# "I ONLY shoot...."



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

I signed up for amazon kindle unlimited today and snagged a few books to read. One of them, was supposed to be on boudoir photography posing. Im a little taken aback by the authors stance on her shots. Which, from what I see are pretty solid. Supposedly shes been in busniess for 10+years and runs workshops and whatnot.   

Anyway, 2 chapters into the book she constantly says things like " I ONLY shoot continuos lighting, light meters, grey cards etc are just a waste of time." I ONLY shoot prime, zooms make you less creative" "I ONLY ever shoot at 1.2 or 1.4, thats my sweet spot, I love me some bokeh!" " I ALWAYS place one softbox 45º above the clients head" "I NEVER drop my SS below 1/640"

wait a minuet.... I feel like I am reading things on an internet forum filled with ammeters?! (and I'm not talking about you lovely TPF'ers, by the way)  

On the one hand, I suppose at least you know EXACTLY what you are in for when you see her portfolio, but on the other, I just don't understand how someone could make an entire career out of limiting themselves to so many "ONLY's." I don't see how you can get creative when you ALWAYS use the SAME lighting setup, same aperture etc.   

So school me please. Once you become a Professional, does your "brand" really place so many limitations on how you set up your shoot?   (If so, I suppose it makes me happy that I will forever be a hobbiest- free to change my aperture, lighting, white balance and lighting setup at my leisure.)


   Or should I just put this free (you get what you pay for) book down and run far far away...?


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

I imagine consistency is important when trying to make money from photography. Just think: you're a customer, you look at some portfolios, and you see on photographer whose style you like, so you hire that person. You expect to get that same style, right? Because that's what you chose? What if you got pictures that were very different from what you expected? Would you be mad that you didn't get what you expected, or would you be glad the photographer was expressing his or her creative license?

Maybe some photographers can vary their style depending on the type of shoot, for example, or can have discussions with their clients to show them different possibilities, but mostly, I think an important aspect of commercial photography is being able to reliably and consistently get a picture/style that has proved successful and lucrative. Clients don't want surprises.

I think like many other professions, photographers end up specializing - boudoir, sports, weddings, pet portraiture, events... what works for portraits won't work for events, for example. This means that while shooting the thing you specialize in, yes, you're going to stick to the settings and lighting arrangements that work for that genre. Does it get boring? Probably. But not every picture a commercial photographer takes has to be for a client. Perhaps they go shooting on their own for fun, for variety.

Or, you stay an amateur and avoid the pressure


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> I imagine consistency is important when trying to make money from photography. Just think: you're a customer, you look at some portfolios, and you see on photographer whose style you like, so you hire that person. You expect to get that same style, right? Because that's what you chose? What if you got pictures that were very different from what you expected? Would you be mad that you didn't get what you expected, or would you be glad the photographer was expressing his or her creative license?  Maybe some photographers can vary their style depending on the type of shoot, for example, or can have discussions with their clients to show them different possibilities, but mostly, I think an important aspect of commercial portraiture (boudoir or otherwise) is being able to reliably and consistently get a picture/style that has proved successful and lucrative.  I think like many other professions, photographers end up specializing - boudoir, sports, weddings, pet portraiture, events... what works for portraits won't work for events, for example. This means that while shooting the thing you specialize in, yes, you're going to stick to the settings and lighting arrangements that work for that genre. Does it get boring? Probably. But not every picture a commercial photographer takes has to be for a client. Perhaps they go shooting on their own for fun, for variety.  Or, you stay an amateur and avoid the pressure



I get consistency, but  simply taking DOF into account, I don't see how anyone can always shoot at f 1.2 no matter if it's a full body shot, or a head shot. Kwim?


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it? 

Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it?  Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle


Yes. It DOES work for her. Her images are great.
I suppose what I am REALLY asking, is if this is actually good, legitimate advice for the masses.


----------



## 407370 (Jul 26, 2014)

The pleasure of being an amateur is that I only shoot whats in front of the camera any way I please.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > But neither of us are boudoir photographers. If it works for her, why should she mess with it?  Some photographers I'm sure can manage more variety in their styles, but perhaps she's simply not that creative? So there's nothing to stifle
> ...



Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things.

But not everyone who writes a book should write a book


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things.  But not everyone who writes a book should write a book



She explains the effects. Like shooting 1.2 because "I love me some bokeh" but that's about it. The book DOES get 5 stars, but I don't think I'm going to finish it...


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 26, 2014)

Take what you need from the book and leave the rest.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2014)

Generally speaking many "how to" books often aim at the creating a situation of constants for the beginner. That is to say fixing situations so that the beginner hasn't got to think but simply copy the pre-designed idea and repeat it. This works well in early on education as it gives a situation where the author has the ability to present a somewhat controlled condition for the student who can then copy - repeat  and practice the method to get a similar style as the author has displayed. 

It's generally easier to say "I only ever use f1.4" than "I only ever use an aperture that gives me the thin depth of field I want" when dealing with beginners. 


Some photographers are also very robotic with how they approach photography; they find settings that work for them and stick to them to the point that its all they really use for that theme of photography that they do. Simplified into a book this can present the idea that the photographer has little variety in their settings; and that very well might be true. They've found a formula that works for them and they stick to it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

I can imagine how stunted her visual vocabulary is if everything is shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and the only light sources she knows how to use are continuous. And she's enamored of bokeh. Ohhhh boy......


----------



## pgriz (Jul 26, 2014)

She seems to be expressing what works for HER.  She may have lots of very solid experience behind her that brought her to that end-point, or she could have lucked onto a set of settings/conditions that work for her and she hasn't tried anything else...  My take-away from this, is to understand what she does, how it contributes to the end result she gets, and then decide if that set of conditions is consistent with YOUR situation, YOUR equipment and YOUR subjects.  As Derrel points out, there may be a whole lot of other ways of doing this that she's not touching or exploring.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, well I think it's crappy advice if she's presenting it in a way that suggests that everyone should shoot like her. If she's offering it as an example of "You should maintain consistency, and this is how I do it, but you all should find your own formula that works..." then it's slightly better, I suppose. I would hope she would explain WHY she has stuck with these settings and discuss the effect of other ways of doing things.  But not everyone who writes a book should write a book
> ...



Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to  I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills.

She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 26, 2014)

I always find it interesting when "professional" photographers talk down about tools THEY don't use or like.
Let's break down those statements a bit...

"I only shoot 1.2 or 1.4, love me some bokeh"...   OR "I don't know how bokeh actually relates to the lens and not just the aperture, nor how DOF is properly managed. 

I only shoot continuous light, meters and gray cards are a waste of time"....OR I have no idea how flashes/strobes work and won't bother to learn how accessory equipment works...

I suppose you COULD say that she never makes any adjustments to her lighting or shooting style because she found "what works for her"...OR, you might say that she found one method out of hundreds that gets a certain result and never bothered to learn anything past that and grow as a photographer. 

Whatever you prefer. 
Personally, I would feel pretty stagnant as a photographer if I shot the exact same thing the exact same way every time. 
All it says to ME is.....lazy.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2014)

Sometimes technical matters are left out of discussion and "its all about my artistic raw talent" because;

1) The person really doesn't have a  technical clue what they are doing - they just sorta do it and it works

2) They don't really want to tell you all of how they shoot cause you might copy that and beat them at their own game.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

Only one eyeball needs to be in focus at any given time. Only one breast needs to be rendered sharply. There's never any need for more than 2 inches of sharp focus in any one photo.

I only drive at 65 miles an hour, cause I loves me some speeding tickets in town. I only cook everything in the oven on broil, cause I loves me some burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. I only eat foods that are purple in color, cause I loves me some purple colored poo! I ONLY carry $100 bills, cause I loves me some crisp big bills.

Feel free to add your own ridiculous statements and make them into personal mantras!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to  I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills.  She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.



  She also says things like. "I'm a cannon girl" "I'm a prime girl" things, like you mention I would expect to read on an Internet forum. NOT from a professional writing a book.  

While we are on the subject of bokeh, please help me figure out this nagging issue I have when people discuss it. Bokeh, is the "quality of the out of focus area in a picture" so you can have good bokeh, creamy bokeh, bad bokeh. With all quality, there is a spectrum right? So why do I always hear "I love bokeh!" "This is my most recent bokeh shot" Don't you need to specify what KIND of bokeh you are talking about? Or am I just completely off base here.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Only one eyeball needs to be in focus at any given time. Only one breast needs to be rendered sharply. There's never any need for more than 2 inches of sharp focus in any one photo.  I only drive at 65 miles an hour, cause I loves me some speeding tickets in town. I only cook everything in the oven on broil, cause I loves me some burnt on the outside and raw on the inside. I only eat foods that are purple in color, cause I loves me some purple colored poo! I ONLY carry $100 bills, cause I loves me some crisp big bills.  Feel free to add your own ridiculous statements and make them into personal mantras!



I LOVE your food analogy. (Probably because I love food!)" yes, I am a professional chef. And I only cook hamburgers, with the same ingredients every time. I make a MEAN beef burger.  But I never bother trying any other types of meat (like bison) because that would be a waste of time."

I'll try to be clever and come up with my own, but really I'm not that clever....


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


I was reading a few book reviews on Amazon this morning - one 5 star review started with "I haven't read the book yet, but"...

Saying that she only shoots at f/1.2 or 1.4 Because she "loves some bokeh" - wow.

I sort of wonder why she would ONLY use continuous light.  You almost have to assume that it's because it's all she knows.  And never a longer shutter speed than 1/640?  That just doesn't seem very practical.  I suppose that if you only shot wide open though, your shutter speeds would always be on the short side.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jul 26, 2014)

Well, if we are putting it like that - I only shoot out of focus, so everything is subjective, and everybody sees something different.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

BrightByNature said:


> Well, if we are putting it like that - I only shoot out of focus, so everything is subjective, and everybody sees something different.



:giggle: abstract art for the win!


----------



## Designer (Jul 26, 2014)

Jazzie; you are right to question that person's photographic abilities based on what she wrote.  According to your review, I would say that that photographer has taken a shortcut to becoming a professional.  I further speculate as to how she got to be a professional.  She started out not knowing much about DOF, lighting, etc, but her friends started praising her results, so she assumed she was there, when all she has done is scratch the surface.  

You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same.  Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

Designer said:


> You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same.  Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.



+1


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 26, 2014)

Guess there's a reason it was free... If she found something that works for her, that's fine for her, but that's very limiting. I've been a teacher and with something like this you wouldn't just tell everyone to do something exactly the way you do it, you'd teach appropriate skills and techniques and help them figure out which works for them. 

I think a lot of websites and videos look more impressive than they really are, it's just too easy to put a bunch of crap online and make it seem pretty good. It's sort of like the Wizard of Oz, looks impressive til you see what's behind the curtain. Plenty of people do books and tutorials and don't have the expertise to back it up. (And who published this book anyway??)

With a lot of things you need to take from it what works for you. In this case you might be better off to quit reading it!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> ... I love me some bokeh!"


That sentence alone would have made me bin the book!   "Only" is a dangerous word to use in relation to artistic pursuits.


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > You can't, though, characterize all professionals the same.  Some are very good at their "style", and others are very good at being versatile.
> ...


I agree with the other geniuses.

Your new camera doesn't come with shackles, and neither does your mind. If you are a true professional, (you don't become one by acquiring a watermark, website, and flickr account,) you know and employ all the apertures and shutter speeds, and the myriad combinations of such, that you need to either complete an assignment, please a client, or, in my personal vocation, produce a one of a kind image that attracts collectors and dollars. This person has pigeonholed herself and uses her system to achieve what she needs. And if you wish to emulate her work, she has shown you the way.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

Vintage snap: it's by a lady names rachel Stephens. 

who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important. She expects some under exposure but good enough exposure to show her clients the LCD screen so they can build confidance... Now I'm reading the book for amusement.

"When shooting couples, you can still shoot wide open. I NEVER sacrifice bokeh. When shooting couples choose a focus point where they are touching and take at least 2 dozen shots of the same pose"

Cant make this stuff up folks!


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 26, 2014)

Last year someone here did a NSFW shot at 1.4 and it was fabulous.  
If I ever get a 85mm 1.4 lens I want to recreate it sometime.

but for right now I have enough problems focusing on a spot at f/1.8 on a fixed subject as I was trying that just this morning.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important.



To be fair checking the LCD with the histogram on is a good way to judge exposure - in RAW so long as you've got in-camera editing set to faithful/neutral values (ergo very little being changed) it works pretty well. Though honestly it shouldn't be the only tool in the bag and to teach it as such - gah that's BAD advice


Could she be the new Ken Rockwell ?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

Astro, I am not by any means saying that you cant get amazing work at those apertures, but the way this book is written is IMHO incredibly poor that It makes my head hurt.
and The whole "take at least 2 dozen shots of the same pose so you get one in focus"

Well I suppose I prefer Sue Bryce's method of " If a shot isnt good dont bother wasting a shutter accuation. Take 1-2 shots that are awesome and MOVE ON!"



Overread said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > who also says she judges exposure based on what comes up on the LCD screen, since she is shooting raw exposure is not that important.
> ...



She says NOTHING about a histogram. just judging the exposure by the lcd. Specifically says that "Metering is a monumental waste of time"


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2014)

Sounds like she's either clueless or she's trying to follow Ken - sometimes being "extreme" against the flow of the norm gets you a lot more attention than being the norm. Consider how much attention Ken gets just because "he never uses a tripod". 

It's actually a very crafty way to do marketing so long as you don't want to aspire to being the best teaching resource.


----------



## Designer (Jul 26, 2014)

FWIW; I endured her short promo video.  She uses flash, and more like one frame per camera position/pose.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah well, 5 stars doesn't mean what it used to  I've read some craptacular books that were rated very highly by readers, but all this tells me is that the people who are reading these books have poor judgment skills.  She actually wrote, "I love me some bokeh"? That's just poor writing. For an informal conversation or forum thread or something, fine, but for a published book? Poor form.
> ...



The word "bokeh" was brought to the English-speaking world in the early 1990's by Mike Johnston, who now writes and publishes *The Online Photographer*. He is the **one, single, specific person** who introduced the word bokeh to the English-speaking world. NOT kidding. I believe it was when he was editor of Photo Techniques magazine. he even added the H to the Japanese word boke, which means "the blur". His blog, TOP, did a week-long discussion and series of short articles discussing what bokeh is, and is not. Bokeh originally began as meaning the character, the quality, the lens drawing style, of the out of focus areas in a photograph. Some lenses produce specific types of bokeh: there are things like "onion" bokeh; cat's eye bokeh; swirling bokeh; and there are flaws, like "double-lining", where the lens tends to create two lines out of one, single object, such as a flower stem or a tree trunk. SOme lenses create smoothm, soft, dreamy out of focus bakvgrounds, while others create "nervous" or "jittery" out of focus backgrounds. The ones with smooth backgrounds have "creamy bokeh", while, well, you get the idea.

But the term bokeh has, nowadays, kind of morphed. Many people use *selective focus* and many use *shallow depth of field* techniques, and erroneous refer to that as "bokeh photography" or "bokeh pictures". The difference between selective focus, and resulting shallow depth of field, was covered very extensively by Mike Johnston, on TOP. The English language never stays the same; there is an entire sub-set of people who do not know what bokeh means, as properly defined, so...we're stuck with somewhat inaccurate use of the term, and I see no way out.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 26, 2014)

Just checked out her site.

I'm not a fan.

You could fine WAY better, and credible boudoir inspiration to learn from.

Yes. Even from another GIRL. :roll: :er:


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 26, 2014)

I wonder how long the Japanese have been using the word...

I took Japanese in highschool (I can still read and write Japanese fairly well, but my speaking sucks).  My Japanese dictionary (from 1995) does not have an entry for boke (&#12412;&#12369...



20140726_155028 by J E, on Flickr



20140726_154911 by J E, on Flickr

Bokasu seems to be the closest thing it has - "to blur", basically...

edit
Bokeru - to blur, to become senile - that might be close though.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I signed up for amazon kindle unlimited today



To get off topic here.
I've been considering this.
Does one download book or access them on the cloud?
If DLing, is there a limit to how many one can be reading simultaneously?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

Read some of the comments about her work here 



[/video

A number of people are slamming these before and afters for excessively heavy Photoshop work. I totally "get" the idea behind throwing almost the entire person out of focus, but even in a short dose, the effect of a wide-open aperture becomes very tedious to me. It's her method though. I think it's interesting that CreativeLive also prominently features another female shooter who said recently, "As a professional, it's your job to get the BEST-possible pictures for your clients, so don't always shoot wide open...shoot around f/5.6, so you have some depth of field." This from Lou Freeman, only the second woman in the history of Playboy magazine to shoot for that magazine, which has millions of shooters clamoring to be allowed in the door. Lou shot a lot of sets for Playboy, not just one or two.  About Lou Freeman Photography

This "Always at f/1.2 " and "Always at f/1.4" business is one of the things that separates older-generation photographers from newer-generation ones: many younger-generation shooters are enamored of wide-open, shallow DOF, and Photoshopping the chit out of skin until it looks plastic.

As to couples shoots: firing off two dozen shots on one pose, to ensure that you get the right focus? Wow. Especially with amateur or "real people" as subjects...wow...that's sacrificing a lot of expressions for the sake of getting shallow DOF. But then again, WTF. It's digital, right? It is possible to shoot,shoot,shoot,shoot, shoot a ton to get one. I mean, it no longer costs the photographer 69 cents or $1.10 per press of the shutter release for film, processing, and proof printing...digitial has made it possible to shoot more. But seriously....taking two DOZEN shots of a couple, just so that maybe one frame is in focus? OMG....that seems so, so undisciplined to me. How about shooting at f/7.1 and getting the f*****g focus right? And thus, being able to select from two dozen GOOD, and in-focus, and usable frames, consistently, set after set?

Of course, she does have a system of using "simple gear" and "saving tons of time in post" (her words, from her CL intro video, not the one above) to get basically, a similar type of shot, over and over and over. And hey, that is her way. But looking at two minutes' worth of her shots, I see it's pretty formulaic, and the results are exceedingly repetitive. It's the SAME, exact "forced" wide-open Canon 35/50/85 L-series look that results when you take the same kind of shots over and over and over on everybody who walks in and you use the same,exact lenses, used at an extreme aperture, on every set you shoot. It's not invalid...it works for her, and she does it her way, but again, to me it looks very formulaic, and lacks diversity of result. I'm tired of over-airbrushed skin, and nothing in focus but the eyes kinda' boudoir.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > I signed up for amazon kindle unlimited today
> ...



I just started my trial today, but I downloaded about 6 books off the bat and all showed up on my kindle immediately!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

Derrel, Thanks for the lesson on Bokeh! You would know all that wouldn't you? :Giggle: Where do you store all that information??

I will have to go check out the comments on the video you posted. I'm still shocked that there were no reviews under 3 stars (until mine)

Very interesting about the advice given on creative live. I really really wish I could watch some of those. 

As for the authors work, I pulled up her website and I'm not a fan. She had a few nice shots, but most were- Unimpressive.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Of course, she does have a system of using "simple gear" and "saving tons of time in post" (her words, from her CL intro video, not the one above) to get basically, a similar type of shot, over and over and over. And hey, that is her way. But looking at two minutes' worth of her shots, I see it's pretty formulaic, and the results are exceedingly repetitive. It's the SAME, exact "forced" wide-open Canon 35/50/85 L-series look that results when you take the same kind of shots over and over and over on everybody who walks in and you use the same,exact lenses, used at an extreme aperture, on every set you shoot. It's not invalid...it works for her, and she does it her way, but again, to me it looks very formulaic, and lacks diversity of result. I'm tired of over-airbrushed skin, and nothing in focus but the eyes kinda' boudoir.


It sounds to me like she's just taking a ton of pictures and hoping that one is good enough to use, rather than "doing it right" and selecting the best one from there.

Just keep snapping away till you "get it", instead of actually setting out to "get it" from the beginning.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 26, 2014)

e.rose I misread your post and I swear I thought at first it said that you _choked_ on her site! LOL Well I guess that tells you where my mind was going and I haven't even actually looked at her site or video yet to get that impression. The so called advice was enough... 

Browncoat don't dump all women photographers in with her, it's an insult to those of us who have skills and expertise. And to women like Dorothea Lange, Berenice Abbott, Margaret Bourke-White, Anna Atkins...


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

I have to add this in here. Origionally, when I said " it works for her, her images was great" I was viewing on a small cell phone screen. Looking at it on a larger screen has me retracting my statement.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 26, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> e.rose I misread your post and I swear I thought at first it said that you choked on her site!



It might as well have said that. 

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

*bokeru 
*meaning number 2) blur; fade

The Online Photographer: What Is Bokeh?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

My experience is that dogma in regard to matters of photographic technique is not a good approach. Not every situation can be handled with the same,exact approach. Trying to handle every situation with the same,exact set of tools and techniques leads to results that start to look cookie-cutter. Of course, some people might call that working in a "style", or working within a well-defined "niche". Neither of those two things, working in a style or within a well-defined niche, are necessarily a bad thing if people want to PAY MONEY for photos made in that style.

My 1980's university photography mentor always emphasized the difference between *having* style, and wearing clothing that happened to be "*in style*".

Here's an example of what being in-style used to mean, during those days:  bad 1980's style portraiture + photos of - Google Search


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> bad 1980's style portraiture + photos of - Google Search



Which one is you Derrel? ;-)


----------



## Designer (Jul 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> .. so...we're stuck with somewhat inaccurate use of the term, and I see no way out.



This is how I deal with it:


----------



## Designer (Jul 26, 2014)

In hashing out this Rachel Stephens character I think we can all agree that there are many things that we might disagree with her about her photography, and even she doesn't "always" do the same thing as she wrote in her book.  There is a difference in approach whether one is making a living at photography or trying to sell books.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 26, 2014)

Come on guys....I'm supposed to be enjoying my 20 year class reunion right now, NOT moderating inappropriate comments.

Can you guys please play nice for a bit so I can enjoy the party? Pretty please?


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 26, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > JustJazzie said:
> ...


Do these expire after a certain time?
What happens when your subscription ends ?


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 26, 2014)

I have a Kindle, and read a lot on it - but what is Kindle "Unlimited"?  That is a new one for me...


----------



## e.rose (Jul 26, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Come on guys....I'm supposed to be enjoying my 20 year class reunion right now, NOT moderating inappropriate comments.  Can you guys please play nice for a bit so I can enjoy the party? Pretty please?



You're lucky you cleared it out before I got back. I just got done with a shoot, and find myself bored again, so I was coming back to rumble. 

Party on Wayne! 

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 26, 2014)

The thing that I think most people miss is that this is how she makes her living, and she's doing it too.
Her styles, lack of consistency in what she tells people et all .. well you can't do much about that.  If the clients like the results than that is what matters (I think we hashed that type of point in several recent threads).

It reminds me of musicians.  I think all the jazz saxophonists that I know deplore Kenny G. (vs like David Sanborn or Boney James).  But he makes a living at it and a pretty good one.  You can't fault anyone for that.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

e.rose said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Come on guys....I'm supposed to be enjoying my 20 year class reunion right now, NOT moderating inappropriate comments.  Can you guys please play nice for a bit so I can enjoy the party? Pretty please?
> ...



Meh, I can tell you what happens at the 20th: some of the guys are bald, some of the cheerleaders got fat, the rest of them are just older, and one or two members of the stoner crowd became, like, a member of Congress or something equally unexpected. The rest of it is hours of, "So, are you married? Got kids? Where are you living? Oh, you like Cabo, too? Hey, whatever happened to [insert random person who didn't show up]. So, you're an accountant, huh? What's that like?" Then you order another beer and move onto the next person and have the same exact conversation for the next half hour.

We're more fun and you know you love us


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Wow .. deja vu .... I never realized how exactly it is like that  :shock:


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Wow .. deja vu .... I never realized how exactly it is like that  :shock:



I calls 'em like I sees 'em :mrgreen:


----------



## Designer (Jul 26, 2014)

I had such a terrible time in high school that I don't enjoy dredging up old memories.  I've gone to exactly one reunion, in spite of the fact that they hold them every five years.


----------



## cgw (Jul 27, 2014)

LOW-end, generic, taxidermic schlock.

If BS was music, she'd be a brass band.


----------



## Designer (Jul 27, 2014)

cgw said:


> LOW-end schlock



That she is getting paid for.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2014)

Her studio is about 12 minutes from my home. I've lived here in this region for 22 years. I have never once heard of this woman until yesterday, through any media outlet, word of mouth, conversation, publication, whatever. Not that I really have my ear to the ground on boudoir shooters, but I am familiar with the work of over 50 of my city's professional photographers,and dozens more who are known in my region of the Pacific Northwest. Yes, she is getting payed. So are a lot of other people who produce low-end schlock. The huge *Glamour Shots* franchise did a ton of business producing low-end schlock. I think the phrase low-end schlock is a bit harsh for her work, and I do not approve of that baldly dismissive attitude. I am not a fan of her style, but she CAN shoot, and she is a pro, and she does have some lovely images. And I think she shoots to please HER clients, which I see as being a good thing. I personally do not like her style, but then, I am not a client of hers. I don't like escargot or red wines either, so, hey, I don't buy either. Simple concept, really.

I thought about this issue a bit last night. Creative Live does a lot of classes aimed at women who want to enter specific niches in photography, and this shooter calls her boudoir work "empowerment photography". Her video talks about being overweight, and lacking body image confidence herself, and addresses what her type of boudoir photography does as far as boosting client self-esteem. The second video shows her regular,everyday Portland area female clients, photographed in her style. Basically, VERY shallow depth of field that throws large expanses of bare skin into deep,deep defocus, meaning easy retouching, and large areas of skin that can easily be smoothed and "enhanced" with software. If you look at her pictures, she enhances the beautiful features of her regular, everyday women, and obscures the vast majority of them, which is a sort of addition through subtraction process. She shows very little clearly, and obscures the majority of the frame by blowing everything out with wide-open Canon primes that open to f/1.4 and f/1.2. Not to sound sexist, but this is a formula that many women shooters of recent minting tend to like. According to one lens manufacturer's rep I read, the 50mm prime lens is being used HEAVILY by many female photographers, extensively, and it is often their only lens length. There is an entire segment of the photo industry using Canon's fine 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 lenses very heavily; we in fact have three pretty good female shooters here on TPF who shoot their 50mm lenses almost exclusively, and do some damned fine work with them too.

As I see it, Creative Live is catering very heavily to beginning photographers. I have watched multiple of their 3- and 4-day classes, and have seen the audience members and listened to the internet chat based questions that come in, and I find a lot of the presentations very tedious and basic, because the presenters are teaching for a level of photographer with a lot less background and experience in the "fundamentals" than I have, or that many other 10- or 20- or 30-year shooters have. But as far as getting payed for shooting what cgw called "low-end schlock"--well, yeah, she is getting payed. She's found a niche, this "*empowerment photography*" type of boudoir, and I think it's instructive to look at her typical clients body types and overall appearance, and then see why "she loves her some bokeh". And why, "she loves her some massive skin smoothing." She's shooting a lot of sets of people who want to look pretty,feel pretty, and to have some photos that make them look glamorous. Limiting the DOF drastically does do wonders for pictures; it focuses the viewer's eye on whatever is IN focus, and the rest of the image is mostly suggesting, rather than explicitly revealing. And that is a long-time principle in glamour work: suggesting, rather than baldly showing everything. So, I totally get what she mentions in hr video: she wants to grow "followers", and she's hit upon something that people will pay for. She's targeting a niche market that has a lot of members in it: not the super-fit, ripped, hardbody, runs 8 miles before work, kayaks the Willamette River, hikes the gorge on weekends types of women that are plentiful here in this city. She's going after regular, not-so-fit women who have some body image issues. I know exactly where her studio is, what side of the river she works on, what her neighborhood is really like. She has a big pool of potential clients in that neighborhood. Cross the river at the Broadway Bridge and head to The Pearl District, and the demographic shifts WILDLY, and the fitness nuts and the chic $350 dress and $400 shoes hardbody ladies walk around the neighborhood where rents are $1500 to $2500 a month for high-rise apartments.


----------



## cgw (Jul 27, 2014)

_I think the phrase low-end schlock is a bit harsh for her work, and I do not approve of that baldly dismissive attitude

_It's exploitative and predatory for playing on insecurity and encouraging narcissism as "empowerment." That it's being done by a woman somehow legitimates and excuses it. I know several photographers who ply the same trade in what they call "strip mall" erotica to describe the aesthetic. It satisfies a demand.


----------



## Tee (Jul 27, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Come on guys....I'm supposed to be enjoying my 20 year class reunion right now, NOT moderating inappropriate comments.
> 
> Can you guys please play nice for a bit so I can enjoy the party? Pretty please?



Are you seriously moderating TPF from a 20 year reunion?!?  Dude, power done the mobile and go talk to people.  Life is short.  The person you talk to tonight may not be at the next reunion.  Priorities, man.  Priorities.  Get them aligned.

Back on topic:  It irritates me like a paper cut when people don't know the difference between depth of field and bokeh, especially when they are someone giving workshops on high profile advertising websites.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 27, 2014)

Tee said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Come on guys....I'm supposed to be enjoying my 20 year class reunion right now, NOT moderating inappropriate comments.
> ...



well, no...im not *now*....
im back home  now.  :mrgreen:


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 27, 2014)

Wow, I feel Empowered now after reading Derrel's ramblings ..  thread ... err .. post.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 27, 2014)

When any book that is supposed to help me learn more instead makes my Spidey senses start sounding alarms screaming, "this isn't right! this isn't right!", I put the book down and move on. 
The problem is, ANYone can be a "pro" photographer these days, AND anyone can be a "published" author. It used to be, that for a book to be published, it had to at least be deemed worthy by *someone* other than the author--an agent, a publisher, somebody who knew SOMEthing about books. These days, literally ANYbody can "publish" a book. 




astroNikon said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



The way I understand the new Kindle unlimited program is that your monthly subscription allows you to download as many eligible books as you want, as often as you want. They don't "expire" in one sense--if I download a book today, and don't read it until next year, it'll still be there. UNLESS I cancel my subscription. Once I cancel my subscription, ALL the books I downloaded through the Kindle Unlimited program are no longer accessible to me.

Just like a movie rental site, say Netflix. You pay the monthly fee and watch all the movies you want online, whenever you want. But cancel the subscription, and POOF! no more movies.

So, if you are certain you'll read more than $10 worth of eligible books in a month, it's worth the cost, but otherwise, it's not, because I can't just use it to download 200 books in one month, and then cancel the service and have 200 books to read.

I've started my trial as well; I've downloaded three books, almost finished with the first. I love the IDEA of this program, but will probably give it my free month plus one paid month before I decide whether there are enough eligible books that I'm likely to read to make it worthwhile. 
I already read a LOT of free or really, really cheap books on Kindle, so I'm not convinced I'll stick with Unlimited. Time will tell.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2014)

cgw said:


> _I think the phrase low-end schlock is a bit harsh for her work, and I do not approve of that baldly dismissive attitude
> 
> _It's exploitative and predatory for playing on insecurity and encouraging narcissism as "empowerment." That it's being done by a woman somehow legitimates and excuses it. I know several photographers who ply the same trade in what they call "strip mall" erotica to describe the aesthetic. It satisfies a demand.



Yeah...making overweight people feel bad about themselves is exploiting them. Wow...you're amazingly sexist.  I mean, Good Lord, imagine the nerve of those women, wanting to feel beautiful! You call that "narcissism". OMFG, you're a charmer.

With comments like the ones you made above, it's pretty clear to us all that you're an expert on human psychology and a real modern-age man. Wow. Are you done burning all the 50 Shades of Grey books you can find?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 27, 2014)

sm4him said:


> When any book that is supposed to help me learn more instead makes my Spidey senses start sounding alarms screaming, "this isn't right! this isn't right!", I put the book down and move on. The problem is, ANYone can be a "pro" photographer these days, AND anyone can be a "published" author. It used to be, that for a book to be published, it had to at least be deemed worthy by *someone* other than the author--an agent, a publisher, somebody who knew SOMEthing about books. These days, literally ANYbody can "publish" a book.  The way I understand the new Kindle unlimited program is that your monthly subscription allows you to download as many eligible books as you want, as often as you want. They don't "expire" in one sense--if I download a book today, and don't read it until next year, it'll still be there. UNLESS I cancel my subscription. Once I cancel my subscription, ALL the books I downloaded through the Kindle Unlimited program are no longer accessible to me.  Just like a movie rental site, say Netflix. You pay the monthly fee and watch all the movies you want online, whenever you want. But cancel the subscription, and POOF! no more movies.  So, if you are certain you'll read more than $10 worth of eligible books in a month, it's worth the cost, but otherwise, it's not, because I can't just use it to download 200 books in one month, and then cancel the service and have 200 books to read.  I've started my trial as well; I've downloaded three books, almost finished with the first. I love the IDEA of this program, but will probably give it my free month plus one paid month before I decide whether there are enough eligible books that I'm likely to read to make it worthwhile. I already read a LOT of free or really, really cheap books on Kindle, so I'm not convinced I'll stick with Unlimited. Time will tell.




Yes, I'm starting to get very frustrated with the internet in general. In another group, there are such terrible photos getting insane amounts of praise from people who have no idea what they are doing. Idiots taking advice from other idiots. "Professionals" writing how too books. It sure makes it difficult to know who to trust!
As for the kindle unlimited:
I found out today that the limit is 10 books out at a time. I started another kids chapter book with my son today and quickly deleted it. What absolute JUNK it was. However, we may go ahead and keep it for a while because it does have some books worth merit, and many easy readers to choose from while my son is learning to read. Our local library is worthless, so I'm hoping this is a consolation.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > _I think the phrase low-end schlock is a bit harsh for her work, and I do not approve of that baldly dismissive attitude
> ...



Wait, somebody else already played the overbearing sexist pig card?

Ahh crap.  Ok, well not much point in me being in this thread then I guess.. rotfl


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 27, 2014)

sm4him said:


> Just like a movie rental site, say Netflix. You pay the monthly fee and watch all the movies you want online, whenever you want. But cancel the subscription, and POOF! no more movies.


Well oddly enough Netflix does remove and cycle movies too.  I think their contract(s) with the movie places only lets them have so many plays of them, then they have to remove them.   So movies come and go ... whether you want to see it again or not.  You could always order the DVD though.

If I like a book .. I generally like to keep it.

The books for my kids through the ipad store .. now those books some are good for reading and other just go from "good" to .. oh, they're just totally out of ideas now but are pushing junk for content.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> As for the kindle unlimited:
> *I found out today that the limit is 10 books out at a time.* I started another kids chapter book with my son today and quickly deleted it. What absolute JUNK it was. However, we may go ahead and keep it for a while because it does have some books worth merit, and many easy readers to choose from while my son is learning to read. Our local library is worthless, so I'm hoping this is a consolation.



I will almost certainly not keep it, if that's the case. I sometimes download a book, knowing I want to read it "sometime," but having no intention of reading it anytime soon. I wouldn't want to be bothered with the hassle of keeping track of which ten books I've got "out" and which ones I've read and returned.


----------



## cgw (Jul 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > _I think the phrase low-end schlock is a bit harsh for her work, and I do not approve of that baldly dismissive attitude
> ...



Pull the other one...

Jeff Bezos will soon own everything:

https://kdp.amazon.com/signin?language=en_US

Even vanity press crap.


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Jul 27, 2014)

Her way may work for her. But It doesn't mean that you or anyone else has to do things her way. 

If every photographer used the same methods to create photos.... I think we'd have far fewer "artists" and far too many "casual photo takers".

We all shoot differently and have our own styles...  Thankfully... Otherwise the love of photography would be pretty boring.

PS - This is personal opinion...  I am not preaching or critisising anyone...


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 27, 2014)

sm4him said:


> I will almost certainly not keep it, if that's the case. I sometimes download a book, knowing I want to read it "sometime," but having no intention of reading it anytime soon. I wouldn't want to be bothered with the hassle of keeping track of which ten books I've got "out" and which ones I've read and returned.



It might not work for you, but I just started a wish-list for books.  To keep what I want to read handy, but not have more than 10out at a time.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > When any book that is supposed to help me learn more instead makes my Spidey senses start sounding alarms screaming, "this isn't right! this isn't right!", I put the book down and move on. The problem is, ANYone can be a "pro" photographer these days, AND anyone can be a "published" author. It used to be, that for a book to be published, it had to at least be deemed worthy by *someone* other than the author--an agent, a publisher, somebody who knew SOMEthing about books. These days, literally ANYbody can "publish" a book.  The way I understand the new Kindle unlimited program is that your monthly subscription allows you to download as many eligible books as you want, as often as you want. They don't "expire" in one sense--if I download a book today, and don't read it until next year, it'll still be there. UNLESS I cancel my subscription. Once I cancel my subscription, ALL the books I downloaded through the Kindle Unlimited program are no longer accessible to me.  Just like a movie rental site, say Netflix. You pay the monthly fee and watch all the movies you want online, whenever you want. But cancel the subscription, and POOF! no more movies.  So, if you are certain you'll read more than $10 worth of eligible books in a month, it's worth the cost, but otherwise, it's not, because I can't just use it to download 200 books in one month, and then cancel the service and have 200 books to read.  I've started my trial as well; I've downloaded three books, almost finished with the first. I love the IDEA of this program, but will probably give it my free month plus one paid month before I decide whether there are enough eligible books that I'm likely to read to make it worthwhile. I already read a LOT of free or really, really cheap books on Kindle, so I'm not convinced I'll stick with Unlimited. Time will tell.
> ...



Don't keep it too long you won't be able to send it back, have you still got the Nikon DF


----------



## CCericola (Jul 28, 2014)

Yeah, I didn't read all the other posts. She has a shooting style. Her writing style probably sucks. Either way she made money on the deal. Workshops and books are the new "in" thing to do when you are a photographer.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 28, 2014)

Apparently that's the case, there seem to be a lot of people self publishing and self whatever (putting a video on YouTube or a blog online et). 

I did finally look at the video which seemed to be geared more to women and self esteem than about learning photography skills which I suppose is fine for people that want that. If I'd known sooner it was thru CreativeLive I might not have even spent the two minutes or so it took to watch it (didn't see that til the end) because although I haven't looked at a lot of their stuff I haven't been too impressed with what I have seen. So much for freebies...


----------

