Shoot what's in front of you

No gigs on the books this week; waiting for the weather to cooperate for a cool upcoming shoot. So, I could spend all day following everyone on Twitter, Facebook, read every entry of every blog...or...I could shoot what's right in front of me. In my case, that's my kids. So while the older two are at school, there's always a baby cooing in the other room with her mom while I get distracted with blogs, Facebook, etc. Hmm...here Clementine, why don't you wear Dad's hat he was wearing to disquise the fact that he didn't have time for a shower this morning...

These are the kind of impromptu images that also allow me to work in ways I'm not (or not anymore anyway) used to, meaning all natural light, and (in our Victorian house) high ISOs. I don't always like the noise of high ISO, but sometimes it gives these digital images a filmic feel, which is nice.

All the parents out there will recognize the above image as "Pooping my pants face, stage 1". I might be a little callous, but I think it's funny.

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.

Ah, New York, how I miss thee

My family and I moved to Grand Rapids a couple years ago. Long story about love and loss, and the desire for a major change. Western Michigan is beautiful pretty much year-round, but it is certainly a challenge for a creative person to make a reasonable living here. Luckily the cost of living is low.

The same time we moved to Grand Rapids, my drummer/friend/fellow photographer moved to New York City and holed up in a small apartment in Brooklyn. He would fly back to Chicago when we had a show to play...finally it was about time we reciprocated. And from the moment we got off the plane, I was in love with that city. The energy, the people, the dirt, the garbage...it's a photographer/artist's dream city. And New York offers far more opportunity for a variety of paying photo gigs. If the housing market was better, I'd be blogging from the back of a moving truck right now. Trying to figure out how to get photo gigs there that will cover the travel involved. Any ideas?

None of this is to say that I don't like where I live now, just that I (and didn't know until it was too late) am a New York City kind of person. Life is not handed to you; it's what you make it despite all the things conspiring against you. That struggle is what makes life interesting. Now, here in Grand Rapids, starting this business from absolutely nothing, I need to be meeting people and finding the photography jobs that excite me (like shooting musicians, artists, and interesting [or interesting-looking] people) . I know they're here; they're just maybe a little harder to find. Do you know anyone looking for that kind of shooter? Send them my way.

 

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.