Wednesday, October 12, 2011

I'm back with a new way of working!

Hey all - I know, it's been a while since my last post.  But like everybody else I know,  I'm busy.  Got a job and a bunch of other things to be doin', so the blog goes a bit to the back-burner most days.  That said, I think I discovered a new way of working that gave me three of my favorite portraits to date!

It all started when I was asked to shoot some backstage shots at a local performing arts theater, and I did the usual thing of showing up with everything I own (much like the 'gear porn' shot on my previous post).  So I'm running around backstage, out in the audience getting show shots, and I shot maybe, 250 or so shots.  I get them home the first night and nothing stands out.  I might as well have been a parent sitting in the audience waiting for his kid to perform and just shooting from his seat with the kit lens (not that some people can't do incredible things with the kits lens....).

So the next night, I decide to re-vamp how I was going to work.  I'm a portrait guy, so let's get some candid, semi-posed portraits of the performers doing what they do naturally.  I stripped down my gear to one body with a 50/1.4 lens attached.  I used an eBay wireless trigger to trigger a hot shoe flash that I held in my left hand with the wide-diffusion panel out.  This is what I used:


I liked using just the prime lens because that meant my left hand didn't have to worry about having to operate the zoom ring, I would zoom the old-fashioned way, with my feet.  What I was envisioning before I started was some portraits with the background completely blurry, I wanted no depth of field since where the performers were was actually ugly - it's a theater afterall - the part the audience doesn't see isn't very attractive to begin with! 

Then I thought about how I'd light it.  I knew from the night before that going without flash wouldn't be an option.  Faces would be in too much shadow, that kind of thing.  I just wanted enough flash to light the subject.  So I actually worked backwards, and this wouldn't work if you were shooting film because you need to do a test to know that it would work.  I took a manual meter reading from the camera, and at ISO 200, the camera came back with 1/15th of a second at f/1.4.  Perfect.  I set the camera to that, then bump the shutter speed around the 1/30 - 1/40 mark, and set my flash to manual power at first to 1/128th power.  Then I went up to 1/64th power and shot a test subject to see how it was working.  And I got this shot:


I played around with it in black and white trying to go for the George Hurrell look, and this image got me going.  I floated around the backstage area, and actually spent time talking to the performers and having a great time.  It's true - if you talk more, then the performers don't mind getting their pictures taken (actually, all performers want their pictures taken I've discovered).   But the ensuing photographs I got were all candid yet posed, but came across as very natural, but formal enough that they didn't just look like snapshots.  Here's a couple more:






 And the one that stunned me during the post-production, was one of the first ones.  I just happened to be walking by a performer sitting backstage, and as she turned to say hello, I stopped, the camera went into position and my left hand went up with the flash.   I swear I couldn't have posed this if I wanted to and it came out nearly perfect:

Yes, it's not technically perfect, and I think my camera's AF was set wrong.  I should've set the camera to it's ONE SHOT mode, which means, once you get the subject in focus, it stays at that focus so long as you hold the shutter button down.  The camera was actually set to AI SERVO mode, which is what you use for moving subjects.   The camera, as you pan with the subject, keeps adjusting focus on what it thinks is right.  This works great if you're panning a running animal or a flying aircraft, but for portraits you don't need it.  So what happened was the camera focused, and then as I re-composed the shot in the frame, the AF point when it was moved re-focused on the middle of the frame, which is the only focus point I rely on (being old skool, ya' know).  If I was at f8, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but when you're dealing with a shallow depth-of-field, you actually see areas go blurry because of the front-to-back relationship.  This wasn't that bad and I think it came out great anyway. 

But now that I have this new way of working, I'm going to explore this a bit more.  On this second night I only shot about 74 pictures.  But I got alot more keepers than I did the night before!

Now I'm debating getting a slightly wider lens to be closer to the 50mm aesthetic since, as you know, the smaller sensor of the digital camera means you actually get a telephoto effect.  Meaning that my 50mm lens is actually a 65mm lens (1.3 multiplier).  With these kinds of shots, I could stand to be a bit closer, or if doing a full body shot, I won't have to back-up so far.  So, the 35/1.4L or the 28/1.8?  I'd love the 35, but those cost $1500 new.  I had the 28 years ago and loved it, but it doesn't open up to 1.4, which is my magic number now (but it's only $500)  I already have the 20-35/2.8, but it only opens up to 2.8.  Decisions decisions.....

Your thoughts?

Friday, April 8, 2011

As promised - Gear Pornography!






It had to happen sooner or later.  I had to post a shot of the current gear I've been using. 

Funnier thing too - I was out shooting in public and someone saw me with all this gear and told me, "your pictures must be awesome!".   I tried to explain that I have all this stuff and could still come away with crappy pictures (and I often do), but this person just wouldn't have it.  Everything I shot was already apparently super bitchin'.  Go figure.

But also, in a nod to my "old-fashioned" ways, no one seems to notice that each of those Canon EOS-1D cameras holds the world's most incredible 4.15 megapixel sensors!  I know, I refuse to get into these megapixel arguments so I continue to stay hovering under 6MP to produce my work.  In a world of 24MP DSLR's I'm sure this is all just crazy talk.  But think about it:  if these babies were good enough for a two-page double-truck (to use an industry term for a magazine layout) back in the dark ages of the new millennium, then why wouldn't they be good now?  Have the magazines changed?  Have the newspapers changed?  The stories still suck, right?  In fact, the newspapers and magazines are now dying, and nothing really gets printed anymore.  So what's with the more megapixels, anyway?  Especially when images for the web look better at 72 dpi?  (And not the 300 dpi would we normally use to print).

I had given this some thought.  I once printed a beautiful picture of a sunset once at 16x20, from a Nikon D1 (this camera only had 2.47 megapixels, and it really sucked at ISO's higher than 200).  One of my favorite portraits was also shot with that same camera and we were able to go as big as 20x24 with it, and when I look at both of these pictures, I don't wish I had more megapixels.  I do wish I had better lighting, but that's a given.  I never complain about the given megapixels, ever.   I played around with the Nikon D40 when it came out (a 6.1MP entry-level DSLR) and almost every shot I took with it was a keeper (well, not all of them). When I went to print it was incredible. 

Someone made the argument to me that once you start cropping into the image then you need the megapixels.  Sure you do.  I argued back, "well what are you doing cropping in the first place?"  The reason I have the pro models is because I like seeing 100% of what I'm going to get in the viewfinder (most amateur cameras show you 92 - 94% of the actualy image in the viewfinder - which is why everytime you take a picture, when you go to see the file on your computer screen, there's always more space to see around your subject).  I also like the fact that the auto-focus is screamingly fast.  And I like the fact that the camera is built like a tank and weighs almost as much because I like to go down to 1/30th or 1/15th of a second and shoot handheld.  Those three reasons allow me to crop before I take the picture.  I definitely do not "spray and pray" when out making photographs - meaning I don't just shoot anything and if I see something in a frame I like, I crop that to make a photo.  I see the photo before I put the camera up to my face, frame it then and shoot it!

If you've gotten this far, and haven't written me off as some crazy wack-o spoutin' off his Luddite ways, then congratulations!  Like being in the Matrix, you're probably wondering why every year, when a new camera model comes out, do the manufacturers make you feel like your old camera is crap and you must have the new one or, you're just not what we can call a photographer.   That's OK.  You've probably contemplated taking the red pill and seeing just how deep the rabbit hole goes.  Of course, if you're a budding new photographer and you're out buying stuff, then I wouldn't suggest you go searching for old digital cameras to get started.  Get the new ones, and that'll be part of your generation.  My decision on what I use has basically been proven to me.  I can print 20x30 with a 4.15MP camera, and really, how many of you are actually printing that big on a regular basis?  I sure don't.  But I know I can if I had to.  You will also be able to print just as big if not bigger with your new 24MP DSLR.  Colors and tones will probably look negligibly better, but like I said earlier, that's just that better lighting I was hoping for in the first place!

So, thanks for reading this far.  That's my stuff.  It's also heavy enough to break a window, 'cause you never know....

Thursday, April 7, 2011

And now for something completely different....

In my semi-continuation of why we photograph, I thought I'd go in a completely different direction and show you some absolutely crappy photographs.


Currently, and in the not-too-distant past, I prided myself on being a professional drummer (well, percussionist, for you people who go to the cinema, as opposed to the movies).  And one of the things anybody into semi-technical things are into is basically the pornography of the tools we use.  Photographers are like this, and sooner or later I'll get some pornography of what I shoot with and why up on this blog (if you can stand it).  However, as a drummer, I don't recall ever being interested in getting pictures of my gear and I don't remember taking any pictures, so the photos that I discovered in an old envelope must've been taken by someone else.


But the photos listed below are of a few of the drumsets I've played in my early years as a drummer.  The first set, the black Slingerland, was my first proper kit mom and dad got me when I was 11 (back in '77-'78 or so). Hardly state-of-the-art at the time and I recall dad complaining about it costing so much ($499 was the price then).   Of course, I wanted a bigger set, something with two bass drums and eight tom toms, because you know, when you're 11, you think you can play and your parents don't know anything about what you need to make music!  But I accepted it graciously and proceeded to drive mom and dad up the wall playing the drums everyday for two or three hours from the time I was 11 until my early 20s through college!  I grew to love the black Slingerland, as it got me started playing out with other people and actually earned its keep. 

Of course, other drumsets came and went too.  The next one below it, are clear Ludwig Vistalites.  I found them covered with duct tape piled in a corner of a Guitar Center in the late '80s.  The guy sold them to me for $150.  I brought them home, dismantled them and buffed them out to their former clear glory and added some new hardware to it - and then sold it in a month to a Japanese collector for $1500.  I did use them on a few gigs before I sold them, but I thought they were too distracting and they didn't encourage playing naked.  This little time capsule covers 1977 to about 1986.


The next two are actually the same drumset.   It's still a Slingerland (notice how I've been influenced by the famous drummers of my day?  Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa played Slingerland, along with a host of other great players, but when the Japanese companies rose to power in the '80s, Slingerland was one of the first to go under because they just couldn't keep up.  Sad.) and I got this white marine pearl covered kit after trading it to some kid in Burbank who really dug these other, ugly drums I had in '87.  I had to modify the spurs on the bass drum to help keep the drum in place because I was a slammer then and it wasn't odd for me to have the bass drum sliding all over the place because I hit it so hard.  Then around 1993, I took these same drums, found a slightly larger bass drum shell, and had the guys at Pro Drum Shop in Hollywood recover the entire kit in Black Oyster Pearl (yeah, Ringo's color).  And that kit served me until about '97.  



Of course, there have been other kits, like an old Gretsch I had, a Yamaha Recording Custom, Tama Superstars, more Ludwigs, Drum Workshop, on up to my current Tama Starclassic Bubinga Elite and my sidekick Sonor Safari.  But to me, finding these crappy snapshots really reminds me of how far I've come and how long I've been doing this.  And this has nothing to do with actually becoming a better player over the years.  These are just things I've owned and used, nothing more, nothing less.  As time marches on you tend to cherish those times that have passed, and seeing these kits again bring back that feeling of who I was with at that time and the music we made.  It was awesome.

And then, in '97, I went weird and stopped playing with others and became a solo act.  I played an instrument called a Zendrum, and sang and basically made music with computers and synthesizers.  Made alot of money, but didn't have quite as much fun.  Actually started working alot more with that and then began to question why I had studied percussion for so long.  Here's the wife modeling the Zendrum:





It was cool, and I initially dug it, but it was obviously not good for all things drumming.  It did what it did well.  Well, well enough.   So, see?  Photography can even remind you of things you probably shouldn't have done....

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Why do we photograph?

Hello all!

In case you were looking for my portfolio gallery, since this is a blog, you'll have to backtrack to the first post.  Which in this case, is the post before this one.  So, if you don't want to read this part and just see the pictures, you can skip back in time to the first post now - I won't be offended, really ;)

Had a pretty crazy week this week.  Last Saturday I ended up injuring my heel walking around the job, and by Monday, I couldn't walk at all.  Since my current occupation requires me to be moving around and usually walking at least two miles a day, the doctor told me to lay off for at least five days while I waited for the drugs to take their course.  So I was off work, but pretty useless because I couldn't really do anything anyway.  But this was also a rare week in that mom notified me a family member had passed away, and the funeral would be the day before I got to celebrate a friend's wedding.  It's sorta' been an emotional rollercoaster especially since I'm just sitting at home, doing nothing but thinking about stuff!

Anyway, I got to thinking about doing more photography as soon as my foot healed up and I actually thought about why I do photography.  In the beginning it was this cool hobby activity I did that enabled me to buy all kinds of cool photo equipment and solve photographic problems in the field....being able to properly expose my model for the ultimate expression of their beauty...blah blah blah blah blah blah....

But after mom called and gave me the news one of our older cousins had passed on, making him, me, my brother and sister the 'alpha cousins', since there are alot of second, third, and fourth cousins now from this huge family (my dad was one of three, and my mom was one of NINE, crazy),  I thought about all the family photos my parents have at their house and literally all this week I thought about alot of those images, snapshots, of a time long gone.  One image my mom especially likes is this one:


That's me on dad's lap when I was almost a year old.  This shot was taken 44 years ago.  My mom probably took it with an old instamatic using the ancient 126 format that was popular at the time.  I bet it even had a flashcube!  Not a great shot when you consider what I do to make a simple portrait these days.  But the shot has meaning, to mom and dad for sure.  To me even moreso after having gotten through this week of loss.  This was taken before I knew there was a whole 'nother world outside the boundaries of our old house in La Puente, California.  When cartoons were the thing to watch and anything with actual humans on tv was boring.  Having been a professional drummer, this was before I even knew what drums were, let alone thinking about playing music.  Cameras and photography?  Forget it!

I'm sure I'm not the first person to come to this epiphany that photographs record moments in time.  And I'm sure many people have already done their versions of "before and after" pictures.  But I got a chance to meet a man who never had that chance.  He has a picture, not unlike the one of us and dad, but that's all he has because his dad past away two weeks after the shot was taken.  Imagine that.  All these years having gone by and only now I think about all the images I didn't make.  I look back on my life and I see decades having gone by now.  And there aren't alot of meaningful pictures like the one above.  Sure, lots of portraits made of other people in the last decade, but hardly any of my family and the extended family I grew up with.

So I'm about to change all of that.  None of us are getting any younger and the evidence of that was apparent today at my cousins' funeral.  I drove the hour or so by myself to get there and cursed through the traffic on four freeways the whole time.  But when I got there it was like I was reminded why I came, and I got to feel like I was twelve all over again because although there are less of our elders, there's still enough of them that it quite literally made up a pretty big Hawaiian luau after the service. 

And the funnier thing was, since I had the biggest camera there, I was suddenly tasked to shoot all these pictures since it was a reunion of sorts (that's kind of a back-handed insult, eh?  "You have a big camera - your photos must be awesome!").  I protested that a funeral shouldn't be the reason we all see each other again after such a long absence, and I promised all my cousins that we will get together again under happier circumstances.  So there I was, just a camera with a 50mm lens, no flashes of any kind, and I got this shot, for mom and dad:

(and no, I don't have the EXIF data, and no, I don't care ;) 

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Hello!



OK - now that I have your attention, welcome to the gallery!

This is where I get to show off some of my past work in the hopes that you'll like it enough to think of me whenever you need some portraits done.  I've been in business doing portraits for over ten years  and some of my clients include:  Brea-Olinda High School Choral Department, Disneyland's All-American College Band, The Sidestreet Strutters Jazz Band, Swingtown,  The Kingsmen Alumni Drum and Bugle Corps, and various entertainers needing environmental portraiture or headshots.

Because every client is unique, I like to have conversations about what you may want to do - sometimes a "package" isn't exactly what you want, although we can do that too, if you'd like.  If you don't know what you'd like, perhaps some of the examples here will give you some ideas, and we can use these as a jumping off point, if you will, to getting what you want.  If there are specific photographs you've seen that you'd like to try, we can certainly do that too.  Please call, or send me an email and we can set up an appointment for your next session!

Please feel free to browse through the images here (each image can be seen larger by simply clicking on it), and leave comments if you like too!  I'll try to leave some notes as to how the shot was done or what we were originally going for, for more insight into the photo shoot, but probably not too much - I like to think the images can stand on their own. 

Thanks for visiting and enjoy!






Buddy shots
Family shots
An impromptu test before the actual model showed up in front of the white backdrop.

So the direction was, "get the castle in the shot"




I spent two years photographing the Kingsmen Alumni Corps for their Rose Bowl performance in 2007 for DCI

From my White period

From my Blue period



An album cover shot for the band Levinstone.

This shot took 10 seconds at f16 on a cold night in Times Square.  It's so hard to keep teenagers still for that long.

Group shot for Brea HS's Choral Department, done strobist style with two Nikon Speedlights on stands.



I was trying to feature the drumset like a product shot.  We gave up on that idea.

I rented a 300mm f/2.8 lens for a weekend and this is by far my favorite shot of the whole rental - taken at a rehearsal!

Rob Verdi and his quiver of saxophones - shot for a promotional brochure.

Album cover shot for Rob Verdi's CD "Prose and CONN-versations" featuring the Conn-o-sax

Fun family shot - we had them doing all kinds of silly things before we got to the tree!


Album cover shot for The Sidestreet Strutters CD "Back to Bourbon Street".  They were across the street on one balcony, I was shooting from another balcony. A private party was going on in the building behind them and they were almost stuck out on the balcony for an hour!  I was downloaded and edited by the time they got back to their dressing room.


One of my favorite big bands, Swingtown, shot for promotional materials


Of all the environmental portraits I've done, this one is my fav - probably because it was a tester and all the planets just sorta' lined up.

This was chosen for the Nikon Stunning Gallery campaign a few years ago.  I shot it with a Canon.

This was done with natural light - the sun just happened to agree with us.