Evidence # 789987543567283764 that the entire fashion / celebrity based entertainment industry takes us for zombies (rightfully).

Versace hired Lady Gaga for advertising purposes. Everything in it's right place at first sight: a luxury brand hires famous singer to promote its product. Now step back, and think about it for a second...Lady Gaga...Versace targeting Lady Gaga fans...luxury...wait. Something's wrong. 

Indeed, up until the late 90ies, luxury brands were acting like luxury brands: they were out of reach for 95% of the population, and promoted in very targeted ways. For example, have you ever seen an Aston Martin ad lately? I bet you haven't. Last time I saw one with in a luxury real estate magazine targeting buyers of >$5M properties in the lobby of the large corporation I also work for. But the difference between clothing brands the likes of Versace and a car manufacturer, is that if you  put an Aston Martin logo on a 4 cylinder diesel car, good luck trying to sell it more than $30k. On the other hand, put a Versace, Dolce and Gabbana or Vuitton badge on pretty much anything, and you have a $1000 product. 

All those brands realized that their name only was an asset from which they could squeeze money out, and therefore created sub-brands with the house name on it, with a price tag that it way to high for what they sell, yet accessible by a middle class customer willing to live on credits. 

For example, you can get a Armani Exchange coat for 600, but this is a not real Armani product in the true historical heritage of what Armani is: a super premium tailor with fine Italian design. A real Armani coat will still cost thousands, all you get here is brand identity. Same stock owners, same firm, but a totally different line of products that are here just to leverage brand equity.

I don't know about you, but when I go for a luxury brand, I go at it because the product is exceptional. The power of the brand should be a consequence of the later only, not it's main strength. I also tend to despise luxury brands who prostitute their name like this. To me they lost their status the day they started selling to MTV addicted douchebags. 

But back to Versace and LadyGaga. The point is: the way this ad was done is at the image of what I described and who it's aiming at: cheap and fake. First of all, the "celebrity". Fading away fame with a weak set up and a bad photographer. The only person who worked hard is the graphic designer who photoshopped the hell out of everything. He is probably the one who leaked that, unless it's an other of those marketing "without make up" stunts.

This is what photography as turns into in the field of advertising: selling thin air, by people like Richardson who frankly can't do shit with a camera, with celebrities that were force fed to the mass. I mean, they don't even make the effort of putting on make up and doing lighting correctly! This proves that they go like "let's shot stuff and bobby will photoshop the crap out of it".  It's a draft for the graphic designer at best, so that he knows where the edges are.

This is why I almost never talk about fashion photography on this blog, because it's mostly a joke, as opposed to reporters, art photographers and others. If you want to be a fashion photographer one day in the future, below average skills will do just fine. All you need is networking, friends, networking and more connected friends.

If you are 15 and want to be that, you have a lot to learn about men's tastes... 

Product review: Mamiya 645E, shooting medium format for a bargain

A while ago, I reviewed the Mamiya 645 1000S, a old entry level 645 film camera. It came out aiming at beginners in the field of medium format (MF), and it is quite frankly among the best image quality / price ratio you can get. The problem is that it's very old, and finding one that is not worn out with a working meter is hard.

I recently killed mine, the film winding mechanism couldn't tell anymore where was the next frame. The meter, although functional, became 1 stop off. It lasted 30+ years, not bad compared to the average life expectancy of a modern camera !

The lens however, a 80mm f2.8 (equivalent to a 50mm on "full frame" 35mm camera) is still superb, so I decided to got for a post 2000 version of this camera, the 645E.

What does it do

It is literally a 645 1000s with automatic aperture priority mode and a few improvements. In other words, the 645 1000S was suggesting the speed but you have to manually pick it, on this one shutter speed sets itself in auto mode.
Focus is manual, which on a spot metered camera is not an issue since you'll take time to work your shot. You can do multiple exposure and max shutter speed is 1/1000s. That simple, which is great became you can focus on the image instead of figuring out what is in what menu.

So why a 645E instead of a 1000S for even cheaper? 

Well you can find one in mint condition, while 1000S are now pretty much all dead. 

Why getting a Mamiya 645 at all?

• First of all, look at those images (from the 645 1000s). That's why you want to own a medium format camera. If you don't like that kind of output, you don't want one. If you do, and you wonder why your digital work never feels like that, then you want one. But keep reading, the best is yet to come...

• As promised, the best part: you can get that for less than a cheap compact camera. Let's be specific here: this camera goes for $300 with the lens. Mint. The cost of buying film and getting it developed is about $0.80 per shot, which means that the price difference between this and a Fuji X100 will get you about 1100 shots. Of course, when shooting film, you also pay a lot more attention to crafting, shoot less pictures and therefore improve your skills a lot faster. "Wait what? But but...I spend $5600 in my Canon 80D MarkXXV and it doesn't look any better ! Actually my B&W and the bokeh are not that nice! Could it be that...they are lying to us? We don't need 22nd century electronics and Active Power Sensor 3000 SPX technology to have beautiful rendering? - ALELOUYA ! Your eyes have been opened my friend. Join us in celebration of actual pictures instead of marketing techno crap !" On a more serious touch, this is a cheap and perfect supplement to an SLR, instead of buying an other accessories, you can get that for a very different experience.

• Why Mamiya and not Pentax or Contax, who also offer excellent 645 cameras? Well frankly, they are slightly better built than the Mamiya, but Pentax lenses now cost an arm because they launched the digital version, which pulled used lens prices up. The Contax is excellent, but harder to find and more expensive. Mamiya wanted to go entry level with this camera, and while the built quality remains correct, image quality is the same while prices are amazingly low second hand. 

You get the picture: if you are to shoot portraits in particular, you will want to play with depth of field, have nice bokeh and crisp images. Nothing gives you that better that a large sensor / film. Unfortunately, digital sensor are at best 33x44 mm, which is...a joke. It should not even be called medium format. 

Real medium format (60x70mm) leads to enormous cameras with often no built in metering. On the other hand 645 (60x45 mm) offer a format much much larger that full frame SLRs, with comparable size and automation. And it that field, the Mamiya is simply...well the cheapest.

If you want to start film photography, you could go for a Nikon FE / FE2 / FM or Canon equivalent. This would allow you to recycle your SLR lenses. But why? Why when for $150 more you can shoot medium format?

An other very important point, I mentioned that several times here: film photography with spot metering forces you to make decision in exposure and focus, so you actually work your technique. And most digital shooters really need that.

Finally the camera looks exotic, and all the SLR owners with big "I have something to compensate" lenses will be jealous of your edge :)

Here are some exemple from me and other people, with credits in captions:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/farhad_yassavoli/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanabramsphotography/

Photoshoot mythbusting

A few years ago, I was mostly shooting attractive and rather undressed models. I now find more satisfaction in shooting journeys and personal moments, but as a straight male with a taste for contemplation, I once in a while enjoy shooting a beautiful girl. Let's be honest, it's also a great way to drive traffic to this blog (honestly, why did you click in the first place?) and I don't happen to have easy access to kittens. But it also makes people around me very curious... so today, I will answer the questions you always ask me face to face:

1. How do I find models and what happens next?
2. What do my acquaintances think of female nudity in my pictures?
3. And finally the one question from my male audience: do you get laid a lot? That is seriously the number one question I get, and I am a market oriented kind of guy.

Ah ah, I totally lured you in here :) You are weak. 

How did I happen to shoot nudity? 

At the very beginning, I mostly shot friends or colleagues I got along with, portraits only. I am very grateful for the incredible amount of time they gave me, especially because they had me when I was learning tons and frankly, not at my best. They know we they are. 

One of my friend, a fearless lady, ask me if she could pose naked for me. She did it to tease a boy she liked, and I very much believe for her self esteem, which is a good and very common reason why women ask to pose for me. Because we didn't want anyone we knew to recognize her where she worked (being a free minded woman doesn't imply that you are professionally suicidal), pictures ended up being quite low key, discret, and focused on her shapes rather than her face. Those pictures got a lot of success, among men and women, for different reasons...

The male audience comments could be summarized in those terms: "I'd hit that + nice tits + did you bang her?" I'll address that later, I've got to work on my suspense skills. So from males, almost never a comment on composition, framing choices etc. The worst part for me was this comment I got one day: "I should really buy an SLR and start doing that". This is awful for the following reasons:

• That is insulting to the models, as it implies that any expensive camera gets them naked, as if they can't resist their  own vanity & your wealth. 
• It was insulting to me because that guy was just assuming that my pictures were just the fruit of owning an expensive camera, and that he could do the same. 
• Finally, it showed that some men still think, unconsciously or not, that if a woman is naked in a room with a man, she automatically will want to shag him. Some have a lot to learn...

I did have few nice photography related remarks from men, mostly good photographers who could see what I was trying to achieve.

The female audience however surprised me.  I was first a tad bit ashamed to show them my work, by fear of being misjudged as someone who objectifies women. I later realized that the most positive, photography oriented and fulfilling comments came from women. They were complimenting my work for picturing them in a way they found faltering, and I ended up having countless shooting proposals, which is why I haven't had to paid a model for a long time. I was very happy to see that the female audience wanted to be pictured the way I do it, and soon realized that ladies only were providing useful feedback.

I now live in a new city where I know fewer people than in Ireland, so I seek models on portfolio sites too. This is how a shooting normally happens:

1. A friend asks me to shoot her, or I ask her. The other option is I go on a site the likes of modelmayhem.com, and contact a model.
2. We discuss shooting conditions by email: do you want a right release contract, do you want to bring a friend, are you comfortable with nudity etc. 
3. Then I send examples of what I'm looking for in terms of mood, or shooting technique
4. We agree on time and place, and price if it is a paid job, all by email
5. I meet the model on shooting location (sometimes in a bar for the more cautious ones), we usually chat about the weather for 5 mins.
6. She pulls from her bag the clothes she brought for the shooting, we chose what to start with, and we just get to it.
7. When done, I ask for time to develop the film and scan the negative, and I send only the best pictures.  Some paid models don't care, they only want the money, some do it for the pictures, some want both, it's always different. 
8. Few of them I saw again for shooting, less became friends. Most of the time we never met again.

Some ask me how we you get from "hello" to "can you please get naked?". First of all, it is all agreed prior to meeting, so usually the model just...gets naked after 5 mins. It sounds weird I know. I usually look away like a idiot, which is dumb because I'll stare at her thru my camera for 2 hours after that, seeking the best way to capture what I like about her. I do it because...my mummy taught me to be polite I guess.

Sometimes, it's just happening strangely. Take those pictures for example (that I love):

I met her in a store where she worked. I immediately thought: "that girl as such a unusual but beautiful look, I'd love to shoot her". Since I was with my girlfriend, I dared to ask as she would not think I'm hitting on her. She said yes and a few days later came to our place. I was shooting her in the bedroom, asking for nothing specific, and she innocently took off her top...I did not ask for this, we never really talked, I never asked for her motivation to pose in the first place. She showed the pictures to her boyfriend, who liked them, and I never heard of her anymore.

Other times, the model came with her mum who was forcing to pause as a FHM pin up when she clearly hated it. Didn't go well. I also had twice ladies going full nude although we agreed on portraits only, to later tell me that I can keep but not use the pictures, that they are only for them. Pretty lame when you spend 100$ of film and a day of processing... I could never post those of course, keep in mind an email is worth a contract in many countries so respect your commitments. Of course if I knew if was a order for personal shots, I'd have charged them.

The one lesson  here is: ask everything and anything before to clarify. No one want to feel surprised on tricked in a situation where they feel vulnerable.

How do my friends and acquaintances react to it?

Most ladies, as I said, liked it. I'm sure some despise it but they never tell me. In some cases they were suspicious about my intentions towards the model but the appreciated the work (yes there is a full day of work after shooting). When they are critical of my shots, it's never about the nudity, it's more often about my narrow vision or lack of evolution. Rightfully I must admit.

Most guys...well you know already. A lot of male colleagues are very interested, judgmental and envious at the same time. They make classy remarks full of implication such as "still doing nudy pictures?" I love those, condescending moral judgment with a subtly disguised request for boobies.

My true male friends made the effort to get interested in the photographic aspect of things, they display a healthy mix of appreciation for the opposite gender combined with a little photographic analysis of the image.

My family... well I don't have much and my mum couldn't care less as long as I treat my lady right.

Finally, the one question to rule them all: do you get laid a lot?

To be truthful, this is often formulated as such: "wooow nice cans, did you bang her? Got her number?"
Yes I do have her number, we've met...and really? You think you can just call and be like "hey, I'm that guy you've never heard off, but since you pose naked, I assume you don't need to know more for use to bang right?" Yeah try that, tell me how that goes.

Well dear readers, here is the answer you have been waiting for: yes, I bang most of them. Sometimes at the same time. We just have random orgies where we never use protection. Also se often black out on crack cocaine so i'm not too sure, but I do believe there was once a poney in the batch. Then I make videos and show it to my Grand' Ma who applauds while summoning Satan in goat blood. Great fun.

For those of you who don't get sarcasm, the answer is: no, I don't get laid via photography. Here are the reasons why:

• For most of the time I have had a girlfriend.
• Models who pose to make a living don't give a damn about you as a man, they expect decent behavior, payement and goodbye. Nice pics are a bonus.
• Models who pose as a way to work on their self esteem, or as a personal treat, don't flirt with you. They flirt with their reflection in the camera. It's a thing between them and...them. 
• Being naked in the presence of a man does not imply desire. Otherwise it would be a mega orgy at the beach every summer (at least in France). 
• If I paid, or even more if they volunteer, I have a lot of pressure not to fuck up, so I stay focused.

Has anything ever happened with a model? Yes. It would have happened in a bar if not after a shooting. It happened because there was mutual attraction. Modeling had little to do with it, appart from being the reason for meeting in the first place. I won't unveil my personal life, but in 10 years shooting, that happened probably...twice? Much much less than what happened when simply going out. And no, I won't tell you which ones.

So if you are in for the action, I'm not saying it can't lead to that. If you try real hard...but still, save your money, go to clubs, online dating sites or parties, you'll get laid a lot more and mostly, you'll stop polluting that field of work with you behavior.

Conclusion

I want to close this topics with two points:

1. There are 59 pictures on my portfolio as it is. 7 of them display nudity. Do you have an eye filter that prevents you from seeing the rest? 
2. I once looked for men to shoot. When I asked guys that are not models, most freaked out, as if it was some cheap gay move on them. On the other hand, gay men where quite comfy with the idea, and often volunteering, without seeing imaginary hook ups everywhere. That's very funny how the average straight male is full of opinions on naked female models, but very very few would have the balls to pose naked. Why you ask me? I guess...the values of the old fashion all powerful male probably exist to hide a form of discomfort. We conveniently put all the pressure of physical attractiveness on women, so we wouldn't have to deal with it ourselves. The old white dominant male relies of social status and money. Once you've had the balls to pause naked for a female photographer, you may have a more interesting opinion to share. 

I hope that satisfies your curiosity ! I am not offended at all by such questions, just a but tired of answering them instead of talking actual photography. 

The beauty and the Beercules, a reflexion on what makes a photograph unique.

Not too long ago, I visited a friend of mine in Barcelona; I hadn't seen her in a long time. I once shot her in Ireland, on the beach near Drogheda (north of Dublin). Back in the days I published very few of those pictures, but visiting her reminded me to look into my old negatives. And that takes me to a interesting point about photography: how unique can a picture actually be? 

Let's take a painter, or a band: both have elements that make them who they are in a unique, hard to replicate way. When you see a Dali, well you know it's a Dali. You can either have a copy, in which case there was no intention to be creative in the first place. Or you can have an other painting inspired by Dali's style, with hopefully an extra personal touch from that other painter, which makes it unique in some way. Back to the musical comparison, no one sounds like Liam Gallagher or Till Lindemann. Sure some bands like Muse and Placebo sound a little bit the same if you don't pay attention, but the lyrics are unique, and the songs and melodies are too.

So what about photography? Let's be honest, in the field of fashion anyone could learn how to reproduce a high production value shot. It's pure technique: get the same/similar model that poses the same way, light can be learned, editing too, cameras all work the same. The fact is, I dare you to tell me in fashion magazines that you can recognize the style of each photographer, and regroup images under the name of who shot them. You just can't. Even guys like Terry Richardson - who has a little "je ne sais quoi" but it's minor and mostly based on sex and celebrities- well even his shots look the same as anybody else's when he tries to do clean fashion. Same goes with landscapes and many other genres.

With the internet we are exposed to a huge melee of good pros, awful photographers that are pros (they earn a living with it, but still sucks balls real bad), and amateurs that are much better than pros. They all post, blog, flickr, and have easy access to millions of images. It leads to uniformity and trends (lately cross processing effects and faded color halos). It is really becoming very hard to shoot with a clean mind, free of all the nice images you've seen somewhere else.

So what makes an photograph unique? In my opinion it is about:

1. the story it tells, and that mostly concerns documentaries and journalists. This is why I worship war photographers and those who seek to be there in that special moment, that image that will tell a story. 
2. your relationship with the people you are shooting, and that is good news. You copied techniques from other photographers? You used the same post processing as many? Don't feel bad. It looks good doesn't it? Then enjoy. The thing is, when you shoot someone you care about, or even hate (as long as there is a feeling), there will be in your picture something that only you can see, whatever is personal. In addition to that, if you friend likes the way he/she feels about himself/herself thru your eyes, you added a nice little thing to your relationship with him/her. That picture won't matter to most, but to you two it will.

This is why I love photography, is it a major form of art in the sense that it's all snobbishly unique and hard to do? No. It is a major form of art because it's accessible, personal, naturally appealing to everyone. People always want to see the pictures don't they? So sure there is a lot of trash among the gazillion tons of pictures that have been posted in the past 20 years, but so much great shots in the middle that could be from anyone. And again, there could be that one picture no one but you cares about but you, because it tells your story and the story of a friend.

So I'm home looking at those old scans (Nikon FE and Mamiya 67 cameras), and as I've had a great time with my friend in Barcelona, getting to know her much better, I now project her personality and emotions onto each image so much more than before. Sometimes, shoot the ones you love instead of random people, you'll like your pictures better, and do something nice for a friend or family member. This is my friend,  her name is Natalija.

Plus, here are more picture of candids from my vacation, no posing, just the moment, our story (D600 and 35mm F2 if you wonder).

This one is mine, miiiine don't even think about it.

Picture that rocks : Koko the gorilla

Because Gorilla mothering a kitten, that's why. 

So I decided of that new section called "picture that rocks", because sometimes there's nothing special about the photographer, nothing to discuss, just an image that speaks for itself.

For those who wonder, Koko is (was?) a gorilla that could speak 1000 sign words, create words by recombining existing ones, and understand 2000 words of spoken English (most humans live with 500 words).

It means Koko was listening to you, answering in sign language (primates can't speak because of posture, that's the only reason) and you could have an actual conversation with a gorilla. Read that last part again, and think about it. It personnaly blows my mind. And yes she was expressing remorse, boredom, joy, her desire to be a mother etc. Sorry Christians, God might be a female gorilla...

Koko was also famous for appearing in a documentary showing how she adopted a kitten, since she couldn't find a gorilla male while living among humans. She complained that zoo gorilla's, some were introduced to her, couldn't speak and were stupid...ah! women !

You can easily find that documentary online. Sad truth, she's worth more than many of us when it comes to what we abusively call humanity.

Debate with myself on nude photography.

Yes you will see boobs in that post. Yet, I would very much expect you to read the text cause that's really the all point of it. For more boobs, butts or German / Japanese people putting random body parts in randoms anatomical cavities, I recommend Google.com . My blog would be way too disappointing :)

As promised, your reward for having to read stuff  / Model: Cindy Nocks

Photography is segmented into different genres, for the sake of nomenclature, for us to be able to qualify what we do, with words. Landscape, portrait, wildlife, architecture are the most common, simple and explicit segments. 

But have you noticed that in the much appreciated field of female imagery, we have been granted with an amazing amount of qualifiers: "beauty, glamour, parts, erotic, nude, art-nude, fine-art nude" etc. 

The last one is my favorite, bullshit at its best. So you qualify your own work as "fine-art", right. Sounds like Apple brainwashing millions that their products are innovative just because well, they said so. It also sounds super snobbish:

-"oh you do portraits, good for you.

- well you do boobs...

- no I do fine-art nude, it's very classy and technical, if you don't get it I can't help you"

Lol. The following would be closer to reality:

-"Damn I like boobs, I wanna take boob pictures. No wait, it's going to look like I like boobs then. Hum... I should make it sound arty so it'd become fancy and stuff. Fine-art nude? there is such bullshit as fine-art nude? Ah ah bingo ! That will do just fine !"

Because dear reader, in art, the more bullshit the outcome (photograph, painting etc), the fancier the art words to describe it. It's supposed to make the random peons feel like they just don't get it. Applies great to the field painting. Visualize, one line of black pain on a plain white wall, some 130 pound hipster scratching his chin :

-"Oh my ! such deconstructed sophistication in the way he processes the subliminal aspects of post modernist whatever crap and I'll finish that sentence later. Any body have cocaine? I ran out at 9am."

Not it's not the traffic of my blog, it's a Miro "painting". I have actually seen this in its museum, the black part on the right is not part of it, probably just a bad picture.

And here we are, all elements in place for the debate: 

1. Is taking picture of nude attractive ladies just a crap excuse to see tits? 
2. Can we separate art nude from erotic photography?
3. Does it even matter?

1/ Yes. Nude photography is about looking at naked people, of course. Keep in mind until the end of this post than I will never denied that. Landscape is about landscapes no? The only difference is the layer of guilt that was added by milleniums of religious retardation, making us use arty words to cover up a shameful thing. So motivation for doing it? Well it's a three way thing between the model, the photographers, the viewer. 

• For the photographer, voyeurism is so obvious that denying is foolish. Now I'm not saying it's necessary sexual, one can perfectly find the human body very aesthetical. I find that a well built male is a good looking thing, and that is totally unrelated to my sexual preferences (boobs, clearly). It is about capturing something you love to look at in a way that you enjoy to look at it. Period. And we all like a good looking naked lady. Actually you could replace naked lady by naked dude all along the post if you prefer.
• For the model, it's often a self esteem, exhibitionist thing. I don't mean that models walk around in trench coats near playgrounds, I mean that having your body made an object of desire is a powerful thing for the ego. Of course it can also be a job, but if you don't have any of that in you, you must be a very sad person posing naked just for money.
• For the viewer, it's like for the photographer except that they are passive (lazy wankers :-p ).

2/ Yes too. Plain simple:  composition, exposure, creativity still applies. The difference between plain erotic and art nude is simply the graphical, visual value of the image beyond the desirability of the person who's on it. Desirable lady in sexy pose: erotic. Desirable lady in a pleasantly compose image with great mastery on details: art nude, even if still erotic. And that's precisely where I want to kill the hypocrisy: an art nude image is erotic too, it is erotic plus something else. The real segmentation should be between erotic and porn:

• Eroticism is creating the "desire to desire" (quote from some smart dude I forgot the name of, but I greatly agree with it). It's about arousing deep parts of your imagination.
• porn is about stimulating yourself in order to touch your genitals until you reach satisfaction.

Then yes we can separate those two things rather easily. I would never ever go at polishing the snake looking at a picture from Jan Scholz:

Jan Scholz AKA Micmojo, a guy who knows a thing or two about good nudes

Jan Scholz AKA Micmojo, a guy who knows a thing or two about good nudes

Jan Scholz AKA Micmojo, a guy who knows a thing or two about good nudes

3/ Does it even matter? I was invited to a thanksgiving dinner last Saturday, and as we opened wine bottles a wise guest said:

-"Don't know much about wine, don't care. Do I like it when I drink it? If yes, then it's good wine."

Some might say that practical approach is the best. I mean, look at the above displayed Miro painting: you can tell me all you want Miro is a genius, I still wouldn't put it in my garage. So if you like what you see, should you care if it's art nude? Or just a raw, nice looking pair of boobs, without any effort put into making the image worth anything on its own?

Well I think it matters. Firstly, if it didn't I would have wrote that post for nothing. Then it also matters because tastes evolve. At 12 you might think Katy Perry is the greatest artist in the world, to much later realize that Pearl Jam, Dream Theater, Brahms, or Duke Ellington are actually the real thing. The difference between the young and the older you? Time. You had time to be exposed to other things, opinions, critical ideas, and it shaped your mind into appreciating beauty. The same way candies are awesome at 6yo and gross you up after 3 pieces when you're 40yo, age at which you'll much prefer a fine Bourbon.

You might first look at nude photography to see boobs, you might do nude photography to see boobs, but you should ask yourself the question: if I don't put any effort into my pictures, I might just be doing masturbation material (nothing wrong with that). If I put some efforts into it, I can actually achieve to create a piece that mixes 3 awesome things together:

• A beautiful pictural representation, an object that is visually pleasant to the eye, maybe even a story telling piece that really sets a mood once put on a wall
• A nice looking naked person, because we all love that and fuck all that guilt.
• Make viewers happy, as well as the model who'll enjoy the way she's be capture, the way you perceived her through your camera

Add on: to answer the questions, all shots above are medium or large format film indeed.

Things are going the right way :-)

We are getting there, a couple more years and I believe we will have the digital camera that will really make photography easier: a compact full frame body that can take SLRs lenses, and that also comes with dedicated "pancake", compact premium lenses.

Canon is so far the closest to deliver that dream camera with the EOS M, and they are really close: the only thing it's missing is a full frame sensor. It takes Canon SLR lenses, it is small and also has dedicated high aperture pancake prime lenses. Last but not least...it come quite cheap.

My readers now I am a Nikon guy, simply because I believe it is factually, and with a significant margin, better in the field of SLRs (more solid, better metering, better lenses, better sensors). However, right now, I wish I had Canon gear to justify buying an EOS M ! Ok I won't, but when Nikon launches a competitive product, I'll be the first one to preorder.

Why would it be a giant step forward?

Well, there are a lot of ways to use a camera. Some include heavy support and steadiness, like shooting on the side of a football pitch. For those, actual full frame SLRs do great. But for most of us, when do we use our cameras? When we travel...and isn't it a pain to carry around?
Now I will suddenly address a much smaller segment of photographers, but one that spends a lot of money on gear: how many of you advanced SLR users who strive for quality photography went out without your SLR  because well,  it's a pain to carry, and missed great shots? Ever dreamt of that other body you could own, that would be like super small, and you could take this for travel, and the big one for when you do a wedding, or wildlife? Well that's a dream I make everyday and I'm sure many of you too. I need that camera to finally come out !!! 

The road so far

Since the introduction of digital, advantages over analog were pretty obvious: shooting in a virtually unlimited manner, at fix cost (almost...), easy post processing and share-ability as well as duplication are immediate and infinite. However, some things remained inferior at first: low light was crap (now it's amazingly good against analog), camera bodies were not exactly small. Also, manufacturers quickly segmented the market in two: the professional stuff, essentially SLRs, and the mass market cameras, back in the days simply called compacts. If you are a young reader, you have to imagine that none of the other segments (mirrorless, bridge, etc) existed. And very quickly, manufacturers started taking us for idiots: when the pros were being served large sensors and evolutive gear, the mass consumer was being sold pixels, big zooms and other BS that is totally irrelevant when it comes to photography. 

Bridge

Then after a while, the two segments sort of met: SLRs became affordable, and compact nearly as expensive as. The amateur wanted the SLRs feel but without the price tag (especially on lenses), so they launched the bridge: compact quality in a SLR looking body. Plain stupid. You get more inconvenience for nothing in return, expect that people standing 10 meters away think you have an SLR.

Mirrorless

Skipping a few steps, the same companies got a better sense of the market, and consumers refined their needs: it has to be compact, and some of us started to realize that maybe the lens was the key component for image quality, not the pixel count. Also lens changeability appears to look cool and pro (since SLR owners do it?). Well, they were not going to sell us more pixels anyway since they reached a plateau, so we got the mirrorless system. Here again, we have been taken for a bunch of raging morons: they sold us systems with the sensors and image characteristics of a compact (give or take), but for twice the price and...without the lens ! Ah the lens? Well good new everyone: there was this time more than one to buy, and nearly at the price of a good SLR prime lens. Not to mention that when a new format come out, it's all worth nothing more than a Facebook stock.

The OMS is a very decent compact system, if it was a 24x36 (full frame) sensor I would own one already.

A new Hope, the X100

Then Fuji launched the X100. A mix between smart marketing, a good design and some significant improvement for the user. Of course the price was still a bit of a joke but well, God bless Fuji for opening that door: there is a market for someone who wants top quality image, with a lens and sensor that allows a lot of margin in manually setting up your camera. An APS-C sensor (same as a DX SLR), a prime 35mm F2 quality lens and a robust body...even for $1200 we were getting close to the real thing.

X100, not without flaw but damn, sexy !

Since then, other manufacturers jumped in, and electronic goods reviewers starting being a little more educated (or did the manufacturers change the pitch points and lead them towards it?): they finally started to explain that the 2 key components of a digital camera are :

1. the lens
2. the sensor, and when it comes to this, the bigger the better.

I won't list all the mirrorless systems that came out with a more decently sized sensor lately, there are plenty of good choices. However, they are just better enough to be an improvement over the previous generation, but not really to the point that it would satisfy the picky annoying mofo that I am. Some might say they are trying to sell an other generation of lenses that won't be compatible with the next systems...

The EOS M

I havent's tried it, I've only seen the corny Canon samples. All I know is that it is small, has a sensor that to me is "the minimum acceptable", it also has dedicated compact lenses and can take Canon SLR lenses. All the rest is futile, it is simply one last step away from what I have been waiting for: the full frame digital camera with a compact body. 

Still a long way to go

Not so much from a technology point of view, I'm certain many prototypes exist already. It's a business thing: the fact is, a 5D won't take better pictures than a EOS M with the same lens. No, it won't. It'll just be faster, maybe more accurate in some situation, more solid etc. I own an F5 and an FE, one is like the former D4 and the other is like the cheapest Nikon ever, with the same lens, trust me, same result. Difference is in the automation and extra features only. The problem is, some day, people will figure it out. That same day, the pros will still buy 1Ds and D4s, but the marketing manager a Canon will face a serious segmentation problem: why would anyone else still buy me an SLR?

Well here is my forecast: SLRs will be re-centered on what they really are for: the professional who needs reliability in extreme conditions, fast response time, extreme amount of shots taken, and good image quality in the weirdest situations (sports, war reporter, etc). Those cameras will cost $5000 because they will be produced in small amounts. Of course some show offs will get them to shoot bad portraits in weddings or to walk around heavy on vacations, but if they want to waste their money...

On the other end, the mass market and serious amateur gear will be a modern version of what the rangefinders used to be: smaller body with less extreme features but capable of the same images as an SLR. A range of lenses with good optical quality but that will be more affordable, probably plastic and China made. For those who will own pro gear, the pro lenses metal and Japan made will still be adaptable on those smaller bodies.

Manufacturers will sell those mirrorless systems for about the same price as the actual non full frame SLRs, simply replacing them for a product that makes a lot more sense. Because lets face it, when I see tourists with a entry level SLR, kit lens and flash open on full auto shooting the wing of the plane thru the window, I think to myself: "maybe they had to rob those people of their hard earned money, but at least they could have sold them something smaller to carry around".

DSLRs can be the worst enemy of an apprentice photographer.

Ooooh the troll title ! Yes, but I do have a solid point. Keep on reading :)

I started photography with a "premium compact", a Olympus C5050. It was slow, and rather automated. Then I got a job, and a bit of money. I went for what was appealing: a DSLR. Wooow, big and all technological, people were impressed, grrrr... That did make me happy back in the days. However, I felt very limited. I was under the impression photoshop allowed me more creativity than the camera itself. I actually believe the very nature of DSLRs lead people to actually work in photoshop instead of working on the camera. 

They, I got a Mamiya RZ67. Full manual film camera. Not even a light meter...I actually wonder what the batteries are for? And then only I learned how to master a camera. Proper photography came after. Why is that? DSLRs can be dangerous for someone who intends to learn photography. They trick you into doing all the wrong things. A Jedi Master would tell you they push you to the dark side, to easier, more appealing choices. 

1st Danger with DSLRs

Automation. You can go all manual with a DSLR, but how many of you shoot in full manual mode with spot metering? I bet less than 5%, ballpark figure. Well if you have never done it, you can't say you master your camera. You can't say you understand exposure, depth of field or any lever that allow you control of your creative approach. A DSLR makes choice based on a software. If you let it do it, what is the part of you in the picture you create? There are so many things to influence when shooting. Good photographers intend the result they obtain. They set up the camera the right way, shoot a few rolls of 10 shots each only and get 50% great shots or more on a total of 30 images. I don't know one DSLR only user who can claim such results. The big problem is: you have no constraint. You can just shoot tons, photoshop what can be, throw away the rest.  It takes me to my second point.

You surely won't get that ouf of a DSLR unless you force it into doing it. 

2nd Danger with DSLRs

Digital = shoot as much as you want. As said previously, without constraint, you have very low expectations. Know that when you show a portfolio to an editor or a gallery, you come with maximum 20 shots. All of them need to be equally good, you are only as good as your worst picture. When I started shooting film with 10 shots on each roll, I realize each picture was costing me about 1$. That makes you think twice about what you shoot ! You start framing, paying attention to details, exposing better etc. 

3rd  Danger with DSLRs

Digital sensors. Yes, they make it cheap to shoot. Yes they allow nice post processing. Yes they are astonishing in low light. However they have one massive weakness: dynamic range is rubbish. It means they are poorly capable of rendering an image that has very high contrast, with bright and dark zones. It also is so neutral color-wise that it naturally comes out boring. Film has a personality, it doesn't allow much margin but it surely doesn't come out boring. It also has tremendous dynamic range, positive film in particular.

Velvia 50 film: notice how the dark rocks anr bright sky both have great detail no matter how strong the contrast is. 

4nd Danger with DSLRs

Kit lenses. They are rubbish, expect in the case of very premium kits (on full frame cameras mostly). Apart from very specific cases that require flexibility, an actual photographer uses prime lenses only, i.e. lenses that are optimized for one focal length only and have much wider aperture. On larger format cameras, the physics is different, you can get superb depth at F5.6. On a 35mm camera, you need wider aperture to benefit from shorter depth of field, F2.0 or below.

So what should you do to make sure your DSLR doesn't not become the enemy of your photographic evolution?

1st thing to do

Either get a film SLR with no other automation than an aperture priority mode. It costs 100$ (nikon FE or anything equivalent if you have Canon lenses, Minolta or else). However I don't expect many of you will do it, so if you don't want to go thru that, simulate it: buy a 128MB memory card (it should cost about 20 cents now ^^) and go out to shoot only with that card. You'll have so little to shoot with, you'll have to pay attention and be very selective.

Olympus OM1

2nd thing to do

Use your camera with spot metering and aperture priority or full manual mode. At first it will suck. But then only you'll have to learn what does what. How to influence the camera to deliver what you want. You will learn how to control your camera to make it a simple intermediary between the image and your creative intentions.

3nd thing to do

Luckily, newest cameras have an HDR (high dynamic range) mode, use it. I don't mean to push you to do those horrible photoshop HDR effects that make your shots look like a poorly painted clown. I mean use the built in HDR that is supposed to simulate the dynamic range of film. The end result should look totally natural. 

HDR used properly: dark and bright elements show properly. Courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/47550048@N05/

4th thing to do

Don't buy the kit lens. If you really need a versatile lens, get a zoom, but not the kit lens. Get a better one. Appart from that, get 2 primes lenses. It will cost you less than one zoom, and it will allow proper shooting. I recommend a 35mm and an 85mm (full frame). Or just a 50mm. Then play with all the aperture range, and see what it does. 

This cost 120$, you have no excuse. 

5th and most important thing to do in order to become a better photographer.

Make a portfolio, even a virtual one. You might have a blog, a site, a flickr account. When making that portfolio, respect one rule: no more than 20 pictures in total. Keep only the best of the best. If you have only 5 pictures you would qualify as really good, then so be it. Make it 5. Talented photographers might have a 5 series of 12 great shots, but that's after 20 years of careers. 60 shots only... They probably shot hundreds of beautiful images, but they decide to show only the best. The exercise of being very picky is crucial. If your image is close to being great, but is not (focus on the wrong part, disturbing element, exposure not so good), use it as a baseline for an other attempt. Shoot until you have it perfect, then show it.

Check my site, I have many galleries with 5 or 6 shots only. And trust me, I know i'll get rid of a lot over time. I personally have a hard time keeping less. Working on it. 

If you upload all your 400 raw files in flickr every time you shoot, kill yourself. You're a lost cause.

The evolution of tastes & photography

Warning: if you are not in the process of trying to find your artistic self, you might find this post boring. It's not a tutorial, a funny post or a guide of some kind. It's a reflection on evolution of personal tastes in art after watching Jaws 2 in bed (really, that's the end? just like that?).

Wyatt Neumann. What I now consider a great picture.

Still here? Ok. Well I am quite certain you've faced similar evolutions in your life: 

As a kid you only liked French fries, chicken and whatever was super sweet or much expected. You preferred milk to dark chocolate, and being forced to finish your vegetables was among those things that made life suck along with brushing your teeth and visiting that weird uncle. Then you grew up, and those things that felt bitter, tasteless, the same one that grossed you up as a kid started tasting good. 20 years later you prefer asparagus to potato waffles, you like dark chocolate, black coffee. You even have your tequila shots with salt and lemon :) 

An other one: who among you found jazz, classical music or technical progressive metal bands boring as hell. All you liked was a simple binary beat, a catchy melody and a few provocative words because well...gotta show the system you're unique ! Yeah, I did use to think that too. Then one day you're 30, and your fiancée forces you into a ballet or jazz festival. First you think of begging your way out but since you forgot your 2 years anniversary last week, you're gonna suck this one up. And Oh surprise! you actually find that subtile, pleasant, moving. You start searching the web, borrowing CDs, and as time goes by you develop a more sophisticated sense of "music listening", you hear the bass guitar, you catch more details, value more subtile effects. Then you go back to your teenage years CDs and past the nostalgia, it now sounds...childish. 

You evolve in your appreciation of art, weither you produce or consume art. I also do believe that in both cases, challenging yourself leads to a faster evolution. 

The main challenge for me is to be able to connect an sensation, a impression of what I want to achieve, with the actual end result. It like having that knowledge of how it should feel in the end, but not being able to get it out. Like those dreams when someone talks to you but you can't hear the words. If you don't see what I mean, the rest doesn't concern you. 

Making that connection takes time. It's a painful process. It first takes, in the case of photography, being in control of the tools. How can you connect an inner artistic desire to the final piece if you can't control the intermediary (i.e. the camera)? For this I recommend shooting full manual film. Because it's too expensive to afford screwing up.

When discovered studio lightning. Boring, everyone can do. 

Then I realized photographers like naked ladies. Boring.

Then, you need to get read of every catchy temptation. When I started shooting, a bit of bokeh, a halo of light, and yeeehaaa great picture! Then I started pushing contrast way too much, shooting fences in black and white and I was pretty happy with myself. Yeah, right. The best solution is overdose. Like the first time you ate tons of candy or chocolate to the point that it got you sick. Shoot that crap if you must, do those bad editing, make the mistakes and then, be hard on yourself. It's like a sauna that gets bad influences out of your brain. 

Then shoot what you haven't shot, or if you have, analyse your previous images, try to make it better every time. Even if it means redoing it over and over again with one little detail changed.

Off course the usual diptych period. Less boring but we all overdo it: matching images is a tricky exercise.

First revelation: medium format film. Started exposing better, using every element to compose my image. Better, but still girls in romantic poses.

Try to keep only your 15 best shots. Do the exercise, really. What will come out of that? You'll first pick the 3 obvious ones. Then you'll think "hum...but the next 12 are not that obvious, so really, I only have 3 photographs I'm truly happy with". And it's a good thing, you'r setting expectations to the next level.

You can only evolve properly if you listen to critics. Find critics who matured already, so that you don't have retarded comment from angry internet people. Critics from great photographers will come hard, but hell they will be useful.  Only look at the best of the best, the ultimate images from the greatest and dare to admit the gap between you and them. 

As long as you look into Flickr for comparison, you'll feel great with any picture properly framed and exposed.  No offense FlickR users, I've seen great stuff there too, but admit it: finding raw talent on Flickr it's like searching for a needle in a barn, you gotta stop uploading your entire memory cards.

Shoot tons. Be drastically self critical, get inspired by the best.




Finally, via a mix of mastering the tool (property of film, exposure,) and maturing skills (composition, etc.), I was able of pulling good images that did not include an attractive person of the opposite gender: