they got to the end. Each image has an ID that I can track down in the CMS. A quick spreadsheet breaks down the popularity of the images by week.

This data allows me over time to curate the homepage more. I can remove images that no one clicks on to reduce clutter, or mark them as tier 2 images to keep them, but not feature them in the initial grid. I can test new images I shot and see how my visitors react to them compared to others. And the next time I edit my print book, I have a lot of additional data that might help me in image selection. It might prevent me from including an image that I have high emotional attachment to, but that just doesn't seem to resonate with anyone.

Building a Different Fashion Photographer Website

2014-06-06T08:10:00.000-04:00

I always say, a website is like a garden - every couple of weeks you should pull some weeds, plant a few new flowers. Websites aren't static, but a living and breathing voice of you on the Interwebs.

But every few years, it's time to not just pull some weeds, but call in a landscaper, uproot some trees and do something more drastic. Such was the time for my website. This is iteration 10 of my website by my rough count.

The previous version was a variation of an older design that had just gotten a font and color facelift. This time a bigger change was called for. I was tired of my old design which had served me well for a few years. And even though it worked on mobile, I wasn't crazy about the mobile interface. The world is a lot more multi-platform and mobile today. And web technologies have made some interesting advancements in recent years.

Looking at photographer websites in general, and fashion photographer websites in particular, they all seem to fit a basic pattern - home page, and a few gallery links each with a slide show of 20-40 images, some about page, and that's it.

First of all, it's always a good thing to stand out. So if everyone does the same old design, either nobody is bothering to think of something fresh, or there is something unique about that design that just works. Well, there is a problem with the a few galleries design paradigm. It relies on exactly what categories the photographer picks (hopefully same categories as his clients and art buyers think in when they're looking for a photographer), and how neatly all the photographer's images fit into galleries and if they're assigned correctly. However, photographers run the gambit and generally their work doesn't fit into neat little boxes. After all they're creatives pushing boundaries, working against the tried and true. They're supposed to. But a visitor hates clicking on a gallery, waiting some time for big images to load, only to find out it wasn't what they were looking for. Now there's a 50/50 chance they won't click on the gallery that actually had what they're looking for. Instead they're moving on to the next site. Those designs are just not fun, engaging, or invite to browse and explore. In a world of Pinterest and Instagram, they're just flat, like a glass of water that sat in the sun too long.

I'm always one to swim against stream. If there's a trend, I turn around and look behind me as photographers say. You might be surprised what you find.

So my new website layout which I launched earlier this week takes a different route:

It's actually a single page layout. The creative world always enjoyed Flash based websites based on their engaging animation and control over the visual layout. While Flash was deeply flawed in terms of search engines and browser compatibility, the visual results were ahead of their times. My website is only a home page, but one that has many layers and lots of animation to it. There is an animated intro, a dynamic thumbnail grid, a full-screen slideshow, and an integrated about and contact panel. All build on top of Javascript animation and CSS3. Yet, it works in every modern browser without plugin and it is search engine friendly.

The layout is responsive. Meaning it automatically adjusts to the size of the screen, the type of device, and it stays with a changing window size. If you are on a large screen, you get large tiles and fonts. You go to a smaller screen, the layout readjusts, fits and remains legible. If you are on an iPhone some components disappear to make better use of limited real estate. And if you are on a touch device - phone or tablet - the slideshow navigation switches from click to swipe. Bootstrap 3 with its grid and media queries have made it very easy to layout pages that way.

Instead of galleries, the whole site is a single gallery that can filter and sort. One popular plugin is isotope, which lays out images or other content in a grid or mason style layout to fill a particular space. It's a predecessor to what has become a very popular layout through Pinterest. That plugin makes it very easy though to hide / include specific groups of content. So instead of assigning all my images into galleries, they live in a single gallery, but have one or more categories attached to them. As well as a tiered priority. The main grid displays either just tier 1 images among all categories, or all images of a specific category. The categories are dynamically generated from the image content and displayed in a tag cloud at the top. The size and color of each category reflects the number of images in that category, automatically highlighting the type of work I'm focused on. Clicking on various categories reconfigures the grid in blink, making the interface engaging and inviting to play around. By showing thumbnails before you click on any image, you don't have guess and then be disappointed. You can quickly see my whole body of work, and I don't risk you leaving without seeing what I do. Images can be assigned to multiple categories, which solves the dilemma of an image not fitting into this or that neat little box.

Once you click on an image, a full page slideshow comes up. It is a dynamic slideshow, which will walk exactly through the images currently shown in the grid. Thus no two slideshows are alike. As a photographer we're in the business of selling visuals, so having the image take maximum real estate on the screen, in full resolution is critical for our branding and marketing. You want your visitors to be up close and personal, and feel the image, so they want to pick up the phone and call you.

To round out the content, there has to be an about page and contact info. For those I used a plugin I wrote a few months ago, which slides in panels from the side, to allow the content to remain on the same page, but be separated. It avoids the overused modal dialog box, which serves its purpose but is old school.

Performance matters. So the code does a lot of preloading of content. The page itself doesn't have any of the images in it when it initially loads, which means it comes up quick. Content and images are fetched via Ajax calls to the backend while stuff happens in the front end. The splash page has a brand appropriate name animation and splash image. While this happens, the code loads all the images, category information and assembles the grid. In the slideshow, as soon as the image you click on is loaded, the code prefetches the left and right neighbor so they are ready when you click on the navigation arrows. All the images get loaded via a plugin that automatically resizes images based on screen size and caches resized versions. So if you are on iPhone the site only loads images 480px long, which are nice and small. If you are on an Apple display, it loads images that are 2000px long and gorgeous.

To make sure performance actually ends up being what it should be, you have to measure it. Browser size, connection bandwidth, an many other variables come into play. A set of custom Google Analytics events record how long it takes each visitor to load the initial grid, and by when all images are loaded. Right now the grid appears within an average of 7s which is about the time the name and splash image navigation lasts, which is right on point. The rest of the images are all loaded at the 21s mark, which means for most users by the time they glance at the initial grid and then click on a category, everything will be ready. As a side benefit, I've seen a few visitors not make it to the 2nd custom event, meaning they left the site early, which is interesting to track as well.

Finally - search engine performance. Flash website used to be a blank page to robots. And while Javascript sites are visible to robots, any content that is dynamically loaded via Ajax isn't. Some basic options are detecting when robots come by and loading the content server side. But that means maintaing two code paths. For a client I recently had to work out another technique - there is an interesting server side component called phantomjs, which is essentially a headless browser. Most of these, along with Selenium were developed to automate website testing, but are handy tools for robot optimization in ways that are totally legal and even encouraged. So using Google fragments the code detects when Google stops by, sends the page over to phantomjs to get completely rendered in HTML, including dynamically loaded content and then returns that to the robot. And since the robot doesn't click on any category links, or about/contact navigation, and those links don't lead to new pages the robot would visit, a set of Apache rewrite rules create canonical short-cut URLs, which are noted in a sitemap. So Google knows exactly how to visit each of the category tags and retrieve the relative content in a proper way.

That sums up the highlevel detail that went into designing a different fashion photographer website. Initial feedback from my friends and industry contacts has been very encouraging. Everyone likes the idea of seeing the whole portfolio upfront, being able to see what they might get before they click, and find it very engaging. That's exactly what I was hoping to achieve. Now back to the regularly scheduled garden maintenance.

Many of you know me as a fashion photographer. But I do have a long background in technology. I'm equally at home on this turf. So if you need some help with building a different kind of website, lets talk.

Annual meeting of the FGI regions

2014-05-17T09:25:00.002-04:00

Once a year the leadership of all Fashion Group International regions comes to NYC for an annual meeting of inspirational speakers, awards, and workshop running effective regional groups.

Working backwards on the day, we finished with dinner an awards at the Cosmopolitan club, where Erica Roseman of Company Agenda interviewed our featured speaker of the night Catherine Malandrino. It was a great interview and nice to hear her perspective on why and how she designs with a very French attitude but for an American market. Something we may need more off, frankly.

Prior to the dinner we made a stop at the Museum for Design at Columbus Circle and got a wonderful tour of the current 3D printing exhibit, which includes the recently famous dress Dita van Tese wore as well as many other fascinating pieces.

Several of the FGI NY board members stopped by to say hello - Caroline Fabrigras from Scentworld, and James D'Adamo from Hearst, before we enjoyed lunch at the Conde Nast cafeteria which was our meeting venue for the first part of the day. Including the humor of having a Hearst Exec meet us at the Conde Nast building.

Earlier speakers included fascinating presentations by Edie Weiner of WEB Inc, and an interview between Erica Orange and Elizabeth Canon of Fashion Collective. Followed by a fascinating and engaging overview of the Millennial generation from a research perspective by MaryLeigh Bliss of YPulse. Ruth Finnley of the fashion calendar is part of our committee and on hand for the presentation and dinner as well. If you have a chance to hear one of those speaker, I can highly recommend them.

And before all of that, we had started the day with a welcome speech by Margaret Hayes, and an update from each regional team. Great to see the group from Seattle who has done a terrific job in the last two years growing that region well beyond the groundwork that was laid when I was RD in Seattle and we started putting the region back on the map within the Seattle fashion industry.

Now to a few months break before we get back to work planning next year's conference.

About History

2014-05-11T08:50:00.001-04:00

It doesn't take long during a conversation with mentors, teachers, an industry icons before they will bring up that we all need to study the history of our trade, that we should know who this-and-that photographer is, and how he has influenced our industry 15, 25, 50, or 100 years ago. And promptly everyone hangs at their lips, googles the names, buys the books, and spends endless hours reading and looking at work.

I've always had a conflicted view on this advice.

Part of it is that I ODed on history in my childhood, growing up with parents who were all obsessed about the past, visiting every museum, cathedral, and other notable location there was. By the time I finished high school I probably had been exposed to more historical data and views than many people see in their entire lifetime. And with many things in life there are always reactions to every action. I've always been someone more occupied with what's in front of me than what's behind me. So when I think about the importance of studying all the past great photographers ad nauseum it is with this bias in mind. There better be a damn good reason to spend time on the past, when it could be spent on the future instead.

The other facet is that at the core of what we do is to create something. If I have to decide to spend time on an activity, and I have the choice of studying the past, or creating something new, my bias is on the latter by nature. It's feeding that internal drive.

That said, I'm not saying one shouldn't pay attention to the work of others. We don't typically work in a vacuum, and we do leverage the knowledge of others around us and before us. The question is how to mentally approach this? Is there an obligation to have the top 100 photographers of all time at your fingertip, recite their best work, who they worked for, who influenced whom and why? Or is it enough to look at the work of others, decide what you like and don't like, and try to figure out what makes it so, regardless of who, when, where of the work?

Can I tell the names of some great photographers? Of course. Can I recite all their history. Not really. I'd much rather grab a book on photography, browse the web, walk through a gallery and stare at an image. I decode the emotional impact it has. I decipher how the photographer has framed the shot, how the lighting worked, how the model posed, how it was styled, what story it tells. I want to understand how and why that images works. That gives me ideas that drives my creativity. I'm after the raw ingredients of the recipe, not the name of the chef or restaurant. And I might end up digging one piece from photographer A and one from photographer B, but there's no guarantee that I will thus also like a lot of the other work from photographer A.

I remember years ago flipping through a book of Vanity Fair photography. I put sticky notes on images that resonated with me. Later I looked back on who made those photos, and there was one name that accounted for a majority of the images. There was a parallel in the story telling of this work that I connected with. Later someone told me that she always posed people with V shapes. But I bet if you asked her, she wouldn't talk about V shapes, or tell you that so-and-so invented the V shape. She most likely has an intuition and visual style when composing images that just happens to come out that way. That's what creative people do.

Sometimes the people that live in the theory, from the historians to our teachers, like to think that people are always concerned with the rules and theory. But they may be disappointed. That author may have been more concerned with how to pay his next bill, or how this and that client was just a PITA, rather than whether this piece of work perfectly follows the rules, or a particularly anti-rule path. Sometimes the theory makes it more complicated than the practice was. That's one of the difference between those that live in the theory, and those that do create. Sometimes we just do it, without any rhyme or reason. It just felt right. End of story.

Last week I attended an industry talk by a very well-known photographer who spent an hour and a half showing images from the last 40 years of his work and giving the back story of each of them. It was fun to listen to. It was the second time I had heard him talk this year. And what struck me about his work was not his particular approach, or the way a shot was lit, or this or that. What intrigued me more that his impressive body of work was the result of a massive amount of opportunity to do original work. 40 years of assignments, being surrounded by lots of creative talent, models, environments, and lots and lots of work. One has to keep in mind that when we see someone else's work, we only see the 1% of their best work, not the other 99% of boring, pay your bills work, or the stuff that didn't work out. It's not about recreating what made this (or another) photographer successful. It's about finding 40 years of opportunities to take photos and be in creative environments that feed and nurture the creative drive. It's about seeing the bigger picture, not the particular pictures.

At the end of the day, everyone should do what they enjoy and what works for them. There is no prescribed formula. If the past and every detail about it brings one joy, there's nothing wrong with it. But I don't subscribe to the obligation to spend too much time on the existing when it can be spent on creating something that doesn't exist yet. I might succeed or might fail, and learn from my failures. Others might like what I do, or not. Such is the nature of putting myself out there.

As you might have guessed, I'm not a fan of the celebrity culture. I care about the result, not who did it.

BTW - Those same mentors, teachers, and industry icons also say that you should shoot more, should shoot every day, until there is nothing more to shoot. And many of them have been around for a long time. So the people they say you should study today, often were their contemporaries, not the history books back when they learned their craft. Should you know your contemporaries maybe more than the history? Well, maybe to some extend. It helps in understanding who gets the jobs in the current market, so you know how to market yourself.

If you are a creative at heart, follow your own path and don't apologize for it. And take everything someone else says with a grain of salt, and decide if you agree or differ.

The Meta Data Opportunity

2014-03-24T07:31:00.004-04:00

Getty's announcement that they have made a considerable portion of their stock portfolio free to use for some non-commercial, editorial use has caused much passionate debate. And many a photographer saw yet another sky fall (how many are there??)

A post by Peter Krogh (Getty Did What) does a pretty good job analyzing the potential reasons behind this decision. This is more about meta data and technology than about the image itself. Those image uses were negligible in terms of revenue inside Getty's portfolio (probably cost more than they collected under the old model), regardless how valuable the copyright holding photographer thought they were.

But many of the Internet's big deals are about data, and in particular data about data. Facebook's IPO as a case in point. Facebook has been a free service to billions of users since 2004. That's a huge expense to run all the servers and maintain the databases that make Facebook possible. The IPO was the biggest in tech history yet at $104B in peak market cap.

What's the value Facebook has to offer? Two things, the eyeballs and engagement of billions of users, and more importantly all the information about those users, what they're doing, who they know, what they like and dislike. Also known as the social graph. Only parallel to Google's index of the web, which knows more about the web and who said what and with what authority than anyone else in this world. Data is the new gold.

But if the past gold of photographers, the ability to control distribution of images through copyright and licensing is becoming scarcer to find, there are new claims opening up. One of them is the data gold mine of photography.

In today's world its easier than ever to find, share, and use images, personal or professional. With that it is becoming harder to control and police that process and we're increasingly relying on the integrity, enforcement, and perception to collect on the value of our images. It's a loosing battle. Not only literally, but also because we have to devote an ever larger portion of our time to protecting our turf than spending time on creating new value by being creative.

In the data game, access and scale matter though. You can only collect and process data if you have the hooks in the ecosystem, the business innovators, big data centers, and software engineers. That means corporate infrastructure. Yet photographers are notoriously independent and small operators. On our own we don't have a play in the data game.

Now, there have been companies that have been collecting and selling photographers data for quite a while. The most well known in recent history being Agency Access. Photographers love and hate them at the same time. They love having access to the data for a manageable price. They dislike the quality of the data, and they hate the sales tactics of the company (though probably less than they hate Getty).

And Agency Access' database is known to be of pretty low quality when it comes to accuracy and completeness, one of the key metrics in the world of data. Mostly because it's manually researched and maintained in a highly fluid market, and because it's tracking people who really rather not be tracked that way. Not a marriage made in data heaven.

But now imagine if someone were to build and offer a social graph like Facebook for all your images, and told you every time someone looked at, downloaded, used a photo (licensed or cavalier). Maybe even just a comp for moodboard. And how long they engaged. And you knew something about that person. And built on real time interactions with your photos, not manually researched.

Now that could be powerful. Suddenly you knew who was interested in your photos. Suddenly you would have a top notch list of people to reach out to, build a connection with, find out why and what they liked about your images, and if there are other images you could offer or even make for them? And you would have lots of data about which of your images resonate with the market, and which ones are just flat lining. Imagine the wealth of Google Analytics and LinkedIn combined for all your images online?

Everyone loves the customer reviews on Amazon. And every business that owns a website would love to have reviews like Amazon. And every business would like to have personalized recommendations like Amazon provides, that as they say 'knows the customer better than their spouse'. Well, all those features require statistical significance that can only be achieved with tremendous scale. You need hundreds of thousands of visitors and buyers to have reliable data. Most websites just don't have enough traffic to make this happen and their reviews end up lack luster at best.

How many social networks have there been? And how many have traction? Even the giant Google mostly flopped launching G+. As Mark Zuckerberg once observed, for a successful social network you have to have a certain number of your friends in the network, or there is not enough interesting stuff for you to come back and interact after you fill out your profile.

Photographers lack that scale in their marketing. How many portfolio reviews have you been on in the last year? How many people have seen your entire book and seen the majority of your photos? How many people's opinions have you gotten about your work? Is it a statistically significant number? Doubtfully. Yet, how many people have seen some of your images in some form or another without you knowing about it? How much better could your business be if you could reliably create and market your next photo with the accuracy of an Amazon recommendation?

So while Getty's latest move may not yet be the photographer's meta data solution, it's a move in that direction. Paul Melcher has been involved in Stiple, another smaller endeavor in the same vein.

So while photographer's may be freaking out at yet another chisel being banged against their past empire, the direction Getty is headed may actually turn out to be quite a boon to photographers in the future if both sides play it well. Change is inevitable. It's about seeing the opportunity in change, rather than just the threat that makes the difference.

New York Fashion Photography Collective

2014-02-16T09:16:00.003-05:00

I'm in the middle of a new endeavor - founding a photography collective. More precisely the New York Fashion Photography Collective.

The Technical Backstory

It started out a few months ago when I received an email from Network Solutions advertising domain names that utilize the new Top Level Domains being rolled out, among them '.photography'. That opened the door for grabbing otherwise long taken domain names like fashion and new york. These very desirable names get snatched up quickly, and people sit on them forever, or sell them for insane amount of money.

What makes them valuable is their use of very relevant keywords in the domain name, which is known to be a strong signal for search engines like Google. While there is debate (and mostly evidence to the contrary) that the new TLDs do not benefit search rankings yet, most of that debate focuses on the keyword that is in the TLD (such as .travel). What is being ignored in the debate is that the new TLDs open up the opportunity to grab keywords in the main part of the domain names that are otherwise prohibitively expensive if available at all.

Another side benefit of course is user interpretation of domain names when they see keywords they expect. We've been trained that blinds.com is about blinds. Thus having top keywords in the domain, rather than your name, unless you're a well known person, is likely to increase the chance of someone checking out your site.

After some investment and waiting, I did secure the domain newyorkfashion.photography among others.

How To Turn This Into Something Even Better

Now that I had a cool domain, what to do? I didn't want to just change my main website, since in commercial photography there is a strong pattern and expectation to use your first/last name as your website domain.

I could have just pointed it to my main site, or create some nifty parking page with it. But that seemed a bit contrived and a waste.

After marinating my thinking for a few days, and talking it over with a few friends, I decided that instead of being greedy and turning this just into a self-promotion tool, that this would be a great opportunity for networking and building some #RonR (return on relationship) as we now call it.

In a world where each photographer is jumping up and down like Donkey in Shrek 'pick me - pick me - pick me', what is a better way of standing out from the masses? Well, one way is 'Pick one of Us', or a group of like-minded photographers willing to work together, to promote themselves as a group, to share some resources, and believe that as a group we are taken a tad more serious than each one in isolation.

In our local ASMP chapter we have what we call 'braintrust groups', which are groups of 8-12 photography peers that get together once a month and hold each other accountable, answer questions, give feedback. It is very popular and most of us have had positive impact on our business by participating or leading such a group, as I do myself.

Of course such a group only works if done thoughtfully. So Kevin, my partner in crime on this endeavor and I put together a simple set of bylaws that will govern the group and define some parameters to make sure it will be and remain a high quality group. That includes who can be part of the group, and what each of our responsibilities are, including promoting the group to the industry.

We looked at a couple of other collectives out there, such as Magnum Photo and others on how they are structured, and how they have built their websites. We used this to guide our thinking both on the bylaws and the initial website design.

After two days of solid work, the initial website is live, and social media profiles updated to point to it and start promoting it.

One interesting aspect of the research of other collectives was that there are quite a few (some listed in this aPhotoEditor post), but most of them tie photographers together because of their emerging status, or some geographic or historical tie. There seemed to be very few collectives that share a common theme in the industry they are serving, their work, or their specialty.

Of course, serving in the same industry in a defined regional environment means that at times we might have overlapping clients, but it also means that this industry will find our collective's work a lot more relevant than if we were simply a bunch of semi-random (to the external observer) emerging photographers. It will be a test of our integrity and maturity to make this work. But if it does, it could be very powerful.

I have always been a believer in the power of community rather than individualism out of fear. I look forward to seeing the fruits of this latest leap of faith.

NYFW14 Recap 2 of 2: Details and Behind The Scenes

2014-02-13T12:35:00.004-05:00

This post summarizes the images from behind the scenes and some detail shots of shoes, accessories, and clothing:

NYFW14 Recap 1 of 2: The Shows

2014-02-13T12:19:00.000-05:00

This season I covered 27 shows in 14 venues, most of them for Moda & Estilo, and some for designers. I also shared my images with Fashion Group International for their use on social media. This post summarizes some of the show coverage. There will be a follow-up post with detail shots and behind the scenes coverage.

Tia Cibani had one of the prettiest venues:

The Hub (as new MBFW venue this year) provided some show variety:

The Desigual show always lets their models show some personality:

This season's trend: The masculine styling of women's RTW

A Detacher at Pier 59:

This seasons dark runway at the LC Theater made for limited separation of models in dark fall colors:

Some shows missed the mark for me in terms of finish and finesse:

With so many more offsite shows, logistics took a toll, but the variety was most welcome.

The LC Pavilion had great textures and fun runway arrangements:

Very pretty fur at Dennis Basso:

Beautiful footwear for Fall:

More fur and familiar faces at Badgley Mischka:

The Highline is a beautiful venue, though the lighting is mixed at best:

A Russian take on fur at Helen Yarmak:

And a always a well choreographed show at Anna Sui, and very colorful this year:

And some emerging designer presentations:

A Point of View on Facebook's Filtering

2014-01-25T15:27:00.001-05:00

There has been much debate of late over the direction Facebook is going with its edge rank algorithm that filters items showing up in newsfeeds. That algorithm controls how much content shows up in your newsfeed organically and how much is inserted because of paid/promoted placements.

I watch this debate with interest and amusement. And I bring to it a couple of relevant backgrounds. As a software developer I exactly understand the data challenge and the algorithmic approach. As someone who has done SEO for one of the web's top sites I understand the optimization challenges. As a marketer I understand both Facebook's challenge and the challenge of brands who try to figure out how to build a new world of consumer engagement in social media.

And finally I'm an active participant in social media, entrepreneur, and business owner. I know how I want to experience Facebook myself and how not. And I see the challenges organization I'm part of have with engaging their members.

Yesterday I came across this video which does an interesting job of describing the problem from a marketers point of view:

But I think this is the wrong way of looking at the problem. In the age of social media and everyone online, the relationship between consumers and brands have changed. When brands used to be in control of the conversation and the consumer was a willing but relatively passive participant, it is now the reverse. The consumer controls the conversation and the brands desperately try to remain part of it.

And that's where the edge rank algorithm comes into play. The perspective this video provides, and which is shared by many marketers and digital media ops at brands is that they're afraid their message isn't getting out. But that is from the point of view of the brand. They feel like they have something important to say, therefore people should be provided the ability to listen or see. That however is the old model of entitlement brands used to have.

It's fitting that the video above compares Facebook with Google. Google search has been around for quite some time and is generally seen as the high bar of search quality. You search, and Google generally provides quality and relevant answers. Google vigorously defends its algorithm and its search quality by putting the consumer first.

Of course there are hordes of SEO specialists that are hired by brands to influence those results. But all they can do is follow best practices and play. With years and years of refinement of Google's algorithm it has become very hard to trick it. The best approach truly is to provide content that consumer would find helpful, and it will be featured appropriately.

And rarely do you hear brands complain that their page isn't in Google's results, and that they have a right to be found. They might complain to their SEO consultant, but not to Google. Google's reputation has stayed above such accusations.

Of course, Google does offer a pay to play feature with AdWords, and all search consumers fully understand that. The click through rate is acceptable and the ROI has been established. If you want to avoid paying, well, then you need to have high quality content that will reach consumers organically by earning a place to do so.

Now back to Facebook. The problem statement is much the same. There is way too much content to choose from, therefore an algorithm has to figure out what should be shown. But that algorithm cannot be approached with a brand's entitlement that must be given the opportunity to see their content, even if they liked the page once, or even engaged with content on occasion. It must be approached with what truly is most relevant to the consumer.

If Facebook approaches edge rank with the same discipline and with the same rigor and branding as Google has approached page rank, then the consumers will win in the long term. Of course in this case Facebook must reward brands who provide truly relevant and engaging content with increased exposure, while penalizing brands who try to gain exposure beyond their natural content quality score.

The added challenge, as the video pointed out, is that people going to Google expect to see search results from brands as long as they measure up. Consumers may or may not be in the mood to see brand content when they're catching up with friends and family. And no pay for play should disrupt that. Yet, there are many consumers which at different times will enjoy a quality ad, a witty or helpful piece of branded content. The trick is to figure which state a Facebook user is in at various times of day, and context. The fact that different content may show on the App vs. the web version of Facebook is most certainly part of this.

Facebook no doubt has a huge challenge ahead to get this right. And Facebook as a company doesn't have as clean as a reputation as Google has, so it's already starting from behind in the race. The appearance that Facebook is greedier than Google or under bigger pressure to monetize what it does, is not helpful or promising either. But that doesn't mean they have it wrong. Brands need to start engaging with consumers differently rather than expecting to have a right to get their message across. In today's world consumer attention is an earned medium, not a bought or entitled medium.

A Profitable & Thriving Business

2014-01-05T12:42:00.003-05:00

You don't have to look far on the Internet to find a discussion about the tension between a business wanting work for free and people in the creative world (photographers, designers, stylists) crying foul. It's a constant struggle and sign of the times. This blog post was inspired by just one such discussion, and me explaining my principles as I navigate these waters myself.

What Others Say

There are lots of good posts and takes that inform on the topic.

There is of course Seth Godin's post on the topic, complete with a good list of evaluation criteria: Should you work for free?

And two more posts from Seth Godin on the customers you should fire: The Unreasonable Customer and Unreasonable Clients.

Also this excellent post about the cost of the portfolio building years and the good and bad tradeoffs people make as they build their creative careers: I Am Not My Job.

My Principles

In order to run a profitable and thriving business, you have to have a business plan. And it should be driven by a couple of principles that you adhere to at all times.

Do I at times work for free? Of course. But as Seth suggests, only if I can identify a tangible and real benefit. It may not always make my business profitable in the short-term, but it can make it a thriving business in the long-term.

To guide me through this, I categorize all my clients into three buckets:

At the top there are my Portfolio Clients. These are clients that I strive for, that appreciate my work, respect me, that happily pay me what I'm worth to them, and that working with makes me happy and makes me grow over time. I go a lot of extra miles for these clients.

The next bucket are the Paying My Dues Clients. These are clients that pay me for my services, but for one or another reason just don't make it into the first bucket. It could be that the work they pay me for is not aligned with my strategic long-term direction (do not help me build a thriving business). Or they only pay a cheap rate, pay late, always want some unpaid extras, are heavy maintenance, you name it. It could also be that they just tie too much revenue up in a single account and represent an unreasonable business continuity risk. But they can make my business profitable for now (i.e. they pay the bills).

Working for free also falls into paying my dues. Based on the criteria Seth laid out, there are good reasons to work at times without cash compensation in order to build a thriving business. But at most you will be in this bucket.

The last bucket are the Toxic Clients. These are clients that are unreasonable, make my business neither profitable nor thriving, and do nothing than occupy my time that would be better spent elsewhere. Needless to say, they won't be my client long at all, and should have never been in the first place.

Finding Balance

Ideally we would of course just have Portfolio Clients, and none of the others. But until you play in the big leagues late in your career that is rarely the case for anyone. We all have a mix of all three buckets.

The trick is to finding the right balance and manage it actively.

That means taking action when needed. That means to always have a pipeline of new potential customers that you can mix things up with to change the balance to the better.

If a client starts behaving like a Toxic Client he needs to become history at the earliest possible time.

If a client falls into the Paying My Dues bucket, I will happily and sincerely work with him. He will get the attention and work he deserves being a paying client. After all I need to maintain and run a profitable business. But make no mistake, I will always be looking for a better client to replace him, and do just that than when the time comes. It may be a better Paying My Dues client, or even better yet a Portfolio Client.

Ideally our mix in these buckets would be 100% / 0% / 0%. More realistically it's 20%/70%/10% early on. As we exit the portfolio building years it may get to 50%/40%/10%. But if despite all efforts you can't get it past 0%/40%/60% it may be time to rethink your business.

So on the topic of working for free, it requires a careful assessment of the prospective client. Just because they ask, or promise 'exposure' doesn't mean I will work with them. Only I can establish if working with them has the potential to make my business thriving in the long term, since they are not participating in making it profitable. They're not in my shoes, I am. If they have the right connection, if I know them personally, if I am convinced that they're sincere, and if the collaboration has mutual benefit, I might just consider it.

And I have worked without getting paid quite a few times this last year. It was part of rebuilding my professional network after moving to NYC. But each case was carefully considered. And I was able to do so because I maintained a reasonable balance of other clients in these buckets.

It Goes Both Ways

Of course I must assume that people I hire to work with me on projects and on set apply the same principles. And they should. So if I want to have reliable access to the best talent, I need to respect their work and pay them accordingly and promptly. Or I may find out the hard way at the most inopportune time the cost of not doing so.

Natural vs. Contrived

2013-12-25T13:51:00.001-05:00

Flipping through Avedon's Women book and consuming my daily stream of fashion photography via various online sources made me think about what bothers me with contemporary fashion photography, and what I think so many of us find fascinating and refreshing about Avedon's and other master's work.

It's the way women are portrayed in these images - and whether these are believable real moments, or ueber-contrived objectified takes on women and fashion. For sure fashion does involve some amount of fantasy and story telling. But it should be fantasy that could become reality in some way, not just a mental constipation.

Here a collection of images of old and new, where the photographers captured women in aspirational yet totally believable ways. And the person(s) was the centerpiece, the connection point to the camera. Fashion was portrayed as part of their lifestyle.

(in order: recent Coach campaign, Apart, Balmain, images from Dior Journal #4, Harper's Bazaar, images from Avedon's book)

Contrast this with this collection of contemporary campaigns and editorials, from posing against walls, to contrived PC cover-ups, contrived hands-around-your-face poses, fashion nobody would combine in real life, and poses that have no grounding whatsoever.

(in order from: GQ, Iguatemi campagin, Vuitton campaign, Jason Wu campaign, Net-a-Porter, Vogue Korea, Dior Magazine #4)

How many of the women who read this could envision themselves in one of the photos of the first set, and how many would want to be the woman in the second set and feel good about themselves, empowered, beautiful, admired, and self confident.

Portfolio Reviews

2013-11-06T08:25:00.002-05:00

Portfolio reviews are both a critical networking opportunity and a very helpful market research opportunity. Earlier this week ASMP NY hosted its annual commercial review featuring editors and creative directiors from around the NYC market.

Our reviewer lists included among others Amy Kellner of The New York Times Magazine, Miriam Marseu of Sports Illustrated, Emily Shornick of The Cut, Mia Tramz of TIME, and many more. As a benefit to being a board member and helping out with the event, I got to attend the after party which was limited to board members and reviewers, where we had many more good in-depth conversations over wine and food.

Photographers take different approaches to reviews, and it can be uplifting or crushing, devastating or helpful depending on your approach. At the end of the day each review is one opinion of an industry professional, who in many cases just got just a few minutes to take in what you have spent years working on.

That means they can give you a quick thumbs up/down on whether your work may fit their current needs (i.e. they may be able to hire you), and if they got excited about your work as something fresh they haven't seen lately or struck them as dated or amateurish based on their little corner of the industry.

The best approach in my opinion is to get many reviews rather than just a few. And then similar as in some sports competitions, you eliminate the best and the worst score, and then look for an average among the remaining comments. If something is pointed out only by a single reviewer, it could be a powerful observation (I had a few of those, two of which totally changed my direction and approach to how I work), or just be just some off-hand statement based on a very limited set of data that is quite possibly simple off the mark. One has to decide which one it is, and the power of that decision lies with oneself, not the reviewer.

But the most valuable feedback is that mentioned by more than one reviewer. If multiple reviewers get struck by the same image (take note of each reviewers favorites, and track it just like your Google Analytics), or point to a section of the book that just doesn't resonate, it's good to take notice.

One reviewer noted earlier this week that my work was too European and it didn't work here, it was too edgy. Well, I've written before that I approach my work with a European Sensibility on an American Canvas. So it was both a compliment and a hint for my marketing. However, I disagree with the conclusion. At the end of the day I have to work with my own sensibility. So rather than turning myself into more an American mainstream photographer, I just have to find clients who appreciate the European eye in my work, both among the designers and the publications. Hence the marketing hint.

Generally though the reviews were very positive and reading between the lines much progress was made since last year given what they gave feedback on, and what no longer came up, and a few areas for further refinement were highlighted. Also, every reviewer will have something to critique (most reviewers feel like they have to point something out, but they rarely want to tear you to shreds either unless you're unreasonable with them). So sometimes it's a case of - if that's the worst thing you can find, well, maybe that's a good thing.

For this review I did a much needed upgrade of my print book which hadn't seen any love in a few months. I actually reprinted it from front to back. I kept using my trusty 11x17 Lost Luggage cover, but removed the plastic sleeves and instead printed on double-sided matte paper that came already punched and scored from Lost Luggage. It took a bit of work to adjust the images for the duller matte print, especially in the shadows of many of my images. But I actually quite like the result of all this labor.

There was much debate in our local brain trust group whether to use an iPad or a print book. But at least 2/3rds of the folks at the reviews had a print book, and I think it shows a certain commitment to your work to still make the effort. It also proves that your work stands up to higher resolution and different mediums. I did have my iPad with me with some extra work and used it in one case to show an entire editorial, of which only 3 shots were in the book.

I also adjusted the branding of the portfolio to match my current promo card and business cards, which are at the printer as we speak for this quarters mailing.

I created a PDF version of my print book which I can share by email as needed when contacting reviewers. Send me an email at jan@janklier.com if you would like the link.

Photo credit for above images: Salem Krieger and Ken Jones of ASMP NY.

What Comes First - Image or Gear?

2013-10-27T12:05:00.001-04:00

The last couple of weeks I've had a broad variety of assignments and events, and I observed a lot of other photographers - which leads to an old question: what comes first, the image or the gear?

In September I covered 35 shows at NYFW (roughly a 1,000 models over 10 days), since then I shot a leather accessory catalog, an editorial location portrait, a beauty campaign, a fashion industry event at the CFDA, an A-list red carpet and award ceremony headlined by Marc Jacobs and Miley Cyrus among many others, a store opening for The Limited, a location business headshot, a church wedding with rooftop reception, and I assisted a photographer on a food packaging shot at a major corporate photo studio. I also worked the ASMP booth at the Broncolor/Hasselblad Shoot NYC event, as well as the ASMP booth at PhotoExpo Plus. I saw many of my images published online, one editorial in a print magazine, image selection for a 60" wall print campaign, a 1/4 image in upcoming PDN issue, a proof for the spread of Workbook 36 Spring. As we speak I'm getting ready to reprint my book for an early November portfolio review event. And I had hours and hours of conversations with other photographers, art directors, several of our ASMP national board members, stylists, editors, etc.

All this work saw a broad array of gear and a broad array of approaches to photography: from Canon 1Ds3 and 5DM2 for NYFW, location portraits, red carpet, and event coverage, Sony EX3 video at NYFW, Mamiya and PhaseOne for catalog, a rented Phase One P65 for the beauty campaign, and a Hasselblad 500C/Leaf at the food shoot. Inbetween a Mamiya 7 with film at NYFW and several of these other shoots. Protofo and Dynalite strobes in studio and on location, and a mix of natural light and Canon speedlite at events. Anywhere from ISO 50 to ISO 6400, and anywhere f/1.2 to f/32, and anywhere from 22MP to 65MP, IS0 100 and ISO 400 film, pushed 1 or 2 stops.

Watching photographers on the show floor at Photo Expo Plus is an interesting experience, and so is watching photographers on the risers at NYFW or people covering for Vanity Fair in the red carpet line-up.

There are the ones have very little control over their camera settings and have to ask what mode they should set the camera to, or ones showing up with a rebel and 50mm lens on a dark runway that is at least 300' long. And there are those that have been doing this for decades, with beat up equipment, but that know exactly how to say 'Marc, over here on the left' or 'Diane [vF], straight on please' to get exactly the shot straight on that the magazine needs.

There are photographers who roam the expo show floor with their 200mm L-Lens hanging over their shoulder, three lens cases strapped to their belt and who are dazzled by the latest shiny tripod offering, or that strange looking rig. Yet don't know what a trade organization is, how to register a copyright, enjoy shooting flowers, and have yet to sign up for an insurance plan.

In the end the best photos were those that started with a clear vision, a plan, being at the right place at the right time, and having access where others didn't. NYFW images worked out great because we had a great team, a solid plan, the right credentials, good PR contacts as a result of long-term networking, quality promo mailers, and follow-through. But the best images of NYFW came from a roll of B&W film, manual focus on a range finder camera.

The red carpet images and the CFDA event came from industry networking, volunteering, and having the respect of the critical gate keepers (and their cell phone numbers in a critical moment). The location portrait of an up and coming costume designer who came to fame through his work for Lady Gaga came through solid journalism, follow-up, and follow-through.

For both NYFW and the red carpet it was interesting to compare the images I was able to capture with what the folks in front, and left and right of me captured. Thanks to the Internet, that comparison is rather easy. It lets you make a critical assessment of your success and failures in the situation, and what to change the next time around.

The beauty campaign turned out great because of networking, a solid concept, a strong model, and shooting the right gear for the job, and knowing how to salvage a gear malfunction on set.

Getting to assist on a cool food packaging shoot came through a solid referral as a result of good networking and being part of an organization. And when the photographer you assist tells you afterwards that he would be happy to assist you in return (paid regular rate both directions of course), you know you've done your job right.

The editorial that was published was one where I offered to turn the inspiration my stylist from a prior shoot had into reality. And the PDN 1/4 page image (also the one I ended up using for the upcoming Workbook spread) isn't one that was meticulously planned, but from a personal project that recycled some studio time originally planned for something else, and with a model we had found while drinking wine at a hotel the week prior (she was a real model who as many just had a side job to make ends meat).

In all of these shoots gear played an important role, but never as important as knowing what needed to be shot, having pre-visualized it, having a plan, being prepared, and having spend countless hours interacting with people in many ways. The image always comes first, the gear is just a tool to make it happen.

That's why watching people geek out on the PhotoExpo show floor and listening to slick sales people and photographers recount tales of how they shot xy and z for a few sponsorship dollars is a sad thing.

And so is watching the 20-some year old EE student who was talking to the B&H rep at the table over about the Broncolor pack and head kit he just bought and whether he should get the 35mm or 50mm Hasselblad lens to shoot his friends costume. Dropping 10K+ on top notch gear as a student (not counting the $40K back he no doubtedly already bought earlier), with no concept which focal length will give you a good full-length image composition is somewhat backwards, for what was likely not a designer costume but a DIY Halloween outfit. As the B&H rep said, EE students, lawyers, and doctors are his favorite clients.

On the bright side, all those people lusting after gear on the show floor and at B&H add lots of revenue to the camera and lighting manufacturers, which allows them to leverage huge R&D budgets and lowers the cost of cameras for working photographers. If it weren't for the people enjoying a bit of gear, the DSLRs we shoot with today would cost just as much as medium format digital backs.

The Fashion A-List

2013-10-24T08:36:00.004-04:00

Earlier this week I covered the Fashion Group International 30th Anniversary Night of Stars, the premiere fashion gala in NYC, which was a star studded red carpet and awards ceremony. I was there on behalf of Moda & Estilo as well as member of FGI with a staff badge giving me great access.

It was enjoyable not only to see and photograph so many influential players of the industry, but also to listen to the speeches and conversations.

The award ceremony celebrated achievements across the entire range of the industry, from apparel (Marc Jacobs & Missoni) to interior design, and beauty (Givaudan & Bare Essentials).

And then there were the candid shots of FGI members that don't usually make the press:

A more complete set of images and copy can be seen in the Moda & Estilo posts on the Red Carpet and the Award Ceremony.

NYFW - Manual - Part 2

2013-09-14T11:18:00.001-04:00

Here some more film shots from the Alon Livne and Blac Mera shows...

NYFW - Manual - Part 1

2013-09-13T21:11:00.001-04:00

I shot two shows of NYFW on film. Since we had a team of photographers at the show, it gave me the opportunity to be more creative, as both shows were covered in full and digital by Danielle.

These are the images form the Zang Toi runway, shot on Ilford HP5 on a Mamiya 7. I didn't shoot every look since I only used two rolls, and had to switch rolls.

Wrapping up NYFW - Patricia Field Party

2013-09-13T20:32:00.000-04:00

After a busy 10 days shooting show after show, I had the opportunity to go the Patricia Field party in her Bowery store. It was the perfect way to decompress, still with camera in hand, but a bit more light hearted way, and to dive deep into the unique creative energy of the Lower East Side.

I'll let the images speak for themselves.

Thanks to Brianna and Sherif for making me go to this.

NYFW RTW Spring 2014

2013-09-12T08:59:00.001-04:00

I was on assignment to shoot the Ready To Wear Spring 2014 shows of New York Fashion Week (short NYFW SS14) at Lincoln Center and around Manhattan for Moda & Estilo, a global lifestyle and emerging fashion magazine. I was part of a team of 3 photographers and 5 writers who spent 10 days in NYC to cover and write about the shows.

My coverage included 28 shows as part of the main venue and various offsite shows. There were close to 1,000 individual looks I photographed, edited, and got ready for the writers waiting for them in the press lounge.

I also shot two shows and lots of street film which I'll get developed in the coming days.

I covered three of the shows with video instead of still. A few outtakes here (audio muted due to music copyright):

Here are some of the more memorable looks:

There Are Make-It-Work Moments

2013-09-07T10:38:00.006-04:00

There are Make-It-Work moments for photographers. Earlier this week I got a text message from Caitlin, who is a writer for Moda & Estilo, the magazine I'm on assignment to NYFW for. She asked me whether I wanted to join her and take photos of a chef she was interviewing for a healthy fashion week food story. The answer always has to be 'yes'.

It was the day before NYFW, and I was in the city for a client meeting and just had grabbed my film camera for some street shooting afterwards. And mind you this was a camera I had just picked up used at B&H the day before. I had my first roll of film in it. And on used film cameras you never know if they actually work, until you get your first film back from the lab.

So, shooting food and restaurant interiors with ISO 400 negative film, no flash. This will be interesting. When we get there, I use my light meter app on the iPhone to test the exposure. The outside of the building is in open shade, so we're good there for a portrait. And they have big windows, so lots of light there too.

So I shot one roll of film, an indoor portrait using the window light, three shots of the chef in front of the restaurant, and one grab shot of him behind the counter. Then he took us into the basement kitchen, and a few more shots of a second roll of the staff.

But for safety, I took Caitlin's Rebel, changed few settings and shot some digital shots of the food in the window. Slow lens, but just in case.

Well, it worked out alright. Got the film developed and scanned it the next day. Some more of the shots below, and the story on Moda &Estilo here: Mulberry & Vine.