Think of locations that are meaningful to you personally - these might be places you go often, or places you would like to go. The location should be somewhere you would feel comfortable and happy. Having said that, sometimes people need a little guidance and inspiration, so I figured I would put together this little guide of my thoughts and experiences around here. I'll be adding to this guide with more images and locations, so let me know your suggestions too!
Being placed near Jacksonville, Florida, we're blessed with weather that means photoshoots can pretty much be done outdoors year-round, and at the same time we have a lot of photogenic locations that work really well for portrait sessions.
A beach session is a popular choice in North Florida!
The first obvious one is the beach - but of course there are many beaches around here to consider! An important point is that beaches in St Johns County (which includes St Augustine) technically require a permit for photography. A lot of places seem to get used for non-commercial purposes (i.e. for a personal use like family portraits and not for a business) but it's worth checking ahead of time, especially if your photographer contract states that you are responsible for securing any necessary permits!
Fashion photoshoot on Black Rock Beach.
One of my favorite locations is actually a little outside of my usual driving range, but it's absolutely worth it - and that's Black Rock Beach on Big Talbot Island. This location has a mix of sand, rocks, massive driftwood trees, and even some trails and greenery to work with. Watch out for the flies near dusk though! Parking is limited, and this is a very popular spot for photographers.
A single small park can provide a variety of settings for a photoshoot.
I've done several photoshoots in small urban parks, like Stinson Park in Jacksonville or Bird Island Park in Ponte Vedra. Parks with a variety of settings are the best, such as flat grass, shrubs, trees, walkways or water features. Having many scenes to use gives you a wide variety of looks and poses that can really add to the portfolio of images. They also usually have some shade, which can be very welcome in the heat of summer! Most parks do not require any kind of permitting so long as you're not obstructing the paths for anyone else. One of the larger parks that is well worth a visit is Washington Oaks State Park. As a State Park, no permit is required for most photography, and the location is truly superb with trails, trees, gardens, and even a beach nearby! About 30 minutes south of St Augustine, it is another location that is normally outside of my range but an excellent location.
An urban setting works really well for my fashion-oriented portraiture style.
One of the locations I'm most familiar with is actually downtown Jacksonville. I love working there on weekends as it's quiet, the parking is free and readily available, and the urban vibe really lends itself well to my style of portraiture. Aside from the general street photography vibe, there are some specific areas and buildings that are good to work with, and it's very walkable. There are some nice indoor locations (more on them later!) and a couple of urban parks like James Weldon, Riverside, Cancer Survivor's Park, Friendship Fountain and others. Unless you're planning a large-scale videography project no permit is needed, but there are some places that are publicly accessible but privately owned, so be mindful about going down every little alley for a quiet location!
Portrait session outside Shrine of Our Lady of la Leche, at the Nombre de Dios Mission in St Augustine
Saint Augustine is a whole vibe - the oldest city in the United States, we are extremely lucky to have it right in our backyard. Although there are some areas that require special permits (or under specific situations), much of the city is simply a photographer's paradise. Even the Castillo de San Marcos can be used as a location, so long as it's a small session in a public area. The central historic district, which include St George's Street, has some restrictions for street vendor and artists, but the main disadvantage of that is probably just that it's so busy. Thankfully there are plenty of side streets and architectural features to take advantage of, and if you're staying at one of the many beautiful Bed and Breakfasts in the city, then a photoshoot might be possible right where you're visiting!
Branding photoshoot set in the Cummer Museum Gardens
The Cummer Museum Gardens are simply superb, and have a variety of architectural and floral features that will enhance any kind of portrait or fashion photography. Photography requires a permit, a 2 week notice, and is limited to 90-minutes on site - but this option is included at no extra charge for my Premium Portraiture sessions.
A backsplash of color contrasting with a black-and-white outfit for this portrait session in the Arts District
Another fun urban location is the Phoenix Arts District - it's famous among local photographers for it's urban warehouse settings and colorful graffiti. It can make for a fantastic backdrop for when a splash of color is wanted, or for something of a "grunge" look that's distinct from the clean architectural lines of downtown skyscrapers.
Making use of the gorgeous large windows in the Jacksonville Library.
Indoor photo sessions have the benefit of avoiding the weather (whether it's too hot or too rainy!), as well as more controlled lighting. There are a couple of easy options in Jacksonville itself which I've used, namely Chamblin's Uptown bookstore, who will happily allow photoshoots with a signed "permission slip" from the front desk, and interestingly enough the Jacksonville city library! Permission is required for anything out-of-hours, but there's no apparent problem with going in during normal operating times, so long as you're not disturbing anyone obviously. Although I don't have a dedicated studio of my own, there are studios available to rent in the area, and 2 hours of rental time is included at no extra charge for Premium Photography sessions.
An at-home session is a comfortable and convenient option for a lot of people.
These are just some of the locations I've photographed at - and there's also the option of at-home sessions too. They have the advantage of not requiring any additional travel time, easy access to outfit changes, and of course a controlled climate! Whatever your vision or theme is, I can help find a location to make it work. Click here to learn more about my photography sessions and to schedule a call!
]]>
My usual response to this question is "Wear whatever you want to be seen in." Now, this may sound flippant, but it's part of the concept of "How do you want to be seen?" which is paramount to my portraiture. I want people to look their best in the photos, and that usually means that they have to feel their best! Someone who is a career businesswoman might want to be seen in her usual attire to emphasize her successes - but a different person with the exact same role might want to show a casual relaxed side of her personality, or something whimsical or fun, or anything else they want. A decision about outfits isn't made simply, it's usually a conversation, and the outfit is just one aspect of that. For portraiture, the clothes are there to make the subject look good. It's not the same as fashion photography, where the model is there to make the clothes look good!
If a casual look is what you want, then just do it!
It's important to think about your favorite outfits, as well as perhaps things you haven't worn in a while. Occasionally it may be worthwhile buying (or renting) an outfit for your shoot, but keep in mind that you'll have to be certain about the fit and form, because there won't be much time during the photoshoot itself to fix anything!
Kalypso Couture offers bespoke suits and accessories which are suitable for both men and women, and if you use the code "NerdyBrit" you can get 5% discount off a new suit, and have the opportunity of a mini-photoshoot to show off your new look! The mini session can be upgraded for a bigger experience if you wanted a larger variety of images to choose from. Alternatively, anyone who wears their new suit for a session with me and signs a model release will benefit from a 20% discount on the session fee (additional discounts and offers cannot be applied).
Lady Strut Gowns offers off-the-rack and custom dresses that bring a classic and timeless look to any woman who wants to strut her stuff. Lady Strut Gowns offers some of the classiest looks in the area and caters to all women. Anyone who wear their new gown for a session with me and sign a model release will benefit from a 20% discount on the session fee (additional discounts and offers cannot be applied).
This outfit was chosen specifically because she hadn't worn it for years!
General: In all instances you should feel comfortable, which means choosing something you can wear in the environment you'll be photographing in! Cotton is usually an easy choice for material. Denim is also a great look because of its texture and rugged appearance. A silk blouse is simply beautiful, and a tailored suit is super classy.. If you want to look a certain way but are worried about over or under heating, then layering is a great option. I love using a jacket for different looks - closed, open, on, off, over the shoulder... it all counts as a single outfit, but you get a ton of looks to choose from in your gallery. A photoshoot is a great opportunity to bring out items you might not otherwise wear - a sports jacket for example, or checkered blouse - something fun and different but still "you".
A photoshoot is a great way to show off a tattoo that you're proud of, especially if you might otherwise keep it covered.
Colors and patterns: While a lot of my portraiture is black and while, some people obviously want color - and some clients show up with things that demand to be photographed in color! In general, most things work well but it's really cool when things match up well, such as earrings or shoes for example.
A coordinated look with lipstick, nails, and a neckpiece that all matched.
Patterns shouldn't be too "busy" - and by that I mean tons of stripes or polka dots or something similar. Unless the cut of the fabric is obvious (for example, a formal shirt or short skirt) the pattern can be distracting and mislead the eye. Vertical stripes are slimming, horizontal stripes are not. That's a generalization, but one that bears repeating! One thing I will warn people - true black can be an issue for some film stocks (especially high contrast BW), and an outfit that looks awesome in person might not look as good in an image. In contrast, whites can work well because film has such high latitude for over-exposure. The issue is really whether the fabric lines and textures can be seen well. Good lighting will mitigate this of course, but even a dark blue/brown/grey can make all the difference as at least some light will be reflected to give it shape. You may have been told different by a digital photographer, who will blow out their white fabrics but will be able to work with blacks. That's all down to the difference in digital sensors versus film emulsion.
These black pants almost looks like a full-length skirt here as the details are lost.
Clothing cut and fabric: I love anything with buttons and straps - basically whatever can be done/undone or moved around for a different look is great for photography. I don't want to take 30 identical looking images, and I'm sure my clients don't want to see them either! Often the same outfit can be worn in casual and formal ways, demure or daring! If you're not sure how you want your session to go, or simply want some flexibility in your look during the shoot, it's absolutely worth discussing specific outfits and options ahead of time so as to preserve that flexibility on the day. A formal shirt and tie looks very different with the tie undone and the shirt unbuttoned. On the other hand if you go with a turtleneck sweater, then that's the only look you have with it...it all depends what you want.
Different looks with the same outfits during the same session.
You'll want an outfit that fits well - for curvy women in particular there is a tendency to try to "hide" under over-sized clothing that they feel masks areas they don't like. In truth, it often just draws attention to the fact that they're trying to hide something, and they may be better off with an outfit that fits better, while working with posing and camera angles to flatter their look. This can be a total change of mindset - but it may be something that's worth doing for an event as important as a portraiture session. Whatever you wear, you have to be able to move around easily - and something too tight can be as limiting as something too loose.
Well-fitted but flexible fabrics will allow for multiple posing options.
A neckline can make or break an outfit for a woman - consider whether you want to accentuate or minimize, and the other things like shoulder coverage, fabric type and color, and jewelry. A very practical consideration is that strap marks (or bra straps themselves) can ruin the look of an outfit if they're not supposed to be there. A strapless bra can provide some support and coverage without leading to marks that are difficult (or impossible) to edit out of the photos, and shoulder straps should ideally be removed at least an hour prior to a shoot. Some women like to use tape or other covers, but these can be visible in some situations (which looks really weird!) and honestly often just isn't needed. You're much better off working with poses and angles to flatter your look. On the flip side, if you choose to go au naturel then be very mindful of the fabric type and color and your comfort level with the result - what looks great with a denim jacket absolutely might not with a thin white maxi dress! It can be helpful to remember that this isn't a social event, this is an artistic endeavor and a display of confidence.
Capturing natural confidence is one goal of a portraiture session, especially for women.
Short sleeves and slits are great for breaking up the fabric lines and showing off limbs, and for longer dresses give you more options and flexibility than a simple full-length dress - plus they look great in movement shots! Even a long-sleeved shirt can be worn differently, and rolled-up sleeves create a very different vibe for men than when worn down. For women, ribbed tops can be extremely flattering, as the fabric lines accentuate the natural curves. For men, corduroys can also work well as the vertical lines add a sense of height and texture.
A great example of a flattering ribbed top - feminine but full coverage.
Accents and accoutrements: Men are generally easier to dress, but things I would strongly suggest making sure are considered are shoes and belts. Men tend to get away with not caring as much about those, but nothing can ruin the look of a photograph more than a sloppy appearance! Empty belt loops just look weird, and a nice belt can really add to someone's look. If you're going to wear formal outfits, do it properly and consider things like ties, cuff links, and other accents. For women, match shoes with not only the outfit, but also the location. Stilettos on soft sand or grass might not work well at all, but a heeled sandal might look just as good. For feminine poses it's often important to point the toes, and basically that's what heels do, in addition to adding height - but I'll usually direct folks to point their toes even if they're barefoot and sitting down! Jewelry is very important in a female portrait, and it may be worth considering a variety of options. Necklaces are especially good at adding interest to an otherwise plain top or neckline.
Layering jewelry can add interest and depth to an image.
A photoshoot might be a great opportunity to bring something out that you'd otherwise never get a chance to wear! Classic watches look great in a photo - Apple or other smart watches do not. Lastly, I love hats. A good hat is a fantastic addition to a shoot, whether male or female.
I am always happy to review options that clients send in by text or email - sometimes 5 or 6 different options at a time! You can generally expect to get through one outfit (with variations) in an hour of photography (i.e. a Vintage portraiture session), and if you try to squeeze a second outfit in then frankly you just burn through photography time getting changed. I would always recommend a longer session (i.e. a Classic or Premium portraiture photoshoot) if you want to get a multi-outfit session done.
]]>
"To celebrate the grace that comes with age" - "...I always feel overlooked in my family. It would be nice to find a reason to celebrate me for once." - "I'd love someone to capture me now as I am." - "Something just for me." - "I would love to get an updated authentic head shot." - "Help myself embrace my beauty beyond 40." - "I want my kids to see that circumstances don't define you and age is merely a number." - " I feel more myself than I ever have and I love me, all of me."
Portraiture is a luxury service - something we might want, but don't generally need. It's funny that so many times the skills of photography are undervalued (which really is the subject of another conversation entirely...) but when do people really want to get photographed?
There are some obvious examples - once-in-a-lifetime events that can never be recreated the same way, such as proposals, weddings, and graduations. Those are easy to justify, and easy to understand why someone would want to invest in capturing that memory. But are there other good reasons to get photos of yourself? Is there ever a justification of "just because"?
Colleen, one of the contributors to my Forty over 40 on Film project began her phone call with me saying "I didn't think I was vain enough to get pictures done..." She had the idea in her head that to get photos for the sake of photos was somehow excessive and prideful, and she felt anything but that. Now in her mid-fifties and struggling with serious health issues she felt that her best days were behind her, and she had actively avoided being photographed for years. Her family brought her up short with a shocking realizing - with her health so precarious, they might be left with no photos of her to properly remember her by.
At that point the narrative switched completely - EVERY day to her was a once-in-a-lifetime event, and no day was promised. Every day that passed without helping her family remember her was a day lost to time. In a sudden departure from being the woman who had avoided being photographed for years, she arranged a hair and makeup stylist to come to her house, dressed up for the occasion, and we spent over an hour working carefully to capture her in a best a manner as we could. I got photos of her, and several of her with her husband, and her parents. It was a sobering thought to realize that the photos I was taking of her could very well be the last she would ever have taken in her life. At the end of it her mother was in tears, and I have never felt more relieved to see the fully developed negatives come off of the roll!
Colleen's favorite from her session with me.
It needn't get to the point where you are thinking it's "too late" to get portraits done. It's never too late, and it's never too soon. Maybe some of the answers at the top of this page resonate with you, or maybe you can think of your own reason to get a portrait done. Had a great year? Celebrate with a photoshoot! Had a bad year? Feel better by getting a photoshoot! Drop me a line and let's get your picture taken.
]]>
For some things like product photography this statement is irrelevant, but for events like the first kiss at a wedding it is the very essence of the experience. It's for reasons like this that photography will, in many areas, remain immune to the "threat" of AI image generation to the artistic world. Sure, people will want an idealized capture, something that is artistic and emotional beyond what a simple cell phone can capture, but really they want to capture a moment in time that will never be experienced again - and that moment has to be real.
I recently heard that Rusty Ickes, a local venue owner, passed away last year. He had built a beautiful castle that was a place of worship and wedding venue, and a location that I was extremely fortunate to visit myself. I took my wife there as part of an anniversary weekend getaway for a photoshoot, and Rusty was gracious enough to let us rent the castle for ourselves! The cost of renting the place was the price of the experience, and looking back over the photos today I recalled the fun we had there celebrating our marriage and working together to create some beautiful images, like the one below. As I've got older, I've really come to value life experiences over buying "Stuff". Physical things can wear out, get broken, get lost. Physical things can be replaced. Experiences are often things that might never happen again, and the memories of having lived that experience will always be there, so long as we can remember.
Glamor shot of my wife at Castle Otttis - unretouched digital capture using the Nikon D750, 85mm lens, and a diffuser filter on the lens.
And that is where photography comes in. If experiences really are more valuable than "Stuff", because they are irreplaceable and yet immutable, and the closest thing we have to our memory of the event is a visual capture of the experience, then the value of photography can be immense. In the case of our anniversary weekend, that photoshoot itself was the experience to capture - I am so very glad that we were able to visit the castle, get the tour from Rusty, and have the run of the place to ourselves. We were able to have an experience that will never, ever, be possible again - at least not in the way we had it happen to us.
It's not just large, significant events like a wedding that are experiences worth remembering and capturing - each of us has milestones in life that are worth celebrating, and each of us has a beauty and humanity that is worth capturing! The experience of a fun photoshoot celebrating yourself and your achievements, or the ability to capture your children at every stage of their lives, are things worthy of investment. I'm not saying that we should live life through the lens of a camera, but I am saying that I firmly believe our lives would be better if we spent less on "Stuff" on more on experiences, and the single best way to capture those experiences is with photography. In fact, the only "Stuff" that I would completely agree with buying, is physical prints of your photos ;-)
As we left the castle that day a couple drove up who had been married there a few years before. They offered on the spot to pay me to take photos of THEM inside, so they could relive and recreate the feeling of their own wedding day. They understood the importance and value of photography in celebrating and capturing moments in time. Drop me a line when you're ready to capture yours.
]]>
"I won't want to do an AI photo, I want to look like myself, but I don't want to discourage clients because I look older."
It's not often that I get a message that looks like it's from a perfect client, but this sure sounded like it! I talk on my booking page about how analog photography is so good for portraiture but this was one step beyond - an active rebuke of the current digital age.
There are two main aspects of classic/vintage analog photography that lend itself to portraiture and distinguish it from modern digital equipment. Firstly is the film grain - the tiny physical specks of silver salt (literal grains) that are photosensitive and react when exposed to light. The physical attributes of the film mean that the smallest unit of information (light/dark) that can be captured is a single grain - it's the analog equivalent of a pixel (picture element) in a digital image. Film grains are highly variable in size and shape depending on the emulsion - Acros for example is extremely fine grain, whereas the Harmon 200 I tried recently was not... Grain can also change based on how the film is developed. The important thing is that the limit of the detail that a film negative can capture is fundamentally limited by the grain size - you can't have only half a grain exposed! The really interesting thing is that grain, unlike digital sensors, is randomly arranged - the effect is such that grain can appear to show more detail than it would be expected to, while actually masking some of the minor imperfections one might see on skin. The look of film grain has recently had a resurgence, with digital photographers now adding it to their images! (note - film grain should not be confused with the "noise" of digital sensors which is due to amplification of the electrical signals at the borderline of detection)
The second aspect is the lens choice in the photography - older lenses are simply built differently, being less sharp in general than modern glass but with greater microcontrast and character. Some modern film directors have in fact had specialty lenses built to give a more vintage aesthetic. When a lot of people talk about "the film look" what I think they're actually referring to is the look of classic film camera lenses. My lenses from the 1950s and 1970s have a very distinct look, but when I use my Nikkor lenses from the late 1980s and 1990s the photos actually appear quite similar when comparing images from my F4 film camera and D750 digital camera!
Modern mirrorless cameras, with the shorter flange distances compared to DSLRs, can actually use a lot of the old film camera lenses, which has led to a modern resurgence in popularity, and skyrocketing prices on the second-hand markets.
In combination, film grain, high microcontrast, and less sharpness, all work together to create extremely flattering portraits. I joke that modern digital photographers spend thousands on ultra-sharp lenses and high-resolution sensors, then spend hours airbrushing out all the imperfections their equipment has captured! And then adding in grain :-D
This client actually went one step further though, with an active rejection of the modern use of AI (artificial intelligence) to edit, or even create images. There's no doubt that AI tools can be great additions to the arsenal of the digital artist, but the "creation" of art with AI is an extremely hot topic at the moment. Many artists are concerned that (a) AI models are trained to create derivative art based on input from other artists' work, which is possibly a violation of copyright law and (b) art created by AI simply doesn't require artistic talent beyond drafting the right kind of prompt and spending time culling out the image(s) you want. Many artists and photographers are rightly concerned that prospective clients will select AI-generated art because it is faster and/or cheaper than art created by a human - in fact I saw a photographer say just a few days ago that a client had cancelled a photoshoot because "they could just do it with AI". But I think this is an extremely short-sighted view.
AI image creation has improved dramatically just in the last year - and there is no doubt that the images created can be beautiful, dramatic, artistic, engaging...it can be art just like any human creation in Photoshop! But it's not photography - which by definition is "drawing with light". Photography has an element of authenticity to it, even with color-grading or retouching to create an ideal or stylized image. Film photography in particular has, in general I think, an even greater sense of realism than digital. If you are, say, a client looking for a true-to-life look, but one which was inherently flattering without requiring extensive retouching...then portraiture on film really is your only answer.
So I'm not worried about AI - because my ideal clients don't want it.
Images used with permission - client was Robin Wells of www.theEtiquetteteacher.com. All images Portra 160, Nikkor 180mm 2.8D lens, and of course all unretouched.
]]>
"Your camera work is immaculate my man" - Ajani
It's not unusual for me to grab shots like this, with Ajani, in a single take, yet many of the digital shooters were firing off well over 20fps, whereas I was getting a shot every few seconds at best, using the motor winder. I asked one guy what his frames per second was and he replied "I don't know." Now, there is absolutely a time and a place for this kind of "spray and pray" approach to photography, but it's more appropriate to sports or nature shots, where the difference between frames even a hundredth of a second apart can be meaningful. I just found it amusing to see it happening during what was effectively a portrait or fashion shoot. I posted a series of headshots on Instagram and Facebook today with another model Greshawna, and I realized that of the four images I had captured, each of them was a good portrait in its own right, each was distinct, and there weren't any that I would reject out of hand.
"Thankyou for capturing these beautiful photos of me" - Greshawna
Now, I'm not saying that I typically get a 100% "keeper rate" with my photography, but I do find that I average around 70%, with the others being things like missed focus or blinking eyes, or some other imperfection I wouldn't like. I generally know at the moment I press the shutter that I have a great picture, and I generally don't press the shutter until I know.
Obviously I have a pressure to be more frugal with film than digital, each image does effectively cost me about 50cents to shoot after all, but I have found that even when shooting digital my approach is the same. People have said that "film slows you down", and while it's true that processes like manual metering and manual focus do enforce a more methodical approach, what I think is really happening is that film photographers tend to shoot with greater intention. I know that I watch my backgrounds, how shadows lie, is my horizon correct, how are hands, eyes, and lips looking, and is this image through the viewfinder what I intend to capture or not. I don't have the luxury with film of shooting off 20 or 30 different versions of the same image then finding the best one afterwards, but even when I do have an empty SD card and a full battery, I use my digital camera the same way. I tend to anticipate people's movements and expressions, and if necessary have them redo a specific pose, scene, or movement.
This process of shooting with intention has one immediate and two downstream effects - in the moment it means that I can be confident that I've got the shot(s) I want and then move on, and downstream this makes my editing and image selection so much easier. It's well established that people get overwhelmed with choosing between too many similar images (both photographers and clients!), so having fewer images makes image selection and culling much easier. Secondly, even with batch-edits for things like color grading, having to retouch fewer images is much less work (I do even less work by frankly not doing any retouching at all unless it's for blemish removal). I simply can't imagine coming home with literally thousands of photos from a meetup like that and having to sort through them for the best ones to share - because there's no way they're using more than a handful from each scene/pose anyway.
Being intentional with my photography means that I also have to be disciplined - if a pose or setting doesn't work for me, I don't take the shot and I move on. Sometimes I try and fail - what I think is a great shot really isn't when I get a proper look at it - but that's all part of the 30% failure rate, and failure is how we learn after all. I worry that when dealing with hundreds of images captured without thought, photographers are still able to pick out one or two great shots, and some of them learn only that spraying and praying is a method that will net them great shots. I would argue that shooting with intention will not only net them similar numbers of great shots, it may even net them better images overall, and make their results far easier to work with.
Perhaps the value of a photographer shouldn't be measured by how many photos they take, but by how many photos they need to take.
]]>
A photo from a fashion portfolio photoshoot - all photographers received signed releases by the models.
Model: Emory Vanek for Ritual Fashion, HDWorld Media Productions
I recently had a conversation with a local amateur model and it quickly became clear that she had no idea what I was talking about. I asked if she'd ever done releases before and she replied:
"I just worked with people. We collaborated and I was sent the pictures...nothing else."
I would argue that this isn't the best way to conduct "business", even if it is a time-for-photos/trade-for-prints (TFP) shoot where money does not change hands. There are many advantages for both photographer and model to have a properly drafted and executed agreement for the photoshoot.
For the model: the agreement should specify to some degree how many images will be delivered and under what timeframe. I know of several models who have posed for a photographer and never received their images. It should also specify what the photographer can and cannot do with the images - for example photographers are typically allowed to use the images to promote their work, but they cannot sell or otherwise commercialize the model's likeness unless this is explicitly stated in the release. The agreement should ideally be reviewed and signed before the shoot, but in some situations (like group meetups where it's not known ahead of time who is working with whom) they are done afterwards. In any case they should reference a specific date for the photoshoot at the very least, and may go further in terms of specifying location, theme etc.
For the photographer: I use the agreement to basically cover the rights and responsibilities of the model/client with the photos, for example reinforcing the fact that I retain copyright and that editing the photos (i.e. creating derivative work) is a breach of copyright law. I also ask that I be identified as the photographer when shared, and that they in turn cannot commercialize the images. I also make sure that the model is free to sign the document (e.g. they are not a minor, or under the restrictions of an agency contract) and that there are statements to the effect that the model agreed to the photoshoot and agrees to the use of the images. Many publishers will (rightly) refuse to accept images from a photographer without a model release, and so if photographers want to submit their images anywhere meaningful they need to obtain permission from the model(s) to do so.
There are obviously risks therefore to not using a release, which aren't necessarily entirely removed by it, but certainly a signed agreement between the two parties should provide a degree of protection and grounds for recourse if it is breached. It should also be a litmus test for professionalism - a professional model should want to protect their likeness from exploitation, and a professional photographer should want to protect their images from manipulation so that they aren't credited to work that isn't theirs. Even if a photographer doesn't technically need a model release to showcase their own work in a portfolio, I still prefer to do this - and in fact I go one step further and ask them to select both favorites and "do not post" images. I've had models make requests like "do not show my neck", "I don't like the photos with my arm raised" and "I don't like the ones where my hair is framing my face". I think it's only reasonable to check in with people who agree to me using their images before I do so, and I've seen some people get very upset if images are shared that they consider unflattering. Thankfully this didn't happen to me, but a public dressing-down in a photography forum isn't a good thing!
For client shoots I generally don't get a release automatically, but I have heard of photographers who include mention of that in their contracts to cover promotional use. For some photography genres (e.g. boudoir, glamour, swimsuit) paying clients might worry about seeing themselves posted on a photographer's website, and so the discussion on releases is a very important one (do they consent to no images, anonymous images, or all images?). I was recently asked by a potential client if they could get a discount if they allowed me to use their images for promotional use - and the answer was yes! Depending on the type of shoot and my professional needs, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include that component in the project agreement because there is an intrinsic value to being able to use those images for myself. My "Forty over 40" project agreements include both promotional and commercial releases, because one ultimate goal is a book for sale, and I wanted to have those releases locked in up-front rather than having to chase down the contributors and get permission later on.
There are plenty of templates and examples online to use when drafting your own release - and I often customize mine if a specific situation requires it. Drop a comment below if you do or do not use model releases, and what your thoughts are on them.
]]>
First impressions are immediate that this is a different type of film - the emulsion is a garish bright yellow, and Harmon is clear in describing it as an "experimental" film emulsion. Ostensibly rated for ISO 200, I've seen a mixed bag of results posted online, most of which show high-contrast, highly saturated images, and several reviewers have noted that they feel it would do better rated at ISO100, and may have a narrower latitude than they are used to with negative color film.
I took it out on two photoshoots - both in bright light, and using my Nikon F4E (I upgraded the battery pack from the F4S configuration) on aperture priority, matrix metering. I did at times use a +1 EV compensation, but mostly kept it at ISO 200.
I developed in CineStill Cs41 kit - it was not fresh developer as I had already ran several rolls through it, but I did compensate using my custom Excel spreadsheet (drop me a line if you would like a copy of this). I also included a positive control, in the form of a roll of CineStill 800T I was developing for my friend Metaljunky. I also shot other color rolls, CineStill400D, with the same camera before and after, so I can safely say that the exposures were pretty much on-point.
Right away I could tell that this was going to be a bit different - the negatives had an obvious blue cast and were fairly transparent, lacking the typical dark orange stain that I'm used to seeing. This seemed in keeping with what other people have seen, and I expected that the scanner would color-correct, or I could fiddle with the white balance myself. After drying though, I was actually quite disappointed with the results. Normally my F4 metering is so good that I need to do little, if any, correction from the scanner default settings. With the Phoenix though the images were dark, muddy, grainy, and with a pronounced red cast. They looked like under-exposed Redscale film to be honest.
I was able to adjust and rescue a good number of the images with the Epsonscan software, but the histograms were telling, in that they were mostly left-shifted (under-exposed) and narrow, leaving me with limited room to adjust the contrast curves. Even after trying to correct the red cast, the images were far from print-worthy, although some did have a certain ambience that wasn't unappealing.
A typical histogram from this roll of negatives: note the pronounced left-shift, narrow peak, and very limited blue channel.
A couple of the images that I deemed "not too bad":
In comparison, this image from Metaljunky was developed at the same time, and scanned in using default settings with no adjustments needed.
My overall impressions are that it's probably a fun little emulsion to play around with, but absolutely it needs to be rated lower than ISO200, and my eyeball of the histogram would suggest even a two-stop over-exposure wouldn't hurt it. My results seemed worse than others I've seen - maybe it just has less tolerance to used developer than other brands of film. For my purposes though, I won't be buying any more of it. My styles are either a high-end professional look (think Kodak Portra) or a nostalgic vibe evocative of the classic 1980s film era (which I come closest to with stocks like Cinestill400D, a modern emulsion). As exciting as it is to see new film stocks hitting the market over the last year or so, this one isn't for me. I do have a roll of the Flic Film Aurora 800 to try out though...I'll share my experiences with that one when I get an opportunity to make the most of the higher speed it offers. Let me know your thoughts or experiences with this film stock if you've tried it.
]]>
Image from ABC news
At least five major news/photography sources (Associated Press, Reuters, Getty Images, Agence France-Presse and the UK Press Association) retracted and/or issued a "kill order" on the image. The reason? The agencies refused to use manipulated images.
This is an amusement to me, as one of the things I pride myself on is not having to use photoshop or other post-production software to deliver excellent images. Now, there is absolutely an art to the skills and techniques used in this area, but I consider it digital art, not photography (literally meaning, to draw with light). The practice is common enough that it is considered normal to have to spend time (sometimes hours) digitally manipulating an image to look the way you want, and this work is often mentioned as a component of photographers' fees. Having said that, there is always a pressure from clients to adjust their chin or remove a wrinkle here and there. I refuse these requests, and prefer to use posing and light to create a great image. I do touch-up blemishes, and of course adjust levels and contrast, but I don't alter someone's appearance to look like something they are not.
A conversation with my mentor on this topic revealed something I wasn't fully aware of, or at least not fully aware of its implications. He mentioned a client who, wanting to save a few bucks, employed a local make-up artist who specialized in weddings, instead of flying in a professional beauty make-up artist. The result was a series of images that were unfortunately unusable, and the entire session had to be reshot.
One might reasonably ask, why couldn't they just edit the images to fix the make-up issues? The answer: it wasn't allowed.
I am sure that many of us are aware that there has been a growing trend towards "real beauty", using models who accurately reflect society and the people they are marketing to, and a deliberate pushback against image manipulation that ranges from being misleading to anatomic impossibility. Some countries have taken the extra steps though of actually legislating this, based on two principles: body-image distortion and the risk of eating-disorders, body-image dysmorphia, and other mental health conditions; and truth in advertising.
The current ease with which one can apply a filter to social media images and videos probably contributes to the acceptance among most people that images can be, and are, altered for public consumption. The rules are certainly different when it comes to portraiture, beauty and glamor photography, where the goal is to create an eye-catching image, and there is a certain expectation that "perfection" or even "better than life" is allowed in the art.
Commercial photography though is another matter, especially when it comes to people. I went into CVS just today and there are make-up and beauty images throughout the store marked with the "Beauty Unaltered" logo, indicating that the photographs were unretouched and not altered by photoshop. CVS has been campaigning on this issue since 2018, and today the vast majority of the beauty images seen in-store are marked with the campaign logo. The women have pores on their skin (!), small moles, eyelashes are their own. The year prior Rimmel had an advert pulled because of the misleading post-production edits on the model's eyelashes, which gave the false impression that the product worked better than it truly did.
France actually has a law requiring altered images be labelled (that article is a great resource by the way on various examples and statistics, and even prophesized the advent of AI art today!). Israel has banned adverts featuring underweight models, and other countries like Spain and UK have also come down on potentially damaging portrayals of body image.
In practical terms, what this means is that if a commercial client wants a great-looking image, they actually have to have artists working on capturing a great-looking image - and not merely fixing a mediocre image to look great. As I've alluded to before, the rise of high-resolution sensors and ultra-sharp lenses has left us with images that capture every line, mark and pore on someone's face, which often leaves the photographer retouching to make them look "better". A professional commercially-focused make-up artist, hairdresser, and stylist will be able to put someone in front of camera who frankly won't need retouching. Furthermore, a talented photographer with the right eye and equipment doesn't need to retouch their images. As one of my inspirations (the late great Peter Lindbergh) said "I don't retouch anything." He, like my mentor, actually required the magazines who published his work to agree to not retouch his images. Lindbergh was no slouch in the photography world - in fact he could arguably be credited with creating the concept of a "Supermodel".
Think of an image of a Supermodel from the 90's and it is probably a Lindbergh pic - captured on film, using natural light, and unretouched. Remind you of anyone else perhaps...?
Capturing realistic yet beautiful images isn't just something to be done for bragging rights to prove a point, it is actually a cornerstone of a massive component of modern commercial photography, especially for fashion and cosmetics. It's also clear to me that, even in an age of AI and image manipulation, retouching, and creation, there is a clear need for the role of an experienced pure photographer - someone who just draws with light. I find that extremely comforting.
]]>
The skillset required to create a photograph is extremely small these days - beyond the ease of autofocus and autoexposure, there are filters, editors, and now even AI tools to optimize and improve an image. Cell phones are ubiquitous, and a half-decent digital camera can be bought new for just a few hundred dollars, so the barrier to entry is practically nothing! It is perhaps no wonder that many people under-value photography and photographers: it's because they think that the act of creating an image is all that photography entails, and "anyone can do that", and so they do. What most often happens though is that a merely "Adequate" photograph is created. The image is Adequate to show what the object is, and nothing more. Adequate images lack imagination or energy, have avoidable flaws, and almost always fail to show off the subject in the best possible way. The image may be boring, or doesn't draw the viewers attention in any way, or worse, draws their attention to the wrong thing!
I once saw a post for a local small business of a woman showing off an outfit - the suit was professional and well-fitting, the posing was great - but the photograph was taken next to an overflowing garbage can, and in the window reflection behind her you could see the photographer holding their cell phone to take the picture. You could see straight through the restaurant into the parking lot on the other side of the building...and this was a promotional photograph used by this person for her business! Instead of a professional-looking woman showing off a high-end clothing line, she looked nothing more than someone out on a date getting a selfie for her socials. The Adequate photograph was worse than no photo at all.
Nanayaa portfolio shootCaptured as part of a photography session for a local teacher.
A professional photographer wouldn't do that. A professional photographer would have optimized the location, the lighting, the background, the setting, the posing and the gear to emphasize the outfit (not even the model, as good as she was - fashion photography is not about the model). A professional photographer doesn't just invest in the right gear for the job, but they have invested their time and money in education and training, and have literally years of experience in what to do (and what not to do) when taking a photograph. When you pay an hourly rate for a professional you are paying for the years, not the hours.
A business should not be using Adequate photography to show off their products and services. Adequate photography might be cheap (or even free!) but ultimately, what is it truly costing you? If your products appear amateurish then you have to charge amateur prices. If you can't put the effort and time into presenting your business properly, why should prospective clients and customers expect you to do the same for them? Small businesses invest in equipment, inventory, real-estate - all things that are necessary to get off the ground - and yet so many fail at the final hurdle of actually promoting themselves. The question they should be asking isn't "Can I afford to use a professional photographer?", it's "Can I afford not to use a professional photographer?"
I am also convinced this is why so many people think that they "aren't photogenic" - it's because they have had merely Adequate photos taken of them, and never had a photographer truly invested in the process of creating a flattering image. Most of the best photographers work with their clients from the very beginning, getting to know them as people and what their needs and expectations are from the shoot. They don't just take photos - they coach, they direct, they work to capture the essence and the very best of that person. Often the most successful photographers aren't those who create the very best images, but they are those who craft the very best experience for their clients.
Professional photographers not only plan their sessions, they adapt and flow, using their imagination and artistry in the moment to capture those one-off images that really can't be recreated. Even if a model is great at movement and posing, the photographer still has to get the lighting, angle, and timing right to get the best image. This image here was captured during a shoot for a local teacher in downtown Jacksonville, and is the perfect example of how timing, angles, and lighting can combine to flip a good image to great. The hair placement was not intentional, but the final image most definitely was.
If I were to summarize, it would be to say that Adequate photography is wholly inadequate. Adequate photography floods our social media feeds, and lowers expectations. Adequate photography devalues the art and skillsets of the professional photographer. Adequate photography has no place in business or portraiture. There are so many really great photographers, specializing in fashion, portraiture, product photography, events - they are literally just an email or phone call away.
]]>From the photographer's perspective there are two main advantages to doing it yourself over sending it out to a lab. Firstly, after the initial outlay for equipment (see earlier post for a list of the essentials), the cost of developing per roll is a lot cheaper than sending it out - especially for black and white film. At its most efficient, a bottle of Rodinal is about $15 and can process over 160 rolls of 35mm film (assuming you do 1:100 dilution and 2 rolls at a time). That's about 10 cents a roll. When you compare that to a cheap lab, where BW film is often more expensive than color, you might be paying $15-20 per roll for a dev and scan! Even factoring in the cost of a flatbed scanner, you can see that it'll pay for itself many times over. Color film (or higher quality BW developing) isn't as efficient, but you're still looking at a couples of dollars a roll at most.
The second advantage to the photographer is control - both over the development process and the scanning. I have found that learning how to tweak concentration, time, and temperature has helped me get the most out of my film photography. I am much more happy with the overall quality of my images now than I was using lab scans. Now, that's not to say that there aren't advantages to using a lab - just that I liked the control of how the end product looked.
Fire hydrant on Acros film, self dev and scanA high-contrast photograph of a fire hydrant on film
I was above to crush the shadows almost to black on this image, even though the photo was taken in daylight, because I was in charge of the development and scanning. This was a test shot on my Retina IIIc camera and 80mm lens, and paying full price for a lab scan didn't make sense when I had no guarantee that anything would come out at all!
The lab dev and scans though have two corresponding advantages. The first one is consistency: a good lab will use fresh chemicals and take care not to damage negatives, and have experienced lab technicians help fix contrast, exposure, and white balance issues during the scanning process. These are skills that are NOT obvious or intuitive, and frankly that's part of why lab scans aren't cheap. The scans are also captured using high-end machinery, which is much more likely to output high-quality images every time than a home scanning set-up. Of course if you don't like the way the lab tech has processed and scanned your negatives you're stuck - but on the whole they're pretty good in my experience. Their second advantage is time - while small batches of film can be done very quickly (easily next-day turnaround), for many rolls it can simply be faster and much less stress to have the rolls shipped off and the images emailed back to you! Labs process many, many rolls every single day as they have automated batch processing - there simply isn't a way to keep up doing it yourself, and you might find yourself stuck indoors working with negatives when you could be out doing a paid photoshoot. Taking into account your own time is crucial when deciding how to managing your film, and how to price your photography! Remember that digital photographers are charging for their time and expertise in Photoshop and Lightroom - film photographers should be no different in accounting for their time and expertise in development and scanning.
Ocean Sunrise, lab dev and scanAn ocean sunrise on Ektar film.
This image is a great example of the pros and cons of lab scans - they absolutely did a fantastic job with the exposure and colors here. The negative was over-exposed and when I looked at it myself I wasn't as able to get the same result without fiddling. However, the annoying dust-spot just to the left of center would have been avoided if I'd seen it myself and re-scanned the negative!
So how does this translate to the client experience? Well it depends on all of those things. Do they want a specific photographer's style and look? If that look is the result of their personal process and preferences then it would be best to go to a photographer who does their work themselves. If they don't care as much about a specific aesthetic, but do want a quick, reliable turnaround, then it might be more important to go with a lab dev and scan. Depending on how the photographer charges for their time, it's likely that the overall price will be a wash, but it may end up being more or less expensive depending on the type of photoshoot and the number of images required. I would recommend that anyone looking to work with a film photographer ask about the options for development and scanning, and how that might impact things like timelines, cost, and image quality and aesthetic.
]]>At this point it's worth diverting to talk about how film photography works - as I discussed in my earlier post on pushing film, there is a two-step process where the light causes an initial chemical reaction on the film emulsion, and then a second reaction occurs (in fact, several) during the development process to create the film grains on the emulsion and then remove the unexposed/developed emulsion. This is why they're called "negatives", because the light-exposed areas actually look dark on the film strip and the dark areas of the image (which are less exposed) are removed, leaving the film strip see-through. Faster (higher ISO) film emulsions will generally have larger grains, to increase the sensitivity, or a different mix of chemicals on the strip. Slower films will generally be finer-grained - this is very similar to high-ISO settings on a digital camera introducing digital noise to the image.
It's therefore obvious that there is an inherent problem with developing film - how do you get the film OUT of the canister and exposed to developer without exposing it to light? The obvious answer is a darkroom, but I don't have one and thankfully neither you don't need one either! What you probably will need is a film changing bag, but that step is tricky. You'll need decent developing reels (the ones with the wider flanges are best by far I've found) and you should practice in daylight with a spare roll before you move onto the bag/darkroom. Most film developing tanks will come with reels, so look closely and read the reviews to find the best fit for you. Some folks prefer metal reels, I've had no issues with plastic so long as they're dry.
Once you have the negatives safely in the tank, the actual developing process can be done in daylight. There are a bunch of different kits to use depending on whether you are developing color or black and white film. You'll definitely need a few other items though: storage bottles, a decent thermometer, acrylic gloves if you want to keep chemicals off your hands and I've found a couple of collapsible funnels incredibly helpful. I have a graduated cylinder set with several different sizes. One thing I am careful about is keeping anything that touches fixer away from anything to do with the developer - I learned the hard way that inactivating your developer prior to using it is a bad thing.
Some folks like a sous vide or similar to control temperature, but frankly I just use hot water in a sink and monitor the developer temperature that way. Although there is no doubt that developer temperature matters, it's not THAT critical so long as you're following directions and starting out right. I also have a set of rubber tongs for removing excess water from the film prior to drying.
For a decent overview of the process I learned from this video on YouTube (and probably no coincidence that my first developer was Ilfosol-3 as a result!). It's a nice demonstration of the mixing and agitation techniques needed.
The process is basically filling the tank with the appropriate liquid in turn (developer, stop solution, fixer, wash) at the right temperature and for a suitable time and agitating at specific intervals. This is where the art comes in - sometimes you'll use a higher or lower temperature, sometimes a longer or shorter duration, sometimes you'll agitate every 30 seconds and other times every 30 minutes! It's all down to the specific film and developer you are using and the look you are trying to create. My mentor said to me once that the developer may have more influence on the final result than the film emulsion, and I think he may well be correct in that statement. Thankfully there is a wealth of information out there, both from manufacturers and from the general public. The Massive Dev Chart is something I refer to whenever I have a new film stock, but I also have my own handwritten notes where I've calculated optimal times and temperatures for my commonly-used film stocks. Truth be told, after 6 years of this I can develop pretty much all of the film I shoot without referring to any notes, but I do make use of a calculator spreadsheet of development times for when I reuse my color chemicals (time is increased by 2% for every 36-exposure roll developed).
If I have tips it's mostly about being careful and linking back your results to the process - label bottles NOT just the bottle tops (which can be swapped...), watch temperature and time, plan ahead with your equipment and make sure you have time and space to get things done. Once you're in the middle of a 10-minute development with agitations every 30 seconds, you're pretty much tied to that developing tank unless the house is burning down, and if you don't have space to safely hang a full strip of wet film (which is over 5ft long) that will suck immensely. I use my shower door frame. Lastly, the final rinse should be with a detergent of some kind (even clear hand/dish soap will do - one drop in the tank filled with water is enough - but some kits include a final rinse solution) for 30-60 seconds, and then I carefully but thoroughly squeegee the film dry as it hangs with two loooong single swipes top to bottom.
Scanning film is a whole other thing...and I'll save that for another post.
]]>
Depending on the context and concepts you might use, it seemed to me that (at least in modern Western society) there was an arbitrary cutoff around the age of 40. Below that it's pretty safe to categorize someone as "younger", but while they're not exactly "older" when they're in their 40s, there's definitely a mindset shift. "Middle-age" is generally considered to include that 40-60 year age bracket, so that seemed a reasonable place to start.
The other important concept is to shift the emphasis from established or rising models, to non-models and those less practiced in posing or being photographed. While I obviously want for this to be an artistic endeavor, I want to use the photographs as one part of the storytelling and not the end-result to stand alone. I want the project to be an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women, and give them an opportunity to pass on their collective wisdom, thoughts, and feelings. There are so many stories that go untold, and I have already had several reach out to me asking to be a part of it.
Why focus on women? I think it goes without saying that despite so much change in the world, there are still massive issues to deal with as regards womens' rights, equality, prejudices, and more. I am hoping that many of the contributors will be able to share their own personal experiences of change (or lack of), their struggles and successes, the achievements and the lessons they have learned. I am hoping they will educate, encourage, and empower readers with their words and images. I also want to make it clear that the project will be inclusive of Trans women, who unarguably have some of the hardest stories to tell.
I will be recruiting contributors to sit with me for an interview on their lives and experiences, whether it be a Q&A style or more of a conversation, and then a short personalized portrait session on film. If I get enough then I'll collate the best for publication in a photobook, and while I can't promise fame or fortune I do intend to have all contributors share in the royalties from any sales. This is absolutely NOT a modeling gig, and no experience is necessary - just a willingness to share their story and contribute.
If you're interested in joining me on this journey, you can find updates and information at this link . Photo below of my wife on film, who has already volunteered as one of the contributors :-)
My wife and musePicture of my wife captured on 35mm film during a studio test-shoot last year.
On a digital camera, if you shoot RAW, it might actually be possible to rescue those images. Digital sensors are quite sensitive to low-light and it's simply a case of boosting the captured signal. In contrast, if a digital sensor is maxed out then they don't do as well as the sensor blows the highlights. Film works the other way around - low light usually means that details are lost, whereas negative color and BW emulsions tend to have quite high latitude for overexposure.
If you have under-exposed your film though, all is not lost. With a 1 or maybe 2 stop underexposure you may be able to bring up the image when you print or scan the negatives. For black and white images this often works really well, but color film might have a slight color cast to it. Shadows will be less well defined and colors more "muddy" or muted. And there is also the option of "pushing" the film. Many photographers talk of "pushing" film when they deliberately shoot a slow speed emulsion at a higher ISO (for example, I often push Acros 100 by shooting it at 400 ISO), but to be accurate the "pushing" only occurs during development - otherwise all you've done is under-exposed the film!
To be simple, the final image is the result of an initial photochemical reaction between the film and the light, and a second chemical reaction between the light-activated areas of the film and the developer. So, if you have under-exposed during the first step, you can in theory compensate by over-developing (pushing) the film during the second step. This should bring the overall image density back up to a more normal level, rescue detail in the shadows for example, but also tends to increase overall contrast and may also alter the overall color balance a little. Pushing film can be as simple as simply running the development step for longer, or it may require a higher temperature, or a little bit of both. Thankfully it's not wizardry, and there is plenty of information and guidance out there - in fact Cinestill includes a helpful table of how to push up to 3 stops using their Cs41 developer kit at a range of temperatures, and the Massive Dev Chart is a crowd-sourced repository of information on film development times.
An example of pushed film - here I used a faster shutter speed to avoid blur but of course ended up under-exposing. I pushed 1 stop in development to compensate. Note the cool halation of the candle flame with the 800T film stock. Shannon Merceron modeling.
In the example below I actually made the opposite mistake as my friend - thinking I was in aperture-priority I accidentally shot a whole series at 1/250s when I should have been closer to 1/4000s. That's a massive FOUR STOP overexposure. I recognized my mistake and made the decision to fix the rest of the roll and hope for the best during scanning. I could have under-developed (pulled) the film but there's more risk with that I think. Shorter developing times may result in uneven results and very odd color shifts, and I only had guidance down to -1 stops. I developed the film normally and this was the result - a perfectly usable image that is in fact on display right now at a local art co-op. This is almost entirely due to using a high-quality film stock, Portra160. Cheaper but similar speed color film stocks would have struggled to do as well - and I challenge a digital camera to cope with a 4-stop overexposure at all!
So as you can see, it's not just the photography that differs between film and digital, but also how you manage and process the film AFTER the shoot. I am happy to offer individual and group tuition sessions if anyone wants to drop me a line, and I also offer film developing/scanning services.
]]>I simply had to comment. I pointed out that if the business "needed" a photographer for a shoot, they ought to be paying them. There is a time and a place for TFP (time for prints) or other collaborations, where all parties involved can truly benefit from a photography session, but when a money-making business wants a service provided for free, it's seriously rude. Furthermore, I pointed out that by allowing (indeed, promoting) this kind of post on the group it further devalued the skills, expertise, and expenses that go into professional photography. While it might appeal to a hobbyist or amateur truly looking to add to their portfolio, the chances would be high that the quality of free photography would be worth exactly the amount of money the client was willing to pay.
They kicked me from the group.
Perhaps I shouldn't have posted such a grump without more coffee on board, but I won't back down from the premise (obviously - and this is my blog so no-one is kicking me off here!). Shooting for free when someone needs photos is devaluing photography and photographers, and we have a hard enough time as it is. Rather than post such an ad, the admin/moderator should have replied with a polite but firm refusal to pander to this request.
A short while later I had precisely the opposite experience - a local business owner, who I knew from networking at some local model styled shoots, reached out to me saying that she needed a specific look on analog film for an event, and asked "how much would you charge for this?" She understood that despite our existing relationship it wouldn't be appropriate to request something for free, or even at a discount. Despite this being a little outside of my usual repertoire, I figured I could pull it off, we discussed the scope and concept, and she even paid a little above asking! I calculated that the "cost" to me of the shoot was probably about a third of the price, with the rest covering my time.
I stopped doing free TFP last year - instead opting to ask for money to cover my expenses of shooting film, and the response has been mixed. About half of the people who have reached out to me for concept/collab/TFP shoots have balked at the cost and backed off - to be fair these were often models who were themselves charging for services, and I can obviously respect that. But the rest were happy to pay - and that resulted in 100% show-rates for the models, plus referrals and repeat shoots! What this also meant was that I could cover my costs for the year, meaning I can continue to shoot in the way that I want to, and from time-to-time work on collaborations and group shoots.
I'll continue to work with models in a way that doesn't devalue either side of the creative team. It's not ALL about the money, but please don't ask photographers to shoot for free. If they want to, they will volunteer.
]]>