Test Shoot: Sun & Connie

Sun and Connie, repped at Wunder. Uber-shout out to Deb Chung for her amazing MUA talents! Apologies to all for my puking dogs (readers, don't ask).

Test Shoot: Sasha

Same as prior entry... not a lot of time for detailed recount, suffice to say, Sasha was WONDERFUL. Special thanks to my "assistant for life" Summer, for all the holding, hauling, attending, and MUA duties she performed!

Test Shoot: Shannon

Oy! Have been overwhelmed last couple of months-- I absolutely refuse to believe it is October...surely there is trickery afoot. Well, things aren't slowing down anytime soon, so not a lot of time for quippy rhetoric-- here's the down and dirty:

Location: Griffith Park, 3pm-7pm; 85% the 70-200mm hovering around 5.6, 15% the 24-70mm, same-ish aperture. ND.6 on both lenses for everything in the jean shorts.

Model: Shannon, repped at Wunder Management. Super nice gal who can keep up with me = bonus points. Mega thanks to her boyfriend for helping hold a variety of reflectors for me!

Usual disclaimer of: blogger compression blows-- colors way better than they appear here.

Shoots: Duo

As mentioned, I had shot April&Hailey in the same session... and while modeling agencies generally don't like to feature two or more models from the same agency in one photo if it's just a test-shoot, I figured since I had them both right there, might as well take advantage of it, if only for practice/fun.

Shoots: Hailey

I actually shot Hailey (also from Photogenics) at the same time I shot April-- so there's not really much more to report tech-wise. Hailey is/was a brand-brand new sign at her agency-- I believe I was one of her first photoshoots, ever-- and I can see why she was snatched-up as soon as she was scouted... the kid certainly has "got it"-- a born natural model. There's something "innocent and lost" that's conveyed in her eyes... and it totally works for the camera.

Hailey was as sweet as she was shy off-camera, but went into total pro-mode as soon as I started snapping; I can see a bright future and long career in this industry for her.

**I know I'm a broken-record, but I can't stress ENOUGH how much the Blogger's compression saps quality and color from the photos I post here. Does anyone know of a solution or something I should be doing differently to prep the photos for upload? I work in the sRGB color-profile, so all my colors are web-safe, but something that Blogger does makes the image quality worse than Facebook-- and that's saying a lot!

Shoots: April (and debating the 85mm 1.2)

April is the real deal... like, for real. The 6-foot, multi-ethnic, California native is the very definition of a pro, yet a fairly recent sign at Photogenics , you'd think this girl has been doing this for years. Want to hate her even more?... she was a total sweetheart and laughed at all my jokes. And while I think they were merely only "polite laughs", I appreciated it nonetheless.

The shoot took place at my now firmly cemented default location: Griffith Park; with make-up and styling starting at 3:30pm, taking about an hour before we got shooting, with last shot about 30 mins after sunset. I started with the 85mm 1.8 prime... but quickly swapped it out for the 24-70mm 2.8 and never put it back on. I'm finding that while I love-love-love my 85mm... I just can't really use it for anything other than traditional portraits-- and I'm not doing as many of those as I first thought I would when I bought the lens. I need the breathing room that a 35mm or 50mm focal length provides when composing a frame.

In the beginning, I was hell-bent on owning the coveted Canon 85mm f/1.2L.... at a fetching $1,970; the legend of this lens made me want to buy it blind... I'm so glad I did not. For anyone torn between the 1.2 and the 1.8-- forget all the talk about the slower AF and back-focusing issues with the 1.2... you only need to say to yourself..."When am I ever going to need to be at an aperture of 1.2?" The answer will be nearly never; 1.8 is a perfectly adequate aperture to get that legendary thin, creamy DOF. If it's worth the nearly $2k so you have the option of having a subject's eyes in focus, but the tips of the eyelashes begin to get blurry, I have two things to say: 1) What kind of photography are you really doing? and 2) Can I borrow $5 grand, cause you clearly are doing OK at the bank. I'll pay you back, I swear.

Listen, I'm not saying 85mm isn't a useable focal-length, quite the contrary... I'm merely saying for less than $400, you can have an extremely comparable alternative, that even is widely commentated on being sharper than the 1.2, anyway. Sure, the L-series touts being weather-sealed and sturdy and tough... but unless you're a journalist in the Middle East running from an RPG attack, your 85mm 1.8 is going to survive just fine in your camera bag. In fact, if you were a journalist in Afghanistan you WOULD want the option of being at a 1.2, in order just to get an exposure in low-light, because a flash is going to get you a sniper-bullet right between the eyes.

But I digress... back to April's shoot...

I brought in a 22" white reflector disc for a few of the back-lit shots, but other than that, no flash or fill were used otherwise. Her mom was on set the whole time, too... which was actually great because I put her to work watching my equipment or holding the reflector when needed. I just wish her dad and sisters came, because I would've had stuff for them to do, as well!

Special mega thanks to the wonderful killer-combo MUA & hairstylist, Tasha Brown... who honestly and literally, is way way waaaaaaay above my paygrade to be slumming it with me. Guess it helps to have a mega-successful TV producer girlfriend who can hook you up! Tasha was such a bright happy light on set and so freaking good, it pains me that I'll never be as good at anything, as she is with make-up. She also jumped in with a lot of coaching and suggestions for the models when shooting, and man, was that appreciated; it was so great to have a second pair of eyes, catching smaller things you don't notice in the moment, but become glaring, rendering a photo unusable later... such as an out of place chunk of hair, awkward hand gesture, or a section of clothing puffing out. Thank you thank you thank you Tasha!

Shoots: Jade

If you haven't gleaned my preferred style thus far, I like to shoot a lot of earthy, neutral colors within a nature setting... and usually in/around magic hour. I'm a huge Terrence Malick fan, so it's pretty clear where my look is derived from, amongst a short-list of others.

However, I'm looking forward to doing/trying new things as I continue to (and will forever be) grow/learn in this trade. So, I decided to grab the lovely Jade, a recent sign at Zuri Model and Talent... and head to Venice Beach for a colorful, people-filled beach shoot with themes of 'light, summer fun' in mind. I also aimed to create a more traditional "commercial" look-- versus my typical, "girl lost in sun haze" thing.

I know "the beach" is probably the most cliche setting in photography, so I tried to mix it up utilizing the insane mash-up of colors around the Venice boardwalk. We even convinced a group of skateboarders to pose with her for a fun, impromptu set. Notice the kid giving the enthusiastic "thumbs-up" to our left of her. I snapped about 20 pics and he didn't move once-- just that same grinning mug in every shot, which still cracks me up every time I look at him.

Jade, herself, was cool as shit; that's exactly how I'd describe her--a down-to-Earth girl, fresh off the bus from Atlanta (with a southern accent to boot)... and is already quickly finding success in an otherwise intimating town. I wish her the best of luck!

Breaking down the tech-specs: I mainly kept the 24-70mm on, and stayed between 50-70mm the majority of the time. I thought I'd need my ND.6 filter as it was pretty bright (or so I thought), but quickly found I could get a decent DOF without it. I could've kept it on, but that meant boosting the ISO and I always try to stay at 100 when shooting outdoors, whenever possible (even though on the mkII, grain/noise is nearly undetectable until over 1200). For the shots on the actual beach itself, I threw on the 70-200, just so I could really crush the background and bring her into the main focus.

I was hoping for a gorgeous sunset, but as it approached, dark clouds quickly formed on the low-horizon and the sun disappeared behind them for good about an hour before sunset, so backlight, hazy, sunflares were out for this round.

I have to especially mention the fabulous Kristina Van Dyk, who was the stylist for the shoot-- man, what a pro this girl is: organized, methodical, and most of all, talented. She came with an arsenal of choices (tailored from a number of reference photos I sent her prior) and had every kind of accessory to match. She's relatively new to the world of commercial/editorial fashion, but if this is her just getting started, I can't imagine what a bright future she has ahead of her. If any of you fellow creatives are in search of a stylist, please contact me for her info. I can't recommend her enough.

Another shout-out goes to the MUA, Evelyn Sanabria, who I had worked with before. Another prime example of a professional who is not only good and fast, but stands by the entire shoot, jumping in without me even having to say anything, to touch-up the model or fix an out-of-place "anything". Another highly recommended person of interest that should be on your radar.

Overall-- yet another successful shoot under the belt. I know you are all getting tired of me having positive experiences, but what can I say? I'm gonna ride this lucky wave as long as I can.

**My now typical disclaimer saying that Blogger is great, save for their shitty compression. All photos are much more vibrant/colorful than seen here. Check my pending website as soon as it's up to see true representation.

Color-Space and Profiles

I recently received an email asking what color-space/profile I use in post-processing. First, I'd like to preface that I am by no means a master colorist or printer. It's best you stop reading this right now and Google "understanding color-space" and forget this entry ever existed. If you want a wet&dirty laymen's take, I give you this grain of salt-- take it as such. What I'm about to say stems from my own personal education on the subject-- which is very basic...but what I use suits my needs.

First off, a color-space is a gamut of colors...aka... a color range. How big this gamut is (read: space) directly correlates to how much color depth and brightness you are offered to work with when adjusting color in your image in programs such as Photoshop. So, the bigger the space, the more color range you have-- but don't confuse "more color-range" with "more colors"; you're getting the same number of colors, but a wider saturation range.

From smallest to largest, these three are the most common color-space profiles:

- sRGB

- Adobe RGB (sometimes Adobe RGB 1998)

- ProPhoto RGB

Please refer to the graphic below. The center point is the most desaturated the colors will be... the farther out you move from the center, the more saturated the colors become. You can see where sRGB range stops... and then the color saturation continues outward. See how much more color range/saturation is available to you between sRGB and Adobe RGB.

In my opinion, the age of the professional print is waning fast. Sure, a lot of photographers still carry around and present a psychical portfolio book to show prospective clients... but where your work is seen most often, and by the most people, is your website. On top of that, the iPad is dead-set on supplanting the portfolio book as well. Love it or hate it, that's just the way it's going; it happened to film cameras, now it's happening to prints.

So... since my work is mostly seen on the internet, I choose to work in the smallest, most limited profile, sRGB, the majority of the time. This is because sRGB's limited color-range matches that of the average computer monitor, world-wide. Now, many photographers would lambast me for electing to limit my color options to such a small gamut, and I mostly agree with them. However, the most important reason I elect to work in sRGB is also the most critical: I want to be assured that the colors in my final image will be seen exactly how I see them, by any person, anywhere in the world, on any computer.

Since (for now), the internet is my primary, widest reaching showcase venue, it makes better sense for me to use the universal color space (for average monitors) and know that the degree of blue I made the sky in a photo, is the same blue some Japanese kid is going to see on his screen when he checks out my site. Using a wider gamut would be nice in the short-run... I'd have a lot more range of saturation and can possible make my photos even more vibrate/colorful... but throw that up on my site, then go to a friend's computer... the image will more than likely look duller and more desaturated because that monitor is set for an sRBG color profile, thus not displaying any color-range outside of its profile (that was visible to me on Adobe RGB). So now, I've got something up on my site that isn't a reflective representation of how I adjusted it; the average person viewing my work on their computer will not see the colors how I intended. Solution is to edit in what their range will be (sRGB) and what you see will be what they see (more or less).

So yes... sRGB is the least attractive and most limited profile, but in this digital age, it's going to be the one that's most honest on any given computer.

Now, if you're hot on making prints and/or you just want a much better range of colors... no doubt you need to be in Adobe RGB. It's a medium-gamut and more importantly, the printer's industry standard. However, you also need to get on the phone with your printer ahead of time and ask what specific brand/model of printer they are using, as it makes a small difference. I'm not too keen on what exact micro adjustments you make in PS after, but they can probably walk you through it. Point is: always ask.

If you're a fancy-pants fine-art photographer or a God-complex color-perfectionist, you're probably not even reading this blog, but more than likely working in ProPhoto RGB. Good for you. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm pretty envious, as it's a specialized skill to understand how to wield that mighty sword without hurting yourself. This is a giant profile, but don't think that because it offers the most color-range, you just NEED to be working in it. In this case, bigger doesn't mean better if your camera-captured color range falls within a smaller gamut....

... Think of it this way: you have a 20oz pitcher and a 12oz can of beer. You open the can of beer and pour it into the pitcher. The beer only fills a small portion of the pitcher and that's ALL the beer you have. Then you drink from the pitcher. Kinda pointless isn't it, if all you needed, moreso all you HAD, was 12oz's of beer... just drink it from the can.

....Mmmmmmm...beeeeer.

Depending on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with, you may only need a certain size color-range; so don't think if you're always working within bigger color-space/profile means you're maximizing your options-- -it may just be pointless. So, how can you tell how much color you have and how much you're losing by being within a certain size color-space? Check your histogram in RAW and look at your color channel clippings (colors outside the range you've selected). If you have none, you're fine in your existing color space; if you've got a lot, consider a larger space... but always bear in mind your final output: web, standard print, or fancy-pants print.

Lastly, it's very important to sync the color profile of your DSLR to the color profile of your work-space. In other words, if your camera is set to Adobe RGB, then your work-space should be set to Adobe RGB. If you shoot on Adobe RGB, but your work-space is set to sRGB, then your going to lose a lot of the color captured initially in your image; your untouched photos are going to look more vibrant/etc than when you view them within Photoshop, if set on conflicting color-space. Your camera's manual will tell you how to change it.

Again, there are far better and more extensive articles on this subject; mine is a rudimentary grasp, so rank this entry pretty low on your "take-it-to-heart" list and delve into Google to read expertise takes. However, if anything, hopefully this entry has simply made you AWARE why you may not be getting the most out of your photo prints and/or why what you see on your monitor doesn't match what it looks like on your friend's laptop.

Shoots: Tatiana, Michelle, Chelsea,& Brett

Zuri Model and Talent contacted me recently about their intentions to expand from primarily repping children, to now include juniors/teens... and wanted to know if I was interested in testing some of their newest signs. The look would be more commercial-youth oriented, something that I had never really chased before... so I was happy to oblige, if anything to challenge/test myself with themes I've yet to explore much.

The agency secured a 5-acre estate in Malibu, as well as a full professional team of stylists and make-up & hair artists... which makes it incredibly easy on set, when I can just leave it to pros and not have to micro-manage. I could get used to this.

However, shooting four models individually and in various combinations, each with multiple looks, is a pretty tall order... so I brought on a good friend and fellow photographer, Sterling Davis, as a second-shooter. Sterling is not only naturally gifted, but is a technical encyclopedia when it comes to lighting-- both ambient and artificial/studio-- so, it was very comforting to be able to turn to him, if only to discuss every possibility when it came to assessing/composing any given setting. He was a huge help and I could never have covered everything that needed to be accomplished without him. A solid dude.

Once again, hit gold with the models-- they were all rather lovely young women who came on set to work and nary a complaint amongst them. I know I've been spoiled lately-- I'm just dreading the future shoot where the other shoe finally drops and I get some screaming diva... but that wasn't this day.

Call time was noon, which gave Sterling and I about an hour to prep our equipment and tour the estate to carve out which settings we were going to use. The girls came down in staggered rotations, which was efficient, but soon realized that we couldn't really break much in order to get through the day before we lost light. So, when the sun finally set and the last picture was snapped, we were totally exhausted... to only then face the 45 minute drive back to Los Angeles; I know 45 mins doesn't sound like long, but it is when you've been looking through a viewfinder with one eye for eight hours.

So, what did I learn? That early afternoon sun in the summer is a bitch to get a nice exposure with little to no diffusion. That with extended shoots you must force yourself to set the camera down for at least 30mins, lest you nearly careen off the PCH into the Pacific, due to fatigue. And that you should not schedule a shoot on the same day as the World Cup final game, as you'll find your concentration drifting quite often ;-)

Special thanks to Nikki Olson of Zuri for arranging everything and making it run smoothly, and to Sterling for all his help, guidance, and extended coverage. I'm not sure when/if he'll have his images from the shoot up on his site, but be sure to check him out.

PS: the compression on Blogger really, really, really sucks. Please know the colors in these pictures is much more clear/vibrant/awesome. I'll have them up on my website, whenever that long-awaited (by me) day it finally goes up.