DIY vs. Paying for the Real Deal

I got sucked into a Model Mayhem thread recently that was about DIY gear (Do It Yourself) versus paying for manufactured equipment. I can't believe how easily I can be drawn into these things. As is usually the case with MM threads, it morphed and distorted and zig-zagged around the original subject but, at first, it remained relatively on topic.

The OP (Original Poster) was wondering if he should make/use DIY gear or should he save up and buy manufactured stuff.

I suggested he use whatever he could until he was able to purchase the real McCoys.

But since, as is often the case on MM, the thread got somewhat personal with a few people becoming asses assertive in their opinions, I might have occasionally raised my emotional level, just a hair, to make my points.

Please note these are my opinions on the subject. Some or many of you might disagree. That's the beauty of opinions: I can have mine and you can have yours and we all should still be able to peacefully co-exist, in the real world or the cyber world. I know. I know. How naive is that?

Anyway...

I have a fair amount of money invested in lighting and grip. I don't think I spent that money because I'm an idiot. (Altho me being an idiot is, at times, debatable.)

All lighting instruments are not created equal. Their qualities, other than simply producing photons, are varied: Power ranges, flash durations, recycling times, maintaining color temps throughout those power ranges, build quality and reliability, and more. If you want better performance, better quality, more versatility, you're gonna have to pay for it.

Example: Profotos versus shop lights from Home Depot? No brainer. Profotos versus crap from Hong Kong? Still no brainer if you're really serious about lighing and photography. (I don't mean to only pimp Profoto. There's plenty of great manufacturers of quality lighting instruments out there.)

All lighting modifiers are not created equal. Again, their qualities differ, sometimes immensely, sometimes in more subtle ways. The right tool for the job is key to modifying light. As an example, I don't own a Mola beauty dish because I'm too dense or narrow-minded to believe a big, modified, DIY'd salad bowl will get the job done equally well.

I don't own Chimera and Photoflex softboxes because I'm an elitist and stick my nose up at cheap-oh shit from Hong Kong, offered on Ebay, even though it's built to the same standards. (Yeah, right.)

All grip gear is not created equal. I don't use stands and arms and clamps from companies like Matthews, American Grip, Norms and others because I'm blind to the fact that wobbly, questionably constructed, cheap-ass, unreliable grip gear--stuff that can be bought for very little--is just as good as the pro gear or because I'm a gear-snob or because I don't know I can find things at Home Depot that might suffice.

Do I sometimes buy shit from Home Depot to use in my photography? Sure. Do I occasionally cobble stuff together to modify or control light? Absolutely. Do I think, because I can cobble or head over to Home Depot, manufactured gear is a waste of money?

Photographers, please.

The pretty girl pics at the top are a couple of more snaps from last week's shoot with Lupe. Three light sources: Two medium umbrellas, either side, from the front, and a shoot-thru, boomed high and from the side/behind, on the left. Canon 5D, 70-200 f/4 L, ISO 100, f/8 at 160th. Lighting is fairly flat across for my personal tastes but that's what the client wanted so who am I to disagree?

Model Mayhem's Mayhem

Been too long since I've updated: A combination of being busy and being lazy. I'd lay the blame about 50% on each of those factors.

I've been spending some of that lazy time on Model Mayhem lately. Nothing Earth-shattering about that. It's just that MM isn't a forum I've invested too much time with in the past.

Generally, I perceive MM as more a social networking site and less a photography forum. It's like MySpace or Facebook with a model/photographer theme. Nothing inherently wrong there although I spend very little time on Facebook and I deleted my MySpace account about 6 months ago due to my complete lack of interest.

So why MM? Well, once you get past the many recycled subjects, there's much on MM to amuse, entertain, and occasionally enlighten. Some of the recycled subjects, btw, remain amusing regardless of how often they are recycled.

My first post on MM, a thread that I started, got shut-down and locked fairly quickly. I don't even remember what it was about but it caused a stir and I don't really remember why. Maybe it's just me? Whatever. Anyway, I didn't intend my post to be controversial but I guess some people thrive on controversy and, to be honest, I'm not exactly allergic to it nor do I run from it.

Of those recycled subjects I mentioned, the lion's share of them are either about models flaking, models with "demands" in their profiles, models not responding to messages and emails, GWCs, diva models, models' boyfriends, model escorts, model nudity, and scams. As you can see, the common denominator in many recycled threads are models.

There's an obvious love/hate relationship between models and photographers, assuming MM is representative of these two groups as a whole. While models and photographers need each other, leastwise if we're talking "pretty girl shooting," this symbiotic relationship is often strained.

The folks who populate MM are a varied bunch in terms of experience. You have everything from brand-spanking-new models and shooters to those with much experience. The newbies, no doubt, account for many of the forum's subjects being recycled over and over and over. Yet, those who have been around that forum for quite a while still take the bait and participate in those threads. Go figure.

As for pro models/photographers versus serious hobbyists, not-so-serious wannabees and GWCs, I'd say the 80/20 rule applies with 20% of those who participate being pros. For the purpose of this update, I'll liberally define pros as being those who earn 25% or more of their total income from modeling or photography, regardless of whether they're any good at what they do.

There are some amazing portfolios on MM. Some truly stellar work! Often, they're stellar due to post-processing, sometimes due to the photography and, least of all, a combination of both. I'm not making any post-prod versus production judgments here. I'm just saying. And, of course, for every stellar port there are 10 or more that suck. Again, I'm just saying.

I don't know how long before my interest in MM wains. I'm easily amused so I might be taking part in the games there for a while. When participating on forums becomes tedious, boring, or sans any real knowledge gains, I usually back off. So, predicting how long I'll remain interested in being an active, participating MM member is difficult.

I'm not on MM, like many, to prospect and mine the TF potential of the many models who are MM's members. TF, of course, means "Trade For." You can fill in the what, e.g., Trade For Pics, prints, CDs, whatever. Anyway, I'm not much of a TF kinda guy. I guess, for me, it's like working in a candy factory: I love candy but, if I made my living making it or selling it, I probably wouldn't be as interested in eating it. The idea of spending my off-work time doing what I do when I'm at work isn't overly appealing to me unless, of course, there's some special reasons to do so... if that makes sense.

The pretty girl at the top is Lupe from two days ago. She is so much fun to shoot! She knows exactly what she's doing and contributes a lot of ideas to the work. She also brings enthusiasm, a winning smile, and an all-purpose positive vibe to a set. Plus, she's beautiful and sexy as hell. It doesn't get much better than that.

Lupe shot with a Canon 5D and a Tamron 28-75: ISO 100, f/8 @ 125. I lit her with two Profoto Acute 2 heads: The key modified with a 42" silver-lined umbrella, just to my right, and the other modified with a small, white, shoot-thru, boomed from behind, up high, angled down, camera left.

Should Photos Come With Warning Labels?

The brouhaha about uber-skinny models continues. Opponents believe Twiggy-like models are negatively influencing women and young girls by setting body standards for beauty that are difficult, if not impossible, to realize. Some opponents contend that manipulated images should be labeled as such.

The latest fracas involves Ralph Lauren's company and a model, Filippa Hamilton, who has been a long-time staple of Lauren's marketing and advertising campaigns. An absurd image of a Photoshop-induced, body-distorted Hamilton appeared on the cover of a Ralph Lauren catalog in Japan.

Here's the image causing the stir. Obviously, someone got carried away with the Liquefy Tool and whoever was responsible for approving the catalog's pictures didn't object.

Ms. Hamilton, in interviews, says her long-term contract with Ralph Lauren was terminated because, according to Hamilton, she was fired for being too fat.

Recently, Hamilton appeared on MSNBC to discuss her issues with the photo as well as her dispute with Ralph Lauren. You can view the video interview HERE.

Personally, I think the notion of warning labels on pretty girl pics are a crock of shite. There are many consumer-targeted images, as well as consumer products that include warning labels. Cigarettes are a good example. Anyone believe tons of smokers have quit because of the warning labels on a pack of smokes? Or plastered on advertisements?

Me neither.

Some warning labels are effective and appropriate, e.g., those that read, "Poison." And while cigarettes probably qualify as poison, it's a different kind of poison: One with addictive qualities as well one that ain't gonna kill you right away or make you dangerously sick in an immediate manner.

Same goes for warning labels on images. I don't think the incidence of anorexia are going to seriously decline because an image of a supermodel, one where she appears extraordinarily thin, comes with a label that reads, "This Image Has Been Altered and Manipulated for Aesthetic Reasons."

While I agree there's undo pressure on young girls in terms of body shape and beauty in general, i.e., it's the fashion industry that is setting unreal and unachievable standards for beauty, it seems to me it's up to childrens' parents to set them straight and help them understand what is beautiful about them, what is healthy and what is not.

I also understand that obesity is a major health problem, especially in America. But again, I defer to parents. Try monitoring what your kids are eating, how much they're eating, how much exercise they're getting and maybe think about preparing a healthy lunch or dinner for your kids, rather than taking them to the local MickeyD's next time they're hungry.

I'm as guilty as the next photographer of altering and manipulating images of the models I shoot. Sure, I'm trying to make them look as good as they can. I don't merely rely on post-production to do this. I use lighting, pose, makeup, hair, composition, and wardrobe and props to achieve this. I'll admit I also use post-processing techniques. But these techniques aren't the only trick I employ and I don't overly depend on post.

The image at the top is Penthouse Pet, Shawna Lenee. Rather than glamming her up, my client wanted her more natural, i.e., with the makeup and hair. Although Shawna is in her mid-twenties, they also wanted her looking like a late-teen. Besides the makeup, that direction impacted my lighting, as well as the poses and expressions. I don't think Shawna looks unachievable in terms of beauty and body shape. Yeah, those tits cost a few a bucks. But breast enhancements aren't completely out of the reach of most women these days. They've certainly become commonplace enough.

Here's a thought: Do you fantasize about spending the night with a young lady with a body-shape similar Shawna's? Or, do you dream of spending quality time with a woman with Twiggy's shape? Yeah, I know that some of you guys like 'em skinny. Maybe even real skinny. But most of you don't.

Shawna captured with a Canon 5D w/ 17-40 f/4 L glass. I used three, Profoto Acute2 heads: Two in front on either side, modified with medium umbrellas, and another, boomed up high on the left side and modified with a small, shoot-thru, umbrella. ISO 100, f/8 @ 125. MUA was Sarah.

Baby Baby Baby

I had some minor outpatient surgery yesterday so, today, I'm recuperating. Jeez! The recovery is worse than the freakin' procedure! It's nothing particularly serious so the blog is in no imminent danger of becoming collateral damage due to my "gettin' old" syndromes and maladies. But, I'll admit, I'm not up for writing a real update at the moment.

Anyway...

A friend sent me some YouTube videos and I thought I'd share. Now I know why so many shooters want to go to Paris. The models are bee-you-tee-full and, apparently, up for almost anything, naked-in-front-of-a-camera-wise. (Gotta love that!)

The first one has great eye candy. The second one is for laughs. And the third one is for even bigger laughs. IMO, #3 has hotter chicks than those in #1. But maybe that's just me? I'm also thinking #3 wasn't shot in Gay Paree! Looks more like in or around L.A.