Click here to view the embedded video.

Readers occasionally write in and ask for specifics about the camera, lens and settings I used for a particular shot.  Sometimes they want to know exactly how far from the subject I was when I took the photo, what the sensor size was, and whether or not I cropped the image after the fact.  At times I feel that some of the questions are overly concerned with the technical.  But I understand why people are curious about that kind of thing;  I enjoy the technical side of photography, too.  For many of us who’ve been doing this for a while, however, there’s a tendency to dismiss much of the gear and technical details as irrelevant.  They are not.  These things are important, even when they become so familiar to us that we take them for granted.

After all, even I enjoy behind-the-scenes footage showing a pro in action.  I paid enough attention to this video to know that Terry Richardson is using a Nikon D3X in such a manner as to get his trademark point-and-shoot style nailed.

He did this first with a Yashica T4, an actual point-and-shoot.  So, why use a $7k+ camera for the same thing?  Well it’s digital, dependable, and that wide angle Nikkor isn’t so bad either.  Tools and style are always linked but sometimes you can modify the normal use of a tool to make it your own.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I received a question from one of our newsletter readers about watermarking (we’ll use the word “watermarking” here when we talk about digitally overlaying some conspicuous logo or text on an image).  She asked if she should sign, or put her logo on her portrait and larger artistic prints, and if she should “watermark” her web images.  She noted that another artist told her that doing so screams , “not professional.”  My first reaction to that statement is that being professional doesn’t necessarily scream “artist” either.  But that’s another debate.

I don’t think it’s unprofessional, or inartistic to mark your work in some way. It’s a good idea for professionals to promote themselves through their work.  And artists have been conspicuously signing their work for centuries (or longer).  But making the decision about putting an imprint on your prints or digital images is really a matter of what you’re trying to accomplish by doing so.  The two practical reasons people give are to help with self-promotion and to prevent image “stealing.”

Marking actual prints is probably OK if the mark doesn’t harm the integrity of the work.  Putting some type of identifier on the back of the print, then labeling and signing the mat is always classy.  Logos are something I would stay away from here.

The big question for most photographers is about watermarking images for the web.  Again, I think it comes down to how you do it and what you’re trying to accomplish.

Proofs: If you use very noticeable watermarks on proofs, so clients won’t be tempted to copy and use them without buying the rights, feel free to go crazy with it.  The uglier and more intrusive the better, right?  Well, maybe not.  Too intrusive and the client may not want to purchase as many images.  Of course, if the watermark is not intrusive enough the client might go ahead and “steal” the images anyway.  As a matter of fact, some watermarks are so appealing they almost give the images a commercial ad look, which doesn’t bother a lot of people.

Web Images: The images you post to your blog, portfolio, or other websites can also benefit, or suffer, from the use of watermarks.  Truth is, some watermarks are really ugly, too big, or unnecessary.  So, if you ARE going to mark your images, at least make sure your watermark doesn’t ruin the viewing experience.  Is watermarking going to prevent your images from being stolen (copied and used elsewhere without permission or credit)?  Probably not, unless they’re so much a part of the image as to make the image unusable to anyone.  If someone wants to copy your image off their computer screen, they can and will.  If they’re concerned about your watermark, they’ll crop it or clone it out.

While a watermark might be a slight deterrent, I believe there is currently no available way to completely protect your images from being used without permission on the web.  The real advantage to placing your watermark on your images then, is that it will serve as a promotional tool.   That being the case, any clean, easy to read watermark is OK as along as it doesn’t distract.  Some photographers will provide their web images with borders so they can display their credits or logos outside of the main image.  Experiment with different styles and looks, keeping in mind what you want to accomplish.  It’s a good idea to find something you’ll be happy with for awhile so you can maintain a consistent look to your watermarking.  Of course, there’s always the option of not watermarking at all.   Some of the most well-known photographers choose to present their images without watermarking at all.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Central Park & Columbus Circle.  Yesterday in NYC.

If you’re a long-time follower, you know I love to work with performing artists. Actors and dancers can be lots of fun. With musicians, it’s a mixed bag. Sometimes you get the really self-conscious, withdrawn, need-to-be-drunk for anything types. Other times, you get lucky. Here’s one where I considered myself fortunate. Follow That Bird were fun, happy to be there, and up for just about anything I threw at them.

The shoot was to coincide with an interview at an Austin lounge, Rio Rita. As is usually the case, I arrived early to scout the location, get acquainted with any location/venue staff, and setup some minimal lighting. The band and the writer showed up shortly thereafter. In situations like this, I like to get the photo shoot done before the subjects start working with the writer. Sitting there, answering a bunch of questions for 30-45 mins., as you might imagine, isn’t the best lead-in to a creative shoot.

Here are some quick test shots of two of the lounge’s seating areas. Nothing special to it, just a snapshot using the camera’s pop-up flash. Yes, it’s good for something.

My setup was my standard two-light rig as detailed in my eBooks. For the first shot, I wanted a sense of depth, and some atmosphere. The lounge was a little on the dim side, so I set one flash on a stand to illuminate part of the background and give it all a little contrast. The main light was my go-to shoot-thru. The back light was unmodified. Of course, I asked the person I identify as the least comfortable to act as my test subject for the lighting. That way I can get them used to the idea of being in front of the camera with me before adding in the other subjects. Sometimes you can get some cool photos this way!

When the lighting was where I wanted it, I asked the other two members to step in. You can see we’re basically just having fun here. I’ve even recruited the writer as photo-assistant. Everyone loves to be a part of a cool photo shoot!

I asked the group to pile up on the couch behind them, literally sprawled out all over each other. This really got the playfulness feel I was looking for jump started.

While still on that couch, I changed the light up. I brought the unmodified Canon Speedlite 580EX II flash unit, that was previously acting as the back light, over to the couch. I aimed it straight down on them, for a party photo-booth effect. The light beam would be narrow and harsh. I had them get their faces in very close and continued with the playfulness by having them act out silly emotions with each other.

We moved over to another couch area where I had them change up positions a bit. I’m always experimenting, and the writer and I both suggested the trio pretend a strange love triangle was taking place. These would be a bit of a departure from the rest of the shoot, as we’d try to get something a little dark and mischievous going. I always ask if my subjects are OK with the ideas we’re trying, and in this case they said they were. Who knew if the editorial staff would go for it? But we’d have some interesting pictures either way.

I was pretty happy with what I had at this point, so I told the writer to take over. I decided to stick around and shoot some behind-the-scenes of the interview. Of course, it’s hard not to get a little creative, so I experimented with super-slow shutter speeds in the dark outdoor patio area.

This originally appeared in a recent issue of my newsletter.  If you’d like to receive my free newsletter, just sign-up for it by using the form on the sidebar

Editorial shoots can be lots of fun.  Especially when your subjects are willing to have fun with the process.  Because time and budgets are generally limited, I try to go in with as little gear as possible and get as many different shots as I can in 15-30 mins.

One assignment was to photograph Randall and Donya Stockton in Austin, the husband and wife proprietors of two or three nightclubs in the area.  We decided to meet at their Beerland club on Red River just off Austin’s famous 6th Street.

When I got there, I quickly identified two areas I wanted to pose the couple against.  The first was at the corner of the main bar.  I loved the cluttery atmosphere behind the bar and felt that the signs, bottles and lights would help tell the story.

Instead of just showing you the final selections, I thought it would be more instructive to use some fun outtakes as examples.  It’s often during the first few “test” shots, when I tell the subject(s) to just settle in and relax, that I get some great images to work with.  I really like the image above because the Stocktons are just being themselves here.  Getting a feel for who they are helped me know how to approach the rest of the shoot to capture their personalities.

In this image I’m using a variation on my favorite two-light setup.  I have a 42″ shoot-thru umbrella as my main, and a bare Speedlite as my kicker.  I’m using a Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM lens at 24mm.  I adjusted down to f/7.1 in order to get enough sharpness for eventual cropping (I never know how my images are going to be cropped by the layout designer).  ISO was 200.  1/40 sec. on the shutter gave me what I needed to bring out the ambient in the background.

Two problem areas were encountered, and they both had to do with light reflections:  the shiny poster, and the eyeglasses.  What to do?  I liked the main light and subjects, and everything else, just where they were.  So, I could have pulled the poster, changed it out with another less shiny one, angled it somehow, or shot the same scene from the same angle later, with a different angle on the main light.  In post, just replace the bad poster with the good!

I was working quickly, figured I wouldn’t worry about it because it would probably be cropped out anyway in favor of a tighter shot/crop.  I was right.  All was good.

Moving on to the next shot, I had the couple sit at the edge of the stage where the bands perform.  I wanted to get the club’s nameplate as the backdrop.  Of course, they loved that idea, too.

Again, the 42″ shoot-thru umbrellas as the main, but this time I used my bare Speedlite to illuminate the wall that the nameplate was painted on.  The stage lights at some of the smaller clubs are rather low-tech and randomly gelled, so just controlling the background with my own light was the best, fastest way to go.   As you can probably tell by the image, I had that light positioned to feather across the wall from right-to-left.

Eyeglasses still posed a challenge, but you know, take a few shots, chimp, and you’ll know how to avoid the reflections in a given shot.  Sometimes all it takes is to ask the subject to turn this way or that just a tiny bit.  Other times, you can adjust your angle.  Don’t mess with the position of the light because that just takes too long.  Have fun and it will work.

Gear Info:

• Canon Speedlite 580EX II
• ST-E2
• Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM
• Canon 50mm EF f/1.8 MK II

From this April’s Style Page, featuring Suzanna Choffel

Suzanna Choffel.  2AM or whatever it was.  Super-beautiful as always.  Photo shoot last night for InSite Magazine’s style section.  Then we just freestyled it and made some cool portraits like these.

From the Rare Magazine shoot (March 2010 issue).