Sienna Luna

This shot has some very similar angles going on compared to the image of my last post, although they are very different images...

Kacie Marie

I have never understood why there has always been so much argument between digital vs film. To me, there is no debate— use whatever you want to, in whatever combination you want to. If it works for you, then the rest is just internet trolling. The whole idea is to get the images that are best in your eyes and suits the purpose you have for it. I use both digital and film. I don't really care what someone else does or doesn't use. Both processes have strengths and weaknesses. I don't care to give up either. I do not think either is going to replace the other at this point. For a while, many thought that film might go away. As with vinyl records, I knew that would not happen. To be sure, there were all of the frustrations of film supply companies going out of business. Thankfully, there is now a resurgence of supplies. The availability of cameras, on the other hand, was never an issue. I never got rid of my favorite film cameras or my darkroom, and I appreciate my foresight. I definitely find digital to be easier and more practical for most purposes. I have to admit that I found digital to be such a pleasure when it legitimately arrived as a viable option. But I don't think that you're going to get a good argument that a good platinum print from a large format film negative is not perfectly exquisite (and that it always will be), though. There is something to be said for how easy it is to care for collections of photos in a physical format. Darkroom prints kept in linen clamshells, or web images on sites & blogs, or images that are made from digital files and then printed or web sized. I use all of these methods. Plus I have a few gorgeous books utilizing the digital process. You then just store them on a bookshelf. No hard drives, online, or computer storage needed. I have thousands of photos stored on all of these places, but I wonder how archival any of this is. Will anyone care about these digital files when I am gone? I have a feeling that the hard copy stuff will be better kept and/or cherished— but who knows?. Long live choices. Use what works the best for you and makes you happy.

Heff

When it comes to portrait photography, I tend to find myself gravitating towards themes and styles that go beyond straight portraiture. Nothing against the usual posed model shots (actually, I do have something against them...), but portraits that reveal a bit more, that are unguarded or even awkward score more points in my book. This image, however, is not posed or unguarded or awkward or a even a portrait. I just like it.

Jezz

I used my beloved Mole-Richardson Fresnel lantern for this shot, along with some fill-in Smith-Richardson spots. A Fresnel is usually used these days just for theater lighting— you know, when the light looks very dramatic on the stage. For old Hollywood films and stills (especially film noir), though, it was the go-to light source. It can be rather unflattering and hard to control if you don't know how to use them, but they make exquisite images when used properly.

Vox Serene

The longer you look at an object, the more abstract it becomes, and, ironically, the more real. ~Lucian Freud

Ajaye

These kinds of natural yet bold portraits are actually my favorite and most satisfying things to shoot— mostly because they are so hard to pull off, and they are so few and far between. When you get one, it's a real treasure.

Heff

I've always been a fan of the extreme low-angle shot— photographed from a camera angle positioned low on the vertical axis, anywhere below the eye line, looking up. Sometimes, it can even as far as from below the subject's feet. Psychologically, the effect of the low-angle shot is that it makes the subject look strong and powerful. The downside is, well, it's a hard shot to get right. It's often not flattering or looks amateurish. Also, frankly, it's not really comfortable to shoot for long that way. The trick is to keep moving, looking and slightly changing up the angle until you finally see it working. Typically I can never really know if an image is successful until after editing— but with a low angle, you usually know it right away, because it will pack a punch. That is the upside.

Rhodanthe

I like this shot. It reminds me of the work of photographer Imogen Cunningham, who lived a long life shooting from the late 1800's to the 1970's. She would often create images like this— tightly cropped and more concerned in making a compelling composition rather necessarily flattering the subject. She was a big influence on my early work, and I've been trying to create images that might rate up with her ones that are always stuck in my head. Easier said than done, of course. This one is getting closer.

Sienna Luna

I shot these images the day after the bathroom shots in the previous post. I like changing gears like that— going back & forth from fetishistic stuff to natural outdoor portraits, et cetera. These are definitely different for me, though. Slightly Edward Weston influenced. I love Edward Weston, but I rarely take much direct inspiration from him. Seems to work here well enough!

Sienna Luna

There was a mirrored ceiling in this bathroom (which is a kinda weird thing in a bathroom, right?), so I decided to turn it into a unique opportunity. Shooting the images from the mirrors made for some really interesting straight out of the camera shots, although the first one here is something that I don't usually do— a two shot composite. I think that composite shots typically look like a gimmick, but here it seems to make for a noteworthy if not remarkable image. I'm very happy with these bathroom pictures. There are more to come...

Heff

This is my attempt at a late 1960's Diana Ross vibe...

Sienna Luna

The window series is easily going on ten years now— which means that I have to either stop doing them or get ever more creative. I've always pushed the lighting boundaries, so that's a given. I've been playing around with giving them extra depth and some movement to prevent them from being too static. Me likes this latest one...

Natalie

"If I knew how to take a good photograph, I'd do it every time.”  ~ Robert Doisneau

Holly

She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge... she studied sculpture at Saint Martin's College.

Sienna Luna & Rhodanthe

Harness, walk & fetch.

During the past few years I've become very familiar with what professional dominatrix's do and their lifestyle. It is mainly from photographing them, as well as many conversations with those that I've become good friends with. I've never personally experienced a session (I have watched a few), since I'm not a masochist and don't really have any inherent desire or need to experience that. I'm none the less fascinated by the psychology of it all, as well as fetishes in general. It is certainly not a coincidence that fetishes and BDSM are a major sub-context of this blog, despite that I don't necessarily have any more fetishes than the average person. Maybe a few more... but I think that most people perhaps have fetishes without even realizing it— perhaps call them obsessions or distractions, because they think that fetishes are something that only weirdos have....

Vox Serene

”I went into photography because it seemed like the perfect vehicle for commenting on the madness of today’s existence.”   ~ Robert Mapplethorpe

Nathalia, Meira, Lady Lazurus, Tanya & Ajaye

I've been taking at least some completely blurred/out-of-focus shots on just about every shoot since I started shooting over 25 years ago. I've always liked the dreamy look of it. If I wanted to be indulgent (and make people roll their eyes), then every other image in my body of work would be one of these. To my mind, it always works— but of course, most others just see it as fooling around. I get away with incorporating blur into just about every image of mine by keeping at least a little bit of focal point and shooting at f1.2. The mind tends to see completely blurred as an accident or incompetence, but a razored edged focus at least somewhere in there takes a lot more effort. Which, well, tends to be true. I try to keep from showing the completely out of focus stuff to a minimum. I just look at and appreciate them on the contacts. It takes a lot of effort on my part, though, not to show them. Seriously.

Sienna Luna

For those that may be curious, they are quite a few images on this blog with film grain. Well, I shot film for many years— late 1980's to present day, although I mostly stopped by the late 2000's. I still have a full darkroom and many film cameras. For the most part, I find using film to be too tedious and limiting unless it's larger format and/or a special developing process. I've scanned many of my film shots— some from negatives and some from prints if they were unique or noteworthy. The negative scans I reworked in Photoshop because I really wanted to see the difference from original prints made from them, and the print scans are as faithful as possible since that was the point of scanning them. So images on this blog that have grain are mostly from those scans of old work, although I typically make them look like my newer work. That makes sense to me since this is a showcase of newer work— and with photography, old work can become new work. The old versions are in print portfolios. I make new prints as well so that I can eventually compare the difference. It is a project in and of itself. Lately, I've been applying Photoshop grain to newer digital work just to see if one seems more interesting than without. Not surprisingly, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. This doesn't seem like a dishonest thing since they are virtually indistinguishable from their film counterparts in web version form, despite the fact that I'm not always noting what is what. Hell, you can hardly notice the grain until you click on the image for a larger version. There is no truth in photography! I've written about that before. If there is no truth in photography, then it can't be dishonest— with the obvious exception of an image being falsely used as documented evidence in a newspaper, book or court case. Not that photography really has had such weight as being inherently truthful since its beginnings. To make a long story short (too late?), these two images are new and digital. Just to let you know ;)

Little One

I've always felt a deep affinity with Egon Schiele, an early twentieth-century Viennese artist. His world was not the glittering & hedonistic world typically depicted by his contemporaries— but rather instead a grubby, base & seedy world. Schiele's erotic art is not as sensuous as that produced by his mentor, Gustav Klimt. As with almost all of Schiele's work, his erotic figures are twisted and distorted. His pictures convey the idea of sexual experimentation, often tinged with disappointment or regret. His work is not easily defined by any single artistic movement. He was a unique talent who created a truly unusual style, decades ahead of its time.

Katie Marie

“I like to photograph anyone before they know what their best angles are.” ~ Ellen Von Unworth