Few of us — in this economy — have the ability to “crew up” for our ordinary shoots.

I’ve been thinking, a lot, about a possible solution — and I think it comes from the concept of “Pay it Forward”. Many of us know the basic idea from the movie — we do someone a good deed, they in turn do it for another, and the good deed gets paid forward making life easier for countless people.

Interestingly, the concept can be seen in a letter Benjamin Franklin sent to a friend, Benjamin Webb on April 22, 1784.

I RECEIVED  yours of the 15th instant and the memorial it inclosed. (sic) The account they give of your situation grieves me. I send you herewith a bill for ten louis d’ors. I do not pretend to give such a sum; I only lend it to you. When you shall return to your country with a good character, you cannot fail of getting into some business that will in time enable you to pay all your debts. In that case, when you meet with another honest man in similar distress you must pay me by lending this sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the debt by a like operation when he shall meet with such another opportunity. I hope it may thus go through many hands before it meets with a knave that will stop its progress. (Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin p. 241)

So what does this have to do with us?

If there is enough support from those of you who read this site, I’m thinking about putting up a section where we can ask for or offer help — on a pay it forward basis. Let others know what we need or what we can do for them.

I actually think the benefits of working with others transcend just getting jobs done more easily. I see this as a chance to meet new people, expose myself to new challenges, and learn new things.

What do you think? Is this a “pie in the sky” idea? Or, can it work? Would you be interested in participating? Do you have ideas on how to structure it? Post a comment. Let me know. If there is enough support, I’ll give it a trial run.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

That’s where “batch processing” comes in.

There are lots of ways to batch process a mark. One of the most common is to create an action. However, doing so is a bit complex because we need to create an action that will resize and place the mark where we want it on images of different sizes and orientations. I’ve been down that path. It works, but it’s a lot of work.

Fortunately, others have done the heavy lifting for us. In this tutorial, I’m going to write about the two Photoshop plugins I use to batch mark my images.

But, before we get to the plugins — a few preliminary points — one philosophical and the others technical.

First, the philosophical: I still have difficulty “defacing” my photos with a watermark. I work hard to perfect my artistic vision. I find it tough to plop something on it that will make it more difficult for the viewer to suspend disbelief and truly engage the image. So, when I choose to mark them, I try to do something subtle, like putting my name and either the word “copyright” or the “©” symbol in a lower corner. This will let printers know it is a copyrighted image; but it won’t protect us from those who will scan our images at home and crop them to take the mark off. For the greatest protection, we have to put the mark right across the center or on a face — someplace essential and difficult to clone out. Yuk!

Second, the technical: You will need a “mark” for the plugin to place. All you have to do is follow the steps set out in Part I on this site — until you get to Step 5. Instead of “defining a brush”, you simply Save your work. I actually save my work in several formats and sizes. For starters, I make them big — at least 3×6″s so that on large pictures they’ll show up. Then, to give myself the flexibility to use the different approaches below, I save them as .psd’s and .pngs. I use the .pngs in PhotoFrame Professional and the .psds in Watermark Creator. I know people who also maker them in both horizontal and vertical formats. This is all easier to do than to write about. You create your mark and then save and rotate it in all formats until you have your bases covered.

Finally, you need a folder of files to process. Since most of my “proofs” are circulated for viewing on a computer, whenever I finish an image, I run an action that saves it in three forms — a .psd, a Hi-Res .jpeg for printing, and a Lo-Res .jpeg with sRGB resolution(for the web). I use a script from on of my favorite Photoshop Guru/Personalites, Russell Brown, to do this — Dr. Brown’s 1-2-3 Process. Dr. Brown’s site has a lot of free stuff and some great tutorials.

So, with a file full of images designated for marking, it’s time to batch.

Technique 1: onOne Software’s PhotoFrame Professional 4.5 Batch Processor

One of my favorite programs in the onOne Suite is PhotoFrame Professional 4.5; I use it, often, to add frames and textures to my images. It’s one of my favorite differentiation tools. With it, I can do things that many of my competitors cannot.

If that were all it did, it would be an incredible tool. But, it does more. Whether you are adding a frame or not, in its Batch mode, it will add watermarks.

Here’s how:

When you open PhotoFrame Professional 4.5 Batch Edition, you get this window:

1. Frames — if you are going to add a frame to the files, you choose it here. If you are simply adding a watermark, you can skip this step;

2. Source  – Here is where we tell the plugin the folder that holds the files we are going to mark. If you have all of the files open in Photoshop, the drop down menu allows you to choose “Open Files”;

3. Destination — let’s you tell the software where to put the finished files when it is done;

4. File Naming — is exactly what it says;

5. File Type — is also very straight forward;

What’s very cool is that the program allows us to make multiple copies with multiple resolutions. So, if you are going to both print and put marked images on line, you can do both high and low resolution .jpegs here. (If you know you are going to end up in onOne’s Batch processor, you can skip the step I take in Dr. Browns 19-2-3, and make your multiple files during the batch process); and,

6. Watermark — OK, now it’s time to get to work — but we’ll find it really isn’t “work” at all. It’s really pretty easy.

First, we have to enable “Watermarking” because the software has to know we’re not just here to add a frame.

Then, we get to decide where we want to put the mark. The drop down menu gives us a variety of choices. I usually use the least obtrusive placement which, for most of the things I shoot, is the lower right corner. But on the “trumpets” image, the corner was so dark that placing it there would have made it easily cloned out. So, I centered it.

Then we use the “Choose” button to tell the software where to find the mark we want to use.

7. Hit “Apply” and sit back while the plugin marks all of the files in the folder. Depending on how many are there, it can take a while. I’ve done hundreds at once. I simply walked away and watched an episode of Burn Notice. (Actually, it was a lot faster than that; because I was not making image copies at the time, 30 Low Res images took less than a minute.) When I came back, everything was done and I had a message on my screen telling me that all 29 images had been successfully marked.

Using PhotoFrames 4.5 Professional, you can easily mark a lot of images with very little effort.

onOne Software has graciously extended a substantial discount on their products to my students and readers. Until Mar 1, the price for the Suite is $299.99. After Mar 1, it will go up to $379.00 which is probably the lowest price in the country. To learn more about the discount, please go here.

Back Story — The Making of This Image

I’ve been asked to write about how I capture some of the images used in my posts. So, here’s the Back Story of Trumpet Silhouettes.

I have to confess. I’m a Friday Night Lights junkie — not the TV show, but the real thing. For the past four years, I’ve been one of the “official” unofficial photographers for the Houston Memorial High School Mustang Marching Band. Why? Because my daughter Jenny has been in it since her freshman year. She marched her first year and has been in the Color and Winter Guards ever since. No images have been more fun to create than the thousands I’ve done at the football games and Band and Guard competitions.

So, how did I get the trumpet silhouettes? This is an example of using very strong backlight to one’s advantage. I spot metered on the sky, knowing the players would go dark. Had I used any form of dynamic metering, the camera would have struggled to average things out and I would have gotten a blown out sky and mousy picture of the kids — a really mediocre picture. I wanted a silhouette. And, by metering for the sky and deliberately underexposing the players, I got one.

But, that was just the capture. From there, I still had a little work to do in post production.

First, I used Nik Software’s Viveza to darken the trumpet players a little more — to take out the bit of detail that had been captured in the original image.

Second, I used a Levels layer adjustment to darken the sky. I made a “global adjustment” which darkened the kids a bit more, too.

At that point, I had a great looking image with a blue/gray sky, which I saved.

But, never content, I did what I usually do with an image I think is finished, I went into onOne’s PhotoTools Pro and Nik’s Color Efex Pro 3.0 and started to fiddle around. I usually just run down the menu of effects to see if something hits my spot. And, one did —  Nik’s Burnt Sienna — which changed my sky to fire.

By metering correctly at the time of capture, and by adding some flair in post-production, I got exactly what I wanted, and more.

Technique 2: NAPP’s Watermark Creator

OK. I know I’ve written this before,  over and over but — the best investment I’ve made in my photography is my National Association of Photoshop Professionals membership. By far and away the best investment. I get so much for so little — the great Photoshop User magazine, Photoshop User TV,  access to a great website replete with advice and tutorials, and access to a help desk run by the amazing Peter Bauer and my favorite professional conference, Photoshop World. With all of that help, I’ve gotten better at Photoshop and my post production.

If you are a member, there is another benefit. You can download NAPP’s Watermark Creator — and extension panel for Photoshop that offers another way to mark our images, either individually or in batches. (Once you’ve downloaded and installed it, you will find it under Window>Extensions>Watermark.) Start it up and you get this:

Many of the concepts are similar to those used in PhotoFrames Pro; so, I’ll not go through each step. But, there are some significant differences and those are what I’ll explore.

1. Select the watermark file.

2. Select the images to mark.

3. Select folder for marked images.

So far, nothing exciting. But in the next few steps, the features of this program start to shine.

4. Select Watermark Position and Style

What’s cool here is that we are given choices of where to put the mark, top, center bottom, and an option with each to go to the left or right. To get a more exact placement, we can set the horizontal and vertical offsets.

How do we know how much offset to use? We use the preview button, below and adjust the placement until it is perfect.

Note that WM Creator also lets us adjust the size and opacity of the mark. In the example, below, I used the center at 100% scale and 50% opacity.

5. Select JPEG Export Settings

Once more, we are given a lot of control over our marked images. I’m particularly impressed with the settings for “Save as a JPEG for the Web”. If we use this function, we get an image in sRGB color space and with 72 pixels/inch resolution.

6. Preview, tweak and run. That’s it. Simple and effective.

Here’s an example of a file marked with WM Creator:

Watermark Creator, while very easy to use, brings the power of precise placement to the task.

Both programs provide fast and simple paths towards protecting our work.

Back Story: Why this image?

Simple. That’s my daughter, Jenny. Need I say more?

But Wait! There’s More!

Update:

Jack Reznicki just dropped me a note to remind us all that, as he notes, watermarking is at best “a 1% solution” — the other 99% is registration at the copyright office.

I’ve written about this before. We can hope for the best — that people will respect our rights and that watermarking will remind them to do so. But, we must prepare for the worst — we have to take legal action to register and enforce our rights.

As I’ve written before, I am in the middle of a lawsuit in which I am suing someone for violating my creative rights. Fortunately, I had registered my images. Had I not, my cause of action — though morally and legally correct — would have been difficult, if not impossible to pursue. Most lawyers will not take a case to enforce a violation unless the image has been registered.

Register. It’s easy. It’s fast. It’s cheap. And, it’s essential.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

But, for us MacGyvers, the meaning is a bit different. To us,  it means using whatever light is “available” — be it the sun or any other source of illumination we can create or put our hands on. It’s a subtle, but fun, difference.

A couple of weeks ago, I got to go “Angus”, and here’s a short note on what I did.

The Challenge:

My friend, Todd Ramos, was producing the fashion shows at the recent Houston Bridal Extravaganza. In the hall were some rather elaborate sets — the creations of some amazing designers who specialize in transforming ordinary rooms into locations for fantasy weddings. Todd, and his gifted photographer Collin Kelly, wanted to use the sets for a shoot with of a couple of Todd’s models. I volunteered to be the grip.

Collin came prepared with a set of Profoto Acute 1200 lights and some Profoto light modifiers — the right gear for the shoot.

But, sometimes the best of plans hit a snag — and Collin’s did.

Through no fault of Todd’s, the fashion show ran a bit late. And, since we were at the end of the last day of the show, the set designers started striking their sets.

We rushed over to our venue, models in tow, and asked for a few minutes to do our shoot. The designers kindly stopped taking things down. But, we knew we had to be quick. There would be no time to set up Collin’s lights. (He didn’t even have time to take the Pocket Wizard he was going to use to fire his lights off his camera.)

So, we had to shoot “available” light — which, at first glance, meant using the overhead lights that were illuminating the convention hall.

Ugh. Dull, flat, non-directional light.

The Solution:

It was at that point that I started to channel MacGyver. No, I didn’t pull out a Swiss Army knife with a built in photo light. But, I did start looking around the set to see if I might find a light I could use to create “directional light” –light that would create depth and dimension in what was, otherwise, a very flat lit scene.

Eureka! I found it. On the wall of the set, was a replica of a “stage spotlight” — a can light that even had a built in gel holder. With the permission of the designer, I took it off the wall and, voila, I had a hand held spot with which I could create depth and dimension on the model’s face. (You can see another of the same light, on a base, behind the model, Allessandria.)

All I had to do was find the right angle and hold it in place. For most of the shots, I tried to use a Butterfly or Paramount Glamour lighting pattern — lighting from above the model to create the butterfly under her nose and a slight specular highlight on her forehead. However, in this shot, I was going for a bit different look — broad lighting the face and trying to get some light on and under the eyes, which were dark sockets when illuminated solely by the overhead, convention hall lights.

When the light proved a bit harsh, I grabbed a piece of white cloth that had been used to wrap a column and used it for diffusion. However, it was thick and we lost probably 2 stops of light. So, I asked one of Todd’s assistants for a piece of white paper which actually worked fairly well; then, a videographer in the crowd that had gathered around us, handed me the ultimate solution, a neutral density gel that also softened the light. After all of that, I decided that I liked the hard light best, and in the shot of the set up you see, I used the light without modification.

I really liked that light. It had a bracket that made it easy to hold and aim. It’s an easy way to manipulate the light in a setting with overhead, tungsten lighting. I’ve been looking to buy one to add to my travel kit. When I find a source, I’ll post it here.

(In this photo: On the left is Todd Ramos. On the floor, Collin Kelly. And, that’s me, Angus MacGyver, holding the light. The model is Allessandria Alamilla; I was very impressed with her — particularly in her ability to hold some very difficult poses while we fiddled with the lights; she’s a gamer. This snapshot came out of Todd’s point and shoot. He can’t remember who was using it at the time so there can be no photographer credit.)

The Result:

Copyright: Colliin Kelly (2010)

Here’s Collin’s final image — a true work of creativity and beauty.

Lesson Learned:

This experience reinforced the mantra of the gurus of guerilla lighting — “available light means whatever light is available”.

And, it brought back lessons from my first two lighting classes. It was Scott Smith who taught me that a classmate in a white t-shirt could serve as a reflector. And, Don Eddy, who taught me that I could light most anything with a tungsten bulb in a cheap Home Depot reflector/holder.

With most of my work done in a studio in which I can control my light down to the smallest detail — I was pleased to learn that with some ingenuity and the general lessons I had learned about lighting, I could help solve the problems we were facing.

Since that shoot, like Michael Weston in Burn Notice, when I enter a room, my eyes do a quick scan for what’s out there. Michael is looking for enemies. I’m looking for friendly lights. I wonder if there’s a TV show concept here.

Many thanks to Todd and Collin for letting me join the team for this shoot.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

Some feel it relaxes the model and helps him or her find a “rhythm” that creates a dance like partnership with the photographer. Others think the music is a distraction and prefer to work with words to get the best from their subjects. And, many do both.

But, one thing is not open to debate — if we choose to use music, we have to honor the rights of those who created it — just as we expect them to honor ours.

In a past newsletter, “intellectual property attorney”/photographer Jody Goldstein, set forth the general parameters that control when and how we can lawfully use music in our studios. Seen in its most simple light, the general rule is that if we play recorded, copyrighted music, we most likely need  licenses. The most common misunderstanding? That if we own a CD, or have paid for a download, we can play it during a shoot. We can’t, and the article explains why.

That’s why, in December, I wrote a check to ASCAP, one of the two major licensing organizations, so that I could legally play music in my studio. The license lasts for a year. Using a rate established by PPA, my license cost me $152.00. (Just tell them you are a PPA member and they will give you that rate. I’s bet that other organizations have similar deals.)

If you don’t have a license, you might want to consider getting one. You can learn more about ASCAP, here.

Doing so puts us in solidarity with our brothers and sisters of the arts — the musicians with whom we share the task of making sure that our clients respect the laws that protect all of us.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

The latest version of onOne’s Suite 5 adds some very nice new features to a plugin that I use with almost every image. It has helped me add that something “special” to many images — that touch that makes them really stand out. And, it helped me do tasks like masking and upsizing in ways I could not without its help. Will it do the same for you? Mabye.

But, I wouldn’t buy anything unless I could answer these questions:

1. “Will I use these plug-ins?”

For me, the answer has been an unqualified “Yes.” I do use most of them. Some, a lot.

I have been using the onOne Software Suite for several years. I first bought it at an Imaging USA after watching an in person demonstration. Since then, the Suite has evolved into something powerful and special.

I write often about the need to differentiate our work from that of our competitors —  our need to do things that the average photographer cannot do. One of the things that distinguishes our work is our ability to master post-production techniques. That’s what these plug-ins do.

2.  “Do I really need them? Can’t I do the same thing in Photoshop?”

If you are very good at Photoshop, and I mean very good, you can do some of the things that some of the plug-ins do. If you have a complete grasp of all of the tools in Photoshop, can use them in combinations and understand how to use all of the blending modes, you could probably replicate some of the looks in PhotoTools. I know how to make my own PhotoFrames. But, I don’t, anymore. I use the plug-ins. They are better and faster. I would say that I am an “intermediate” level Photoshop user. But, I know Photoshop teachers and Pro’s who also rely on the Suite. The best answer I can give to this question is that with a good bit of knowledge and a lot of work one might match some of the effects — but most of us won’t. And, as I’ll mention below, at least two of the programs — Focal Point 2 and Genuine Fractals 6 – do things better than they can be done in Photoshop .

3. “Can I learn to use them? How steep is the learning curve?”

Not very steep at all.

No software is of value if you can’t learn to use it. And, it’s at this level that I feel onOne stands away from the crowd. They have video tutorials online that take you step by step through the process of each suite member. And, they have support built into the program that you can access through CS4. The interface is clear and consistent. And, if you still can’t figure something out, they have excellent phone support.

What’s in the Suite?

Genuine Fractals 6.0 — is the best program in existence for resizing/enlarging images. Let’s say there is a small portion of an image you want to use so you select it; what if it’s only 2×2.5 inches and you want to make it an 8×10?. If you simply enlarge it in Photoshop, you stand a good chance of degrading or distorting it. Why? Because it takes a lot of math for the program to figure out what the color, luminosity, etc. of the new pixels it is adding to the image have to be to make the change seamless. GenuineFractals has better math engines than Photoshop. I think this is one place where you cannot get an equal result using the program.  This plug-in stands out.

GF is feature laden. As you can see from the work window, it does more than simply resize your image — it allows you to control texture, sharpen, add film grain, tile and create gallery wraps. If you do gallery wraps, this last feature alone is worth the cost of the Suite, It does all the math for you and creates the “wrap flaps” and gives you  an image you can send to the lab.

GF will do Batch Processing and has an Express mode for quick repetitive tasks.

Mask Pro 4 — is the program for those of us who cannot master Photoshop’s pen tool. When I have to do extractions, I use Mask Pro. There is a learning curve. This is not one of those plug-ins where you can just start pushing buttons. But, the curve is not steep. And, the results are very rewarding.

Focal Point 2 — Is a post-production “selective focus” tool. It allows us to manipulate depth of field and focus to guide the eye to the points we think are important in the image. Because we do it in post-production, we don’t need expensive lenses. And, we don’t have to plan too far ahead; any image can be manipulated; depth of field can be changed, no matter the f-stop.  I did a review of the original Focal Point in one of my newsletters and found it to be a solid performer. This version is much improved. For one thing, the “blur” is better — in my eyes creamier and more consistent. Better than any blur I can generate in Photoshop. Again, this is a function of superior math. And, it is more flexible in how one places and controls the blur. This year, I shot a lot of my daughter’s high school band and color guard. I couldn’t control the scenes and often found distractions in the background Focal Point allowed me to “hide” them or minimize their impact.

PhotoTools 2.5 — In my review of an earlier version of  PhotoTools, I said it was a “black hole” and warned that one could get lost in it for days; it’s way too much fun to be work. That’s still true. It is my most used plug-in in the Suite. Essentially, it is a very diverse collection of things we can do to our images to further process or differentiate them. It includes everything from frames to lighting effects and a lot in between. Here’s how I use it in my workflow: I process my images to make them as good as they can be. And, then I go into PhotoTools and play around with what’s there — seeing if anything gives them a bit of extra spark. I did that with the picture of Hai I use to illustrate the article on watermarking;  after I had it looking good I went into PhotoTools. The picture as you see  has two effects on it: the Wow Portrait Glow and the Wow Portrait Glow and Muted Color. And, therein lies the power. You can combine all of the effects — stack them change their impact and opacity — just diddle your time away — to a good end.

PhotoFrames Pro 4.5 –  is probably my second most used plug-in from the Suite. Some people think of frames as the icing on the cake. I think of frames as a part of the cake — an inherent part of the overall image. Some images are not complete without a frame; and I use the word “frame” loosely because within this plug in it can be anything from a traditional frame to something very abstract and creative. It can be the application of a texture or overlay to an image. And, it can be the use of a layout like a postcard, magazine cover or album page. There is also a Batch Processing engine. In it, one can use PhotoFrame 4.5 to add watermarks to a group of images — something I’ll show in the upcoming tutorial on using this batch feature to watermark images.

PhotoTune 3 — is the only program in the Suite I don’t use. It’s not that it doesn’t work. It does. But, I have a different way of ensuring accurate colors — I use my ColorChecker Passport and Adobe Camera RAW to get my colors right. So, there’s not much I can say about it because I don’t use it.

Don’t Buy It Before You Try It

Interested in the Suite? Here’s my suggestion. Go online and watch some of the tutorials.

Before you spend a penny, download the trial versions of the software and use them. Do they meet your needs? Do you feel comfortable with them? Will you use them?

If you decide you want to buy the Suite — and you want to buy it for $379.99, here’s how it will work.

Because of the low price, onOne can’t be expected to do any of the book keeping or money handling — so I’ll do it. Basically, I’ll make a list of people who want to buy the Suite, collect the money, and send them the order. They will send me a serial number and I will forward it on to you. I cannot accept credit cards and prefer to be paid with a money order. If you want to pay with PayPal, that’s possible but I don’t want to eat the processing charges so I’ll have to ask you to pay the $10.00 they charge me. (So, the amount to transfer into my PayPal account is $389.99.)

Here’s the protocol we will follow:

1. Send me an email —  (if the link does not work use steve@prairiefireproductions.com) with the Subject: onOne Suite. In the email give me your name and shipping address.

2. I will send back a confirmation email and ask you to send the payment.

3. When I receive the payment, I’ll submit the order. onOne will send me the software. I’ll send it on to you.

But Wait, There’s More!!!

Here’s a video from onOne  that gives a glimpse of what’s new in the Suite:

[See post to watch Flash video]

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

But, in some ways, the placement is appropriate;  it shows the quandary in which we find ourselves when we take desperate measures to protect our work against unauthorized use and copying.

We spend all this time creating the “perfect image”, the image in which the viewer can get lost, and then we plop a big distraction on it. Hai has great eyes. I worked hard to present them correctly. What did most of you focus on first? My bet? The watermark.

At a time when most of our clients have access to the technology to copy and reproduce our work, without our permission, we are grasping for ways to protect ourselves.

But, there is also copying that people know is wrong. They do it because they think they can get away with it. And, sometimes, they can.

In this post, and one to follow, I’ll show you how to make it more difficult for those who don’t want to respect your rights:

Using a Watermark Brush

The simplest way I’ve found to make clear that the work is copyrighted is to use a “signature brush” to put a mark somewhere on the image. I like the brush because I can easily choose where to put the mark, and vary its size, color and opacity. I try to get away with the least intrusive mark — I really don’t want to make the image look bad, I just want to remind people it is copyrighted.

I usually put it in a lower corner. It will let people know the image is protected without too deeply offending my artistic sensitivities. Yes, it is possible to crop the warning off, but that’s a risk I’ll normally run. However, if you want more protection, you can stamp the image anywhere you want. And, you can make it as big as you want. However, were I to want to make copying more difficult, I’d place it somewhere where it could not be cropped off or easily retouched out — and that’s usually somewhere in the middle and over skin.

More often than not, I use my least aggressive “message brush” and put the copyright info either in a corner or across the bottom. I don’t want to offend people or be in their face — I just want to remind them that the image is protected.

The mark on this image is subtle — a simple statement “Copyright: PrairieFire Productions (2010)”. I have brushes that are more aggressive, like “Please Do Not Copy” and the oft used giant copyright sign “©” (option g on my Mac — I think it’s a bit more difficult in Windows.)

Putting on the mark is the last step in my post-production work flow. After I have finished processing the image,  I place a blank layer, atop the stack of my layers in Photoshop, and use the brush to “stamp” my message.  One of the advantages of the “brush method” is that the brush is easily resizable. You can choose the size before you stamp the message by using the bracket keys, or after by using the Free Transform tool; with the latter, you can also orient and place it exactly where you want it. And, because it is a brush, you can choose an appropriate color. Often, I select a contrasting color from within the image, itself, as I did here choosing to sample the color from her lips.

Making a Brush

At the beginning of the year, I make a brush like the one I used on Hai’s image. It usually takes me about 5 minutes.

There are lots of ways to make a brush — just Google “photoshop signature brush” and you’ll find dozens of sites giving you different ways to get it done.

My process is really simple.

Step 1. I open up a New File in Photoshop. For a long signature I work in a 3×6 window, but smaller will work well, too. I only watermark images that I use online so my brush, here, uses a resolution of 72 pixels/inch; were I to make one for print, I’d use a higher resolution.  I use a white background because, as we will see in Step 2, it helps me see the type and effects as I apply them.

Step 2. Using the Text Tool: I add a new blank layer above the white background layer. That will be the type layer upon which I create the signature/message. For this example, I am showing you one of my more aggressive brushes — on two layers it says “Copyright: Prairieifire Productions (2010)/Please — Do Not Copy”. There’s really nothing to this, just type in and space what you want — in black type. When you are done, you will have block, black letters. This screen shot gives you both the image and the Layers Panel. (Note: the text layer is actually transparent. However, because the Background layer is still on, it appears to be white.)

Step 3. Making it “See Through”: For a pure “signature” brush, some people go directly to Step 5 to create their brush. But, for purposes of watermarking, most of us want a somewhat “see through” mark. Here’s where we turn our block letters into a mark. We do so by adding some Layer Styles to the upper, text layer. So, making sure we are working on the text layer, we click on the “fx” button at the bottom of the Layers Panel and go to Blending Options. Within the Blending options window, go to Advanced Blending>Fill Opacity. Drag the slider to the left. As you do, the inside of the lettering becomes more transparent. I usually slide down to 10% or so. The lettering will get very faint with the white layer turned on. It will almost disappear working on the transparent layer, alone. That’s why I use the white background layer. Here’s what you’ll see:

(For the moment, please disregard the check marks in the Bevel and Emboss boxes. They come next and I took these screen shots while switching between my options. Bad me. I couldn’t go slowly enough to capture each step separately.)

Step 4. Giving the Brush Some Style and Shape: In the same panel, choose the Bevel and Emboss section. Here’s where you add the 3D look. Go wild. Slide the sliders. Have some fun. Here are the settings I used:

You may want to add a few more effects — like drop shadows or glows. Knock yourself out. They are easy to add and delete.

When you have what you think will work, turn off the Background layer (click on the eyeball to the left of the layer) to see your signature/message on the transparent layer only.

Some people would save this image as a “file”. To use it, they would open it up and drop it over the image they wanted to protect. They’d use the Free Transform command to size and place it.

That’s way too many steps for me. So, I turn my “messages” into brushes. Doing so is incredibly easy.

Step: 5 Making a Brush: Now, the easy part. With the Background layer turned off, working on the transparent layer, make a selection of the text.

In the menus, go to Edit>Define Brush Preset. Name your brush and click “OK”. That’s it.

You’ll find your brush in with all of your other brushes, usually at the bottom of the stack.  Try it out. If you don’t like it, you can go back into the original .psd file and make some adjustments.

A few final tips: Work on a transparent layer at the top of your layers stack. You can change the size, location, opacity and color while working on that layer. And, by putting the message on its own layer, and not flattening the image, you retain the ability to turn off the layer, and the message so as to print or deliver a clean version of the image.

But Wait — There Will Be More!!!

The “brush” approach works great when you are working one image at a time. However, it’s not really helpful when you want to protect a large bunch of images.

Fortunately, there are ways to apply the message in batches.

In Part II. of this article I’ll show you two solutions I use, NAPP’s Watermark Creator, and onOne Software’s PhotoFrames Pro 4.5.

I’ll try to get Part II up, soon.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

But, first, a few thoughts.

I don’t do weddings — I’ve done a couple and understand the hard work and technical challenges that wedding photographers face. But, because I don’t market in that area, I’ve never really focused on how competitive it is.

There are a lot of people doing weddings. Photographers, both new and old, work that market. Why? Well, as Hanson once told me — because there are a lot of weddings. People continue to get married. And, they want pictures of the event.

So, that’s the upside. There are a lot of potential clients out there.

The downside? There are a lot of potential photographers out there.

And, how they choose to compete sets the tone of the marketplace.

Last weekend I got an up front, in your face example of how tough that marketplace is. I did some lighting for a friend, Todd Ramos,  who was producing a fashion show at Houston’s Bridal Extravaganza. (More on that later — when I write a piece on “guerilla lighting”). Todd was late. So there I was, all alone, a stranger in a strange land, overwhelmed by all things wedding. As I wandered around, aimlessly, I had but one thought — when the time comes, I’m going to pay my daughter to run off to get married. I don’t think I can go through something like this for real.

With nothing better to do, I wandered up and down the aisles of exhibitors. There were  cakes and caterers, resorts and rooms, tux’s and tours, limo’s and lima beans — it was all there.

And, so were the photographers. Lots of them. I didn’t count but I’d bet that close to 25% of the exhibitors were photographers — and I’d bet there were at least 75 of them there. Always the academic, I tried to analyze their marketing strategies.

First and foremost, I learned that these shows are important. Some of the photographers got 20% or more of their annual business from this one show. So it was incumbent upon all competing there to market like it mattered — because it did.

A fly on the wall, with big eyes and elephant ears, I watched and listened.

What stood out most? How little differentiation there was in the presentations.

I’d say 80% of the booths looked the same. A variety of prints on the walls, a brochure/handout and a price sheet.

Among the sameness a couple of things grabbed my attention — one very good, and one very bad.

The best marketers? The photographers who made their sales pitches very personal. Who found ways to interact with their potential clients in a relaxed, yet professional way.

One of my friends, had a small booth. But, she has a very big personality. With her bright smile and energy, she was up front. Stop to look at her photo’s and she very comfortably and casually started a conversation. She was very effective.

My favorite booth at the show? A large multi-walled, very cool looking structure, black plexi-glass with the name of the studio in big while letters — and NO PICTURES ON THE WALLS. Inside the booth there were 6 “stations” — a wedding album at each and each manned by a photographer in a tuxedo. Each gave the prospective client a personal “tour” of the studio’s work.

What did these two approaches have in common? They were selling the relationship, selling the experience. They were showing their potential clients who they were. People want to be around people they like. People they trust. People who make them comfortable. It’s all about the relationship. That’s what sells. And, pictures on the wall and brochures don’t sell it.

Hanson talks about that in the interview.

But, before going there, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention another form of marketing that was prevalent at the show — price competition. Perhaps the best example was a large sign in one of the booths offering “Two Photographers Unlimited Time” at a very low rate. Others were not so blatant. I heard many a conversation where photographers started to back away from the prices in their brochures when confronted with brochures with lower prices from competitors.

How do you compete when someone says, “The guy down there will do my wedding for $500.00. Can you beat that?”

Fortunately, I had asked Hanson that very question. Here’s his interview. I’ll be back to write a few closing thoughts at the end of the post.

Hanson — The Subtle Salesman

So what do we take away from this? I think some very substantial, though understated sales techniques.

Let’s start with Hanson’s  premise that “everyone wants to look good”. Although that’s a no brainer, Hanson uses it, expressly, throughout his sales presentation.

The unstated theme is “This may cost you a little more, but I will make you look good.” The theme is used in several areas as a way of countering the pressure to enter price competition.

First, Hanson introduces the concept of “enhancement” — enhancement, a very positive way of talking about post production or “re-touching”.

Experience has taught me to never tell someone that I will retouch his or her image. Even when I do post production work, I don’t boast about removing blemishes or wrinkles. The most I will say is that “No digital image comes out of the camera right. Of course, I will have to do some post production work on it. If you want it to look good.”

We can differentiate our work from that of others by selling our post-production abilities AND by charging for them. I particularly like Hanson’s approach. He holds up two copies of the same image — usually a face — one that has been “enhanced” and one that hasn’t, and asks — “Which would you rather have.” And, then he explains how much more he charges for the enhanced version. (Almost all faces need something — even those of high end models with carefully applied make-up. This is a strong technique.)

One thing stands out: if you are not charging for your post-production work, you are shortchanging yourself. Post production skills differentiate us from those who, though they may have the same camera, don’t have the same skill set. We deserve to be paid more than they do. And, we will be, if we sell our skills not just our images. As Hanson says, people have to understand that they are “paying for our talent”.

And, by selling the added value of post production we sell away from the “I’ll give you 1,000 images on a CD photographers”; as Hanson points out, there may be one or two great images amongst the 1,000, but most of them will need enhancement.

Second, Hanson deals with the “price shopper” with firm resolve and a sense of humor. He will not drop his prices. He has several gentle ways to overcome the “will you do it for less?” inquiry.

In the wedding context, Hanson obliquely introduces the “fear factor”. “You only have once to get this right. Do you really want to take a chance on someone without the experience and equipment to capture it as it happens?” I like his line “Do you want it done right or do you just want to get by?” And, then, the humorous punch line “You know, if you really want to save money, you might want to do it yourself.”

Finally, Hanson sells the relationship, the experience. Hanson is charming and fun — the kind of person you like to just hang with. And, he makes sure people see that part of him — both during a sales pitch and while shooting. No hiding behind the camera from Hanson. His personality fills the room. And, it is his personality that sells.

Postcript:

I’ve been pleased with the commentary generated by this “Survival Stories” section of my site. Please, keep it going by posting your thoughts, reactions and ideas.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

So, I’m going to try adding something new — something that will accommodate my Restless Mind, something that will let me write what I’m thinking while I’m thinking it.

And, something that might stimulate more contemporaneous feedback and help to create a sense of community.

Here’s the plan: I’m going to use this space to post  ”short” entries, random thoughts, whenever and wherever my restless mind takes me. Some will lead to longer articles, later. Some will just pass in the night. But, all will take a load off my mind.

[Special thanks to my very good friend Jim DiVitale for allowing me to use his brilliant creation as the logo for this column.]

16 Dec 2009: Seminar Manners — “Shooting Along” With the Teacher

Last month, I took my own “busman’s holiday”. I attended a seminar taught by a teacher and photographer for whom I have great respect. I won’t name him, here, because these thoughts are not related solely to his seminar but reflect both my experience and those of some of my friends.

These comments have nothing to do with the teacher and everything to do with the audience. He was perfect. The audience was not.

Throughout the two day seminar, a dozen or so of the two hundred students, without being invited to do so,  ”shot along” with the instructor. Some inadvertently set off his lights — right when he was getting ready to shoot. Others, shot bursts — hoping to catch the moment his lights would fire. Even when the instructor gently let it be known that he was not happy, they did not stop.

The rest of the students were not happy with their behavior, either. I sat one seat away from a woman who fired bursts throughout the seminar making it difficult to hear and follow the teacher.

I think this behavior was rude and disruptive — rude to the teacher and disruptive of the class.

At the time I could not imagine why there was so much shooting going on. I can fully understand if people were quietly and quickly shooting the “lighting set ups” for future reference. One click and done.

But, that’s not what they were doing. They were shooting the models. They were shooting the large screen upon which the instructor’s images were being displayed. They were taking pictures of his pictures!

To what end? I had no idea. To me, it seemed silly that someone would pay tuition to attend a class and then spend that class shooting instead of listening.

Then I got an email from a friend who had attended with me. He told me to go up on Flickr and search on the models’ names. Up came a bunch of the “bootleg” images taken at the seminar.

Perhaps, the students shooters do not understand that using those images is wrong.

It’s wrong because the images were the creation of the teacher — not the person who snapped them. Posing the model and lighting her were his creative work. Holding that work out as one’s own is intellectually dishonest.

And, using those pictures without a release from the model is wrong, too. (Some of the images of the models posted were taken when the models thought they were “off camera” or relaxing. They are less than flattering and it is wrong to post them.) The models have a legal right to control the use of their images; they gave the instructor a release; they did not do the same for the students.

Apparently, people do this at other seminars, too.

Sometimes I graze YouTube looking for good instructional videos. More than once I’ve come across low quality, bootleg videos of part of an instructor’s class — posted by someone who was obviously in the audience.

Perhaps, those student shooters don’t understand that this, too, is wrong.

These teachers make a living going around the country holding seminars. If people tape and “broadcast” those seminars, without the instructor’s permission, they destroy part of the market for the class. And, many of the teachers have their own DVD’s they are selling — again to make a living. I’m pretty sure that many of the YouTube videos were put up without the subjects approval, without a release; this, too, violates the legal rights of the teacher.

The better side of me wants to believe that the few students who disrupt seminars with their cameras are simply oblivious — they don’t understand that they are disrupting the class and that, if they use the stuff they shoot, they may be violating the law.

So, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and use this comment to remind them that unless a seminar is advertised and structured to allow us to “shoot along” with the instructor, we should not.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)

More than 150 of you sent emails saying “yes” to my inquiry as to whether I ought to start “a survival stories” section on this web site. My web developer, Nina Sossen, who knows a lot more about web site interaction than I do,  tells me that statistically, the letters represent very strong support for the idea.

So, I’m going to do it. And, I’m going to do it now — even though I’m not sure whether the form will remain constant or whether it will morph into a separate but connected blog.

The basic idea is simple. This new area will be a place to talk about the “business” side of photography.

Those of you who have been reading my work for the last few years know that I’ve spent most of my time writing about the “artistic” and “technical” sides of the endeavor. That’s what I like to do. It’s probably what I do best. I’ll not stop doing that.

But, it’s clear to me, that in this funky economy we have to talk more about survival — and this will be the place where we do that.

We Have to Be Both Artists and Business People: We Cannot Be One Without the Other

The fence that separates “business” and “art” is artificial. There is no conflict between the two. It is a false dichotomy.

Because, without “art” there can be no business. And, as many are learning, without “business” one cannot continue to produce art.

I think that false dichotomy may be at the root of the problems many of us are facing.

We see ourselves as “artists” not “marketers” or “sales people.”. We love to create. We hate selling. We put our time into becoming better artists and ignore the need to become better business people. Why? Because we want to do what we love doing. And, most of us took up photography for the creative rush, not because we wanted to market and sell.

But, market and sell we must — especially in these tough times.

As money becomes tight, what we do is seen as “discretionary” spending. Photography gets the red pencil because it is not seen as a “necessity of life.”

Until, we need a picture of a loved one for a funeral. Or to remind us of special times. Or to brighten our homes and lives. Often, when we see the need, it is too late to create the image. Our loved ones are gone. The moments have passed. And, we realize that we really should have recorded them, for all time.

It is our job to make people understand the importance of what we do. In simple economic terms, we need to create “demand” for our products.

That’s what marketing and selling are all about.

It’s about getting ourselves in front of the right people and teaching them to value what we do. It’s about getting them to let us share and record those moments. And, it’s about selling them our work — closing the deal, getting paid, fairly, for what we have done — so that we can continue to do it.

I define marketing as the stuff we do to get customers. I see the shoot and post production as the “art” side. And, selling as the way we make sure we get paid, fairly, for what we have done. They are all one and the same thing — being a professional photographer.

We will talk about all of these things in this space.

Competing On The Right Playing Field

We will talk about how we can survive in this down market — a market which, increasingly, has spawned the worst type of competition — price competition.

As artists, we’d prefer to have decisions made by clients who compare our work to that of others — not by clients who don’t care about the quality of our work or don’t know how to evaluate it and, therefore, simply compare our rate cards to those of our competitors.

No one wins a price competition. Not the consumer who often gets a product of poor quality — because it costs more to do it right. And, not the photographers involved in the price fight who often make less on a shoot than they would if they were working at a McDonald’s.

How do we survive the black hole of price competition? Let’s talk about it here.

A Rising Tide Raises All Boats

That’s pretty much been my business philosophy for as long as I can remember.

What does that mean in this context?

It means that we are in this together. If we make the tide rise, we will all succeed. If we cannot, we will all run aground.

And, that’s why I don’t find it productive to have internal battles. There is a lot of anger out there. Hostility and jealousy. In general terms, it’s not productive.

Complaints about “moms with cameras,” in addition to being demeaning of many very good photographers who are also mothers, take us nowhere; they, too, want to work in an economic environment where they can flourish. And, where they are paid fairly.

Whether one who does not have a studio can be considered a “professional photographer” takes us nowhere. Unfortunately, in this economy many cannot carry the overhead of a studio space and are either shooting from their homes, on location, or renting studios when needed. They, too, want an environment where they can flourish.

I think the essence of these complaints is a belief that those who do the work “part time,” or don’t have the overhead that studio photographers have, are creating the price competition by offering their work for unreasonably low prices. (I have also seen the finger pointed at studio owners who, as the belief holds, desperate to hold onto a “dinosaur business model” are cutting their prices to get work to support their “bloated overhead”.) Neither set of allegations moves the ball forward.

Whether or not these allegations are true is an empirical question. I’ve not been able to find any numbers to support or deny them.

However, it is clear that the finger pointing is not productive. It does nothing to increase the demand for our work. It does nothing to make the tide rise. And, if the tide does not rise, we will all be left on high ground.

So let’s try to make the tide rise. And let’s discuss how to do it here.

In my eyes, for the tide to rise:

1. All photographers who sell their work must attain high standards of proficiency. Poor results sour the consumer base. Unfortunately, all professions suffer the stigma created by the least skilled in the trade. If our clients begin to believe that they can do better work than we do, they will not hire us. We must be noticeably better and we must differentiate our work from that achieved by consumers who own the same cameras we do. I’ve written extensively about differentiation — doing the things that our friends and neighbors cannot do — be it perfect lighting and posing or doing using tools they do not own or have not mastered, like the Lensbaby, or post-production software, like the stuff from onOne, Imagenomic, and Nik. To survive, we need to create images that don’t look like those that come out of their cameras.

2. We must educate the public to see the beauty in and appreciate good photography. If they cannot tell the difference between what we do and what they can get for free or for rock bottom prices, why will they pay more for our work?

3. We must price our work in ways that reflect our investment in time and materials; we must seek a fair return. I know it is tempting, in bad times, to cut our bids so low that we either barely make or lose money — just to get the job. But, we really have to wonder whether that job is worth getting. And, I firmly believe that we are only as good as our last quote. Once we underbid, it is hard to get back to fair pricing. After all, we are the ones who diminished the value of what we do; by cutting our prices to ridiculously low amounts, we are telling the consumers how little we value our work.

4. We must learn to adapt to the new paradigm — the one in which many consumers don’t care about “prints” and/or  have the ability to knock off our work. This is an odd time. My guess is that more people are looking at images in an electronic format than are printing and displaying them. Until we explain to people the value of prints, and the danger of “electronic” storage, we will not be selling a lot of prints. And, this is a time where, with scanners, it’s not all that hard to copy what we have done, we might question whether a model based on selling prints is viable. We may want to think about different economic models, like charging for our time as opposed to charging by the print. Either way, we have to explain the law of copyright to our clients in a non-threatening way; if they understand our rights, most will respect them. And, when they don’t, as an industry we have to enforce them.

5. We must market like it matters, because it does. Sitting back and waiting for business to come will not work, now, if it ever did.

6. And, we must sell. It does no good to book a client, do a great shoot, produce some incredible images, if we cannot get people to pay for them. Spending hours to sell a couple of 8×10’s won’t cut it.

I’ll continue to work hard on #1 in other sections of this site.

Numbers 2-6 will be the substance of “Survival Stories.”

How I Think It Will Work

I’m not sure exactly where this will go or how we will make it happen. But, for now, here’s what I’m thinking:

This will be a place where we speak to each other — through articles or comments.

I’ve already started contacting some of my friends and have been asking them if they’d write some articles on selling and marketing to stimulate discussion here.

Last week, I got an email from a reader who told me about a loan program that might be good for photographers. I’m going to follow up by interviewing her and reporting what I learn here.

If it is going to work, it has to be a dialogue. Some of you have offered to write short pieces for me to post. I know others will add depth by commenting.

In your recent emails, many of you have expressed frustration, pain and anger. I expect our dialogue here to be passionate. We are talking about things that cut to the bone — our ability to do what we love and to support ourselves doing it.

Passion is perfect. From discussions come answers. There is no “party line” or set answer here. For example, you may disagree with me about “part timers” or those without studios. That’s fine, state you point. Disagreements stimulate discussions. To move forward we have to make sure we are building on solid ground. Often, it takes some digging to find the bedrock.

There will be but one rule: Play Nice. Simply stated, if you disagree with someone, do it respectfully. That’s it. Let’s be vibrant and passionate in a respectful manner.

Let’s start the discussion with your comments on this post. Let me know whether this is what you want and where you think we should go. Have comments on what I wrote? Post them. Have ideas for future topics? Post them. Have other thoughts you want to share? Post them.  Want to add to something someone else has said? Use the “Reply” function. For this to work, it needs to be a dialogue. No one person has all the answers. The more who join in, the better this section will be.

I look forward to seeing where the discussion takes us.

Steve

P.S. The content here will probably be more dynamic than the normal substantive content. It might change on a daily basis. Some of you have figured out a way to get notifications when things here change; would someone please put up a comment teaching me, and others, how to do this?

We are going into the Holiday Season and I’ll be out of state for a while. I want to get this started now but expect it to really take off after the New Year.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)

The basic concept was simple — to show that contrary to what glossy magazines and movies may tell us, beauty does not necessarily bring happiness. And, that for some, external beauty can be a trap because it blinds many an eye to the internal picture that really defines who we are.

I had been carrying the concept around for quite a while. It was in my “self assignment” list, a notebook I keep with ideas for shoots. I first started focusing on giving myself assignments while attending Photoshop World. During The Art of Digital presentation, I saw many of the world’s great photographers showing the results of their ventures into uncharted waters. I realized then that in order to grow I had to challenge myself to go off the beaten path to create images that were not a part of my every day creative life. For me, everything starts with a “story”. So, in my notebook, I started to outline a bunch of different shoots — some stories stimulated by moods, others by music, the news or whatever was running through my my head. And, I waited for the ideas to ripen.

A few key fortuitous events pushed this concept to fruitiion.

First, was an episode of American Idol — the only episode of that show I’ve ever watched. It was on a disk of shows I was watching as an Emmy voter. Anyway, one of the finalists, Adam Lambert, sang a song, Mad World, (written by Roland Orzabal.) Dark. Very dark. I was totally blown away. One line haunted me:

I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad, the dreams in which I’m dying are the best I’ve ever had.

I could not get that song out of my head.

And, then, I met model Stephanie Vostry. She came to my studio to model for one of my students, Tom Folger. During a break, I was telling Tom about how I was in the final conceptual stages of my “No More Pretty Pictures” project and that soon I’d start looking for a model brave enough to shoot it. Stephanie, who had heard the conversation jumped right in, and said something like,  ”I’ll do it. I want to do it. I’ve been trying to get a photographer to shoot something like that …  but no one will. All they want is pretty pictures.”

I could not have found a better partner.

The Plan

For a week or so, in a series of emails, texts and occasional phone calls, we started to develop our story for the shoot. I had Stephanie listen to Mad World. As we started to trust each other — trust is the essential component in a shoot like this, one that cuts to raw emotions and exposes vulnerability (on both sides of the camera) — a plan was set in place.

Stephanie planned her wardrobe, make up and props. And, she set out to get her head in the right place for the shoot.

I had a “story” locked in my mind. So, I focused on the technical side, the set and lighting patterns I would use to capture it.

My technical plan was simple: In my mind, the story was that the model was trapped or cornered by her beauty. So, I decided to shoot into one of the corners of my camera room. I had two choices — an 18% gray corner, or a corner formed by two of my faux brick walls.

The best light for the shoot? My Profoto Ring Flash. It would give me the coverage and edge that I wanted — a somewhat hard and stark look but with a funky shadow on the backdrop. No soft, wraparound, flattering light here. I wanted a hard look at a troubled subject. And, I anticipated a very fluid situation. None of the “pose it, light it, shoot it” syndrome. Most important — with the Ring Flash surrounding my lens, I knew that no matter where the shoot took us, the light would be in the right place.

Setting Up

When Stephanie and Tom arrived (I had asked him to assist me) my dark side was in full force. There were no happy “Hello’s”. There was no cordial conversation. Stephanie, too, was in her game day head.

Stephanie -- Getting Her Head Into the Shoot

First task — finalize the set. I had Stephanie sit, quietly in each of the corners. We both agree that the brick corner felt “better”.

To set the mood, I started a loop of Mad World, the Gary Jules version. (Although one does not need an ASCAP license for the “non-commercial” use of music, I ordered one just to stand in solidarity with other artists who are trying to protect their creative rights.)

I almost never shoot with music, I prefer to talk with my models — explain what I’m doing and what I want. But, that day,  we never turned that loop off. For an hour and a half, Mad World played over and over.

I let Stephanie sit there, lost in her own thoughts for quite a while.

Quietly, Tom and I set up for the shoot.

In a while, on her own, Stephanie got up, when into the dressing room, and got ready.

The Shoot

Without doubt, this was the most intense photo-shoot of my life. And, I have Stephanie to thank for that. She brought her “A” game. She left it all in the camera room. There was absolutely nothing held back. Stephanie’s emotions were real — drawn from deep inside her young life — nothing hidden, nothing masked. My job was to capture it. And, I did my best.

From the moment she stepped on set, it was clear that Stephanie got it. The theme was No More Pretty Pictures and she wasn’t going to pull back one bit from showing the vulnerability, suffering and pain that was below her beautiful surface.

She started out standing. Arms full of a wine bottle and pill containers — symbols of the lengths to which people go to mask over their inner feelings. (See the shot above.)

Tom took a quick meter reading for me and we did our first and only adjustment of the Profoto D4 Generator that was powering the Ring Flash; I wanted to shoot at 5.6 so we set it there. (I was shooting my D3, with a prime lens, 85mm f1.8; truth be told, it’s a little difficult to use a zoom lens and Ring Flash at the same time; I’ve done it, but didn’t want to add another layer of difficulty to the challenging conditions of this shoot.)

Slowly, without saying a word, as Stephanie became more “despondent” she began a slow “slide” to the floor. I kept shooting. No break. No new set up. I just tried to stay with her. Within several minutes, she was on the floor — and so was I, lying on my stomach, trying to keep her in frame and lit correctly.

One thing about shooting the Ring Flash: With set lights, the distance to the subject remains somewhat constant and it does not matter where the photographer takes the camera. If the light is 8′ from the subject and the meter says 5.6, you shoot at 5.6 whether you are 4′ from the subject or 8′; the only time you need to re-meter is when the distance between the subject and the light changes.

But, the way I was shooting the Ring Flash, mounted around my lens, it did not remain a constant distance from Stephanie. If she moved, I moved. And, when I moved, the light moved with me. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I was trying to pay attention to the distance between Stephanie and the light. When conscious that we were no longer in the same spatial relationship, I’d adjust the Aperture setting to compensate for whether I was farther away (wider aperture because less light was hitting her) or closer (smaller aperture because more light was hitting her.) But, I’d be lying if I said I did it right. After the shoot, when looking at the metadata, I realized that several times I turned the wrong wheel on the Nikon and made a meaningless adjustment to the shutter speed (meaningless because in a situation like this, the Shutter speed controls the ambient light to the sensor which was not significant; this shoot was all about the Ring Flash and the amount of the light from it to hit the sensor was controlled by the Aperture.) Brain farts not withstanding, because I was shooting RAW, there was no real problem created by being slightly off on some of the frames.

After what seemed like forever, we took a break. We put some images up on the computer — just to make sure we were getting what we wanted. We were. There were a couple of quick smiles, but the dark mood remained. Stephanie had a couple of things she wanted to try. So, back on set we went. And, we kept shooting.  As soon as I can, I’ll edit more of the images and post them in a portfolio on this site.

And, then, it was over.

Well sort of.

I was completely worn out. Flat beyond belief.

The other day, Tom told me that he left depressed and stayed depressed for a day.

Stephanie? Having gone through a profoundly cathartic session, she was the most upbeat of the three of us. And, as the days passed, she felt better and better about what we had done. And, so did I.

In many ways, this shoot meant a lot to both of us. To me, it was the first of my self-assignments to go through the full process. And, I think this really put Stephanie on solid footing as a model. Before this shoot, she had had at most three other studio experiences — none of which challenged her to be anything other than her pretty self. This was, in many ways, the coming out party for a very strong model.

But Wait! There’s More! — The Aftermath

As profound and interesting as the shoot was, in many ways, the aftermath was more interesting.

These images provoked very different responses.

Stephanie was so proud of her work that she put one of the pictures up as her “avatar” on her Model Mayhem site. And, she left it there for quite a while. The traffic to her site fell. People wanted pretty avatars. Stephanie is strong and was going to leave it there. But, I counseled her to switch it out, and she did. More bookings followed.

My friends had mixed reactions.

Many felt that these images were some of the best work I’ve ever done.

But, many more were “scared” by them. Scared. Really afraid of the work.

Right after this shoot, one of my software sponsors sent a letter asking if I had some images that they might use at trade shows or in ads to demonstrate their product. Being the wise ass that I am, I sent some of these images. The truth be told, their filters had been critical in the post-production process. With very good humor, they told me that these were not exactly the types of pictures for which they were looking. I’ll stand my ground. One of these images was made by the simple application of one of their filters. But, I can see how these images might not help sell their products.

Hanson Fong was also among those who were scared. I sent him these pictures of Stephanie to let him know who would be modeling for him during his “Busman’s Holiday”. His exact words “She scares me.” But, if you haven’t already done it, read the article and look at the images that he shot. The “pretty” Stephanie shines and Hanson brought out the best in her.

The best part of this for me? I’ve found a fierce model who I can trust. Together, we are going to take on some more topics from each of our “self assignment” lists.

And Even More!

People often ask me what I mean when I say “I always start with a story” — no matter the shoot, be it a simple portrait or an editorial piece, I always start with a story.

What that means, to me, is that I have a message that I want to convey with images. I don’t wait until my clients come into the studio — I plan ahead how to best capture what they want and how to deliver their messages. The first step is almost always a “get to know each other session”. I try not to shoot someone with whom I’ve not met previously — even if the meeting is by phone. Because some of my shoots are intense, I really need to start working on developing trust and comfort before the day of the shoot.

And, I plan like crazy. I want the model to know the story — to contribute to how we tell it, to be sure it’s a story he or she wants told, and to understand what we will use for a set, wardrobe, make up, and props. Often, I’ll do drawings ( stick men, I can’t draw a lick). And, I’ll always have an initial lighting plan in mind; usually, if the shoot is complex,  I set up and test the lights to make sure they will do what I think is needed a day or so before the shoot.

On the day of the shoot, I start with a “team meeting”. Whoever is involved — model, grip, MUA — whoever. We discuss what we are going to do and I get input from all before we start.

And, then we shoot — and more likely than not, at some point after we’ve got the initial vision in the computer, we go off road and see what we can find.

People talk about “happy accidents” —  amazing shots that just “show up” unexpected. I see this a bit differently. I have a good friend who is one of America’s best trial lawyers. He’s fond of saying, “Isn’t it funny how the people who are the luckiest are the people who are the best prepared.” Most “happy accidents” are the result of hard work and planning.

With all of that in mind, I’m including a video from a great photographer/story teller — Jensen Walker. The video probably does a better job than I just did in explaining what it means to go into the shoot with a story plan.

Update: Just A Little Bit More

In response to some email requests,  I’ve put some more pictures from this shoot on the site. You can find them here.

Unfortunately, I’m still wrestling with the plug-in that creates these galleries. It tends to distort some images and take away the descriptions from others. Some of the posts are different versions of the same shot; I put them in to highlight some post-production options — especially two filters from Nik, the Bleach Bypass from their Color Efex Pro series and the black and white conversions from their Silver Efex Pro software. (If you hover your mouse over the thumbnail you should get a one line description of what I did in processing each image.)

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)