Flurry of activity (except blog-posting)

So much going on lately that I haven't been able to sit still long enough to post, so here's what's been up:

First, my shoot with Andrea and the mannequin heads. I got a Facebook message from a high school friend saying she had a bunch of mannequin heads if I wanted them. Who could say no to two dozen heads with various hairstyles (they were used as practice heads for a stylist school)? Not me, that's for sure. Couldn't wait to use them in a shoot.

Enter Andrea Hoekzema, a makeup artist here in Grand Rapids, who I contacted after another shoot we were supposed to do fell through. She was a total pro, all the way through. In the interest of collaboration, I left it up to her what wardrobe would be. She brought several different choices and we came to a joint decision about her look. Once lights were set, she went into pose-off, and just kept popping and locking into different positions and I kept firing away at the shutter. She was great, and I look forward to working with her in the future, either as a model or as MUA.

Last week I headed to NYC to visit my friend (and fellow photog) Dan Gottesman for a one-day intensive (for real. we were exhausted when we got back to Brooklyn) workshop in Dobbs Ferry with none other than the inexhaustible Joe McNally.

But first, as soon as my plane landed, we headed to a burlesque/sideshow on Coney Island. Let me just say excellent way to start my time there.

The two greatest lessons I learned from Joe were:

1. it was of great benefit to me to see HOW he works, and interacts with the models, and to see the miscellaneous millions of pieces of equipment he uses. Much better than viewing them on B&H's website and guessing whether or not you're ordering the right thing.

2. With all the elaborate setups and multiple assistants, the big epiphany came when I realized every setup was a version (albeit in most cases a much bigger version) of what I already know how to do, and have used in the past. That is a liberating feeling because that means technology/equipment is not an impediment to image realization. I mean, you can only light the way Joe does if you roll with lots of Speedlights or Elinchrom Rangers, but even with almost unlimited choices at his disposal, most setups were 1 or 2 light solutions. If even Joe McNally gets it done with 3 or fewer lights, that confirms what we all know anyway: it's about vision, not equipment. Cameras don't make excellent pictures, photographers do. As Chase Jarvis says, the best camera is the one that's on you at the moment.

At one point in the workshop, he set us all loose with just 1 SB900. There was some squirming from some of my fellow attendees about that limitation, but I took it to mean Joe was driving the point home that one light is enough to make good pictures. If you can't make decent pictures with limited light, then having 75 lights isn't suddenly going to make you a better photographer.

As I looked back at my photos from the day, though, it was interesting that my favorites were available light shots that I stole in the moments between setups.

Back to Brooklyn, exhausted and not sure we could do it, Dan and I decided not to wuss-out and cancel a shoot we had scheduled for later that night. Our friend Michelle and our new friend Coco La Pearl agreed to model for us in a couple quick setups. Everyone was tired, and our models had to work in the morning, so we cut our half-dozen setups down to two.

Coco is also a burlesque performer, so we were thinking something along those lines. I thought "we're in Coco's very normal apartment; how about juxtaposing that with something more burlesque?" It would be very easy to make this into a "sexy" shoot, which if you're a member of Model Mayhem, is an overdone idea. Makes me (yikes!) never want to see another topless woman. What's the least sexy thing I can think of here? Cooking dinner. So I had Coco pick out one of her kinkier outfits and work the stove like June Cleaver. And I thought, in the interest of incongruity, Michelle should look as though she couldn't be less interested in what was going on.

Next we went out to the backyard. Never boring, it turns out Coco is also a fire-eater...a skill Michelle was interested in acquiring. So Dan and I took turns climbing an old TV antenna (dangerously close to all-too-live electrical wires) and documented tutor/student in action.

The fact that all that happened within 24 hours is why I love New York and will always be drawn back, at little or no provocation.

Joe McNally is my Jesus

In my previous post I mentioned that reading the blogs of David Hobby, Chase Jarvis, Joe McNally, etc. was an important part of every day for me. Well, let me amend that.

I'm a pretty firm agnostic. Just not sure if we're being watched over, or if the watcher was our own invention because we didn't like the idea of dying being the end of it. But what I do believe in firmly is the pursuit of a creative life. And in that pursuit, Joe McNally is either the Messiah, or at least one of the most important books in the Creative Bible.

I recently got my copy of The Hot Shoe Diaries by Joe McNally. I know my way around my camera pretty good, but I had barely gotten past the foreward in Joe's book before I felt like I had never really used my camera before. And by page 50, I had soaked up so much new information that I started to read with my camera next to me so I could read a paragraph, pick up the camera and see what Joe was talking about, change some settings, get back to reading, pick up the camera...you get the idea. Joe's got that perfect balance of technical knowledge, original vision, and (in his own words) bat-shit craziness. Which is how you can learn so much from reading his books without feeling like you've just read an owner's manual. Has anyone ever read a manual anyway? I don't even know where mine are. For anything.

I'm totally a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants guy, and am sometimes (read: most of the time) amazed at the images I get without truly understanding how that just happened. So it's sometimes a little embarrassing how much I DON'T know about my main creative tool. (heh...Creative Tool was my nickname in high school). Which is probably why The Hot Shoe Diaries speaks to me so loudly. Feels like he wrote it specifically for me, "The Hot Shoe Diaries: Seth, Stop Being an Idiot and Learn Your Instrument".

Those last paragraphs sounds a little too "school girl crush" in its effusiveness, unless you're a shooter and have read the book. Then you know the value of that book cannot be overstated. This new - or at least it feels new - culture of sharing knowledge is really exciting. And I think it's extra cool that even though Joe's a photo rockstar, not only is he willing to lift the veil on everything he does, he even went "power to the people" enough to list a Flickr Group for readers of his book.

Buy this book. For yourselves, and for anyone...and I mean anyone...with the slightest interest in becoming a better photographer.

Zack Arias says what we're all thinking

I can't even add anything. Just watch. Thanks Zack. 

I don't know if it's my computer or not, but if you can only see half of the video image, go here.

Art=innovation (even for non-artists)

I stumbled on this article while reading Amy Stein's blog. If you don't already, definitely follow her blog. I'll let you read the excerpt (grabbed from Amy Stein again). This isn't news to us artists, but it may be revelatory to some:

"The fact is that the arts foster innovation. We've just published a study that shows that almost all Nobel Laureates in the sciences actively engage in arts as adults. They are twenty-five times as likely as the average scientist to sing, dance, or act; seventeen times as likely to be a visual artist; twelve times more likely to write poetry and literature; eight time more likely to do woodworking or some other craft; four times as likely to be a musician; and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect their art to their scientific ability with some riff on Nobel prizewinning physicist Max Planck words: "The creative scientist needs an artistic imagination."

Bottom line: Successful scientists and inventors are artistic people. Hobble the arts and you hobble innovation. It's a lesson our legislators need to learn. So feel free to cut and paste this column into a letter to your senators and congressman, as well as your school representatives, or simply send them a link to this column. One way or another, if we as a society wish to cultivate creativity, the arts MUST be part of the equation!"

A little devil's advocate of my own to add: the United States is among the worst of the industrialized countries when it comes to arts funding. So low, it ought to be quite embarrassing to our leaders. On the flip side, though, it seems like the best work gets made in times of economic turmoil, when artists stand little chance of making any money from their work. Music is a good example of this: in the 50s and early 60s, even established "star" musicians made very little money. Think of the movie "Walk The Line" when Johnny Cash, Elvis, et al were on tour in their cars, taking turns driving. When music wasn't a way to get rich, we got artists who routinely changed the landscape of their art form completely. Then, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc., came along and became millionaires. Since then, the advances or changes in music have been minimal. And, since it seems like a decent get-rich-quick scheme, the radio is flooded with a bunch of boring clones of whatever some executive thinks is the "hip" sound at the moment.

When the economy is good, everyone, artists included, get comfortable. When art sells, many artists will produce what they think will sell. Not because they are morally weak; income is nice, and it's hard to turn down. But we are in an exciting, scary, fascinating, scary time right now. Artists are at the back of the "expectation of livable income" line. Which means some will give up. The rest of us, who HAVE to make art in order to breathe, will create art that really matters to us. With no reason to think there is any money to be made, artists will take bigger risks, therefore producing better art. Unless my powers of prediction are failing me, the visual art, music, and literature that will be born in the next couple years will be the best we've seen in a generation. And just maybe, a handful of us will forever change the way music, literature, visual art, theater is experienced.

It's a WRONG way to the top if you wanna rock and roll

When starting a new project, two main questions always pop up immediately: 1. What do I think the client (or boss or whoever is paying) wants, and 2. What's the WRONG way to do this?

Every time I've worried about question 1, the work has suffered and the client has had plenty of "notes" for me. So as much as possible, I try to rephrase that question for myself as "You know what the client thinks they want. Now, what do you think they need?" Every time I use this approach, or the "idea that's definitely getting you fired this time" method, I've gotten rave reviews. In a few cases in my life as a designer, it's even been a game-changer for the client. (btw, as an artist I hate the word "client". Makes me feel like a lawyer.) I suppose it goes back to idea that if you're doing something that doesn't inspire you, everyone can tell. Conversely, if you always do things or approach projects in a way that inspires you, that is just as recognizable. Even if it's not exactly what your client thought they wanted. That's why I'm extricating myself from the graphic designer job description. It was a decent way to make money, but I was never inspired by it. 

Tom Waits was the guy who turned me on to trying to do things the wrong way. Listen to his music, and you know that he has driven producers and engineers crazy for decades. Consequently, he has created music that you immediately recognize as his, before his equally "wrong way" voice ever sings a note.

Photographically, that means (for me) thinking about how I should NOT light something, or what the WRONG lens/aperture/shutter speed/film type is and trying it that way first. Sometimes, there's a very good reason there was a wrong method and the images are colossal failures. Other times, though, the "mistake" is what made the image worth creating in the first place.

Which brings me to my current project(s). The two kind of run concurrent with each other and I get images for both projects from the same session. 

One of these is a series of portraits. Oversimplified, it seems that portraiture is documentation of a person at a certain point in life and is meant to be flattering to the subject. So what's the wrong way to do portraits? I think I've found it. Using a single light source above and forward of the subject's head makes lines and wrinkles slightly deeper. My method of post-processing these images makes wrinkles canyon-deep and makes skin and hair look artificial. I would be immediately fired and then possibly sued if my sitters thought they were getting a glamour shot done. So far, though, they've all been good sports.

TWO-FACED: The other "wrong" way of doing portraits is multiple exposures. Sure, you could do multiple exposures that had a dreamy quality, showing two (or more) sides of a personality. I did some of those. And photographically, they're pretty cool. But what got me excited was the idea of using the double exposure to obscure the real identity of the subject. By closely overlaying the two exposures, neither shot by itself is the "hero" and a weird third identity is created. Again, flattering? No. You wouldn't say "oh what a nice picture of so-and-so." You might not even say "oh yeah. that's what's his name." But you stop and look for a while as you try to differentiate between the two original images and take in this weird third person that the two originals created. These portraits will never become anyone's Christmas Card, but they are keeping me excited enough that I wake up every morning wondering who else I can shoot.

Want to be the next two-facer on my list? Send me an email, or let me know in the comments.

Don't sweat the details (too much)

I had a session the other day...seemed to take forever to nail down a date, as it came up just as my wife and I (mostly her) were about to have a baby. Hard to schedule something when you could be racing to the hospital at any minute...

The concept was "china doll discarded in the attic", and it was my understanding that I was shooting one model. She was coming with an escort, which I encouraged since coming over to a house of a man you've never met to go up into his creepy old attic could be a little, uh, nerve-wracking. I was expecting two people. So when the car pulled up with four occupants (which, unless I missed my guess was the model's boyfriend, the model's friend, and the model's friend's boyfriend) I was a little aprehensive.

Then, just before my model went to change, she informed me that her friend would be in the shoot also. Uh oh. I just spent 45 minutes setting lights for a one-model shoot.

I decided to roll with it and just see what happened. It's a good thing I did. Because the snafus didn't end there. The models were doing their own makeup, and their concept of "we have the right makeup to make ourselves look like porcelain" was different than mine. I reminded myself to just roll with it, or as Joe McNally recently put it "uh, remember you already said yes".

So they ended up looking less like china dolls and more like Victorian-era young women, which made being in my (freezing cold) attic make a little less sense, but a quick redirect of the lights, a quick stopping down of the aperture to get rid of some of the attic junk, and the shoot turned out just fine. Turned out quite well, actually.

Uh...how do you say that exactly?

The word "epiglotic" seems to induce dyslexia, even in people who do not normally switch letters around. I have never once heard someone pronounce it correctly (epi • glot • ick) when seeing it in print, and often not even after I have said it aloud to them. Most often I am asked "what is epilogic?" 

Maybe it wasn't the best name for a business. But, as a silver-lining-finding guy (and as the guy who owns the domain name) I like to think that once a person learns how to pronounce it, it is a name, and a business, they won't soon forget.

So Seth, where does one come up with a name that I suspect is not even a real word?

It goes back a few years...I am also a musician, and a while ago I was coming up with names for a not-yet-formed band. The epiglottis is the little flap, or fleshy manhole cover, at the top of the esophagus that, if you're deciding between drinking and breathing, decides whether you breathe or drown. I thought that was a pretty good metaphor for any artistic pursuit. Not one to leave well enough alone, I changed the spelling to make it into an adjective. I have had to spell my website/email address/business name ever since. The band never did get put together (I decided to go solo, so that if I didn't like the other guys or they didn't like me I wouldn't have to think of another name), but I kept the name as an umbrella for whatever art I was doing at the time.

And now, I take the plunge (scary, invigorating...maybe those are the same thing) into the life of professional photographer. The alliteration of Epiglotic Photographic was just too good to pass up. 

So there it is. Epiglotic Photographic.