Meira

Each time I pick up a classic camera, I am awestruck at the craftsmanship and build quality that these old devices have. Cameras from the early to middle of the 20th century were created by craftsmen (and women) who paid close attention to the various gears, levers, dials, and switches inside and out of each camera. Whether you’re talking about a Bakelite Kodak Brownie or a Rolleiflex, there was care put into every part. Some went through war (literally), got wet, banged around, dropped, exposed to heat and moisture, or had any other number of things happen to them which affect their functionality. It never ceases to amaze me that these devices which are older than I am and sometimes more than double older than me, still work as good as the day they were made. Often, to me, the lens scratches and light leaks of an old and beat up camera can add a certain organic quality to the images made now. What other types of product can honestly say that after half a century, gets better with age?

Little One

I get tired of seeing commentary about film versus digital— as in one is better than the other, or that one should learn film if you want to truly understand/master digital. B.S. I've been shooting film for 30 years and digital for 15+ (I've been using Photoshop since 1991). Film photography and digital photography are not the same things. They're definitely related, but they ultimately deviate from each other. They are two completely distinct media that should be used for particular reasons. They require totally different thought processes, methodologies, and workflow. One needs to keep in mind what one wants for the final result, or what one wants to get out of the process (both for the appreciation and result of that process). If you want a darkroom print, shoot film. If you're fine with an inkjet print, shoot digital. Et cetera. Personally, I can appreciate aspects of both. If you like shooting film, shoot film. If you like digital, shoot digital. One isn't inherently better or worse than the other. They're simply different. Despite what so many might say, one isn't necessarily harder or more tedious than the other. That depends on how they are used in practice! For instance, I know for sure that I often spend a lot more time in post-processing a digital shoot than I often would for a film shoot. Or it could be vice versa. There are fashion photographers that use point & shoot film cameras and have a lab do the processing for them. Conversely, there are digital shooters that can spend days on a single image. You can go back and forth about both, but at the end of the day, you can't make an absolute statement about either regarding which is harder. That's a relative thing. Although many people can spend less time with digital or film, in the end, the final results speak for themselves, for better or for worse. My advice would be to take technical guidance, but make your own decisions about what to shoot and what to shoot with. Do what works for you. If you want to blend the two (something that I like), blend the two. Beware of self-righteous and self-styled gurus. Hourra pour le Choix!

Jolene

"I like the architecture of lingerie."  ~Colleen Atwood

Ramonita & Suhanisa

Slightly new style developing. Not the diptych thing— I've enjoyed making diptychs now and then for over twenty years. The mixture of low contrast and higher contrast in one shot is my new thing of the past year. My modus operandi has always (96 times out of a hundred) been to use a dark background and then light the subject in whatever way works. Here the background is high key and the subject is softly lit. I'm a creature of habit— little changes can be a big deal for me...

Suhanisa

Darling, the legs aren't so beautiful, I just know what to do with them. ~Marlene Dietrich

Joe & Lissa

In 1952 the photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson published Images à la Sauvette, which roughly translates as “images on the run” or “stolen images.” The English title of the book, The Decisive Moment, was chosen by publisher Dick Simon. Cartier-Bresson had already proposed that concept— it just didn't sound good in French as a title. It is one of the most fascinating and highly debated concepts in the history of photography. This moment occurs when the visual and psychological elements of people in a real-life scene spontaneously and briefly come together in perfect resonance to express the essence of that situation. Some people believe that to be the unique purpose of photography— to capture this fleeting, quintessential, and holistic instant in the flow of life. For this reason, many photographers often mention the decisive moment, or similar ideas about capturing the essence of a transitory moment, when they describe their work. It is an idea that has always driven me, even before I knew it was a thing. since it tends to be an intuitive process when it comes to contemporary photography (after one could get a shot in a second, or faster). Once I realized that it was a "thing", I've never stopped thinking about it. The main idea, though, for me, is that a DM image doesn’t occur as an isolated shot. There are no photographers, even the great ones, who go out with their cameras, take one spectacular DM photograph, and then return home. The DM image emerges in the context of an entire shoot of some kind. Some photography sessions lead to a great DM shot, and some don’t. I like to call it "hunting for the shot, while mostly missing". Getting it, though, is such a wonderful feeling.

Percolate

I shoot so that others can see the way that I view the world, and I follow other photographers so that I can see the way that they view the world. I shoot to freeze moments. I shoot because my imagination is terrible. I shoot to enjoy life in a different way. I also shoot because I regret that when growing up my family didn’t take a lot of pictures, and so as an adult, I do. Shooting, of course, allows me to express my creativity... I really wanted to leave this out because it almost seems too obvious. I do not shoot people because the eye is a window to the soul— I don't really believe that cliche and I've never been fond of it. I do, however, like the create the illusion that the eyes are a window to the soul. That is a concept that I can get behind.

Rhodanthe

Low contrast photography is not everyone’s cup of tea. In fact, a lot of people will dislike it. It’s not really what you’d call the popular choice— many think that low-contrast means lacking in contrast or associate it with being flat. Some also believe that the more contrast there is, the better. It is fair to say that low contrast photographs are nowhere near as eye-catching as the high contrast B&W photographs you typically see. That does not make them in any way inferior. Subtlety can be something that is easily overlooked. When you get past that entryway, though, low-contrast images can be so wonderful. Much of my work posted here tend to be higher in contrast, but in actuality, most everything that I finish has at least two versions— a high contrast and a low contrast version... and often a few in between. I still have not decided which I prefer, so I sit on all versions waiting to perhaps decide eventually which will be the "finished" versions. I do know that whenever I spot a photograph by someone else that I gravitate towards more than anything else, it tends to be something with very low contrast. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that I respect how hard it can be to make an exquisite low contrast photograph...

Percolate

There seems to be an intense hatred of vignetting among professionals. If you ever hear someone say vignetting is an optical flaw that needs to be fixed, ignore them. It is, scientifically, an optical flaw. Older, cheaper cameras (or a good camera with a cheaper lens) create vignettes in photos unintentionally due to their poor quality. It could also be created intentionally in the darkroom during the printing process. Many associate vignettes with vintage for this reason. In other words, many see it as a charming flaw. Can it be overused? Duh... of course, anything can. Subtlety in use is probably better than heavy-handed— much like the actual effect from a lens. Sometimes it can detract from inherent qualities already in the image. Good vignette, on the other hand, can tend to draw your eye toward the subject within the image. You may have noticed that, personally, I tend to like vignetting...

Sadie

With the advent of digital photography, and even more importantly, the internet, our ability to share and experience photographs has changed dramatically. There are pros and cons to that. Unfortunately, the need for creating prints that we can touch and feel is much less common than it once was. If I were a betting man I’d wager that a majority of digital photographers out there have never printed their own work, and never had the joy of seeing their work large and framed, never felt the richness of a rag paper with their art on it. I have always printed my work, both as a film photographer and a digital photographer. I always thought that it would be criminal to stop printing, even if it was no longer technically necessary. You need to see what an image looks— as a material object. You need to feel it. Need to live with the lines and tones and moments on paper. You need to see the inherent strengths, as well as the weaknesses. Are the tones right? Are the densities correct? It is a craft in and of itself. To me, the screen is a preview, and the print is the finished piece. Prints are simply more beautiful in your hands and on walls than they will ever be on a screen. Print your work!

Kelly

A portrait. What could be more simple and more complex, more obvious and more profound? ~Charles Baudelaire

PXE

This image is from a shoot with a model who goes by the moniker PXE. It's pronounced pixie, which is fitting due not only to her petite size but her squeaky voice. Her voice is a dead ringer for Carol Kane's voice (from Taxi). She's definitely one of a kind— a fascinating person, capable of switching back and forth between a bubbly cartoon character and intense sexual persona. Speaking of bubbly versus intense, I think this is one of my strongest images— despite the fact that we were both pretty much laughing hysterically the whole shoot.  It seems to visually convey a celebration of female empowerment.  "I am Woman, hear me roar".

Miera

Pin-up style took on quite a few different forms, even though it’s a formula that is actually very narrow and rather easily defined. My favorite style would be Irving Klaw photographing Bettie Page in bondage— which is fun but most definitely fetish & BDSM oriented. It's all pretty much tame compared to today's fare, though. I based this shoot, however, on the friendlier pulp girlie magazines that were published in the 40’s & 50’s. They were a bit more toned down compared to the Irving Klaw stuff...

"I've met a lot of pin-up girls, but I've never been able to pin one down"                                               ~ Groucho Marx

Sienna Luna

In art, there is no need for color; I see only light and shade. Give me a crayon, and I will paint your portrait.  ~Francisco Goya

Dessa

The most important thing that makes this window series work is keeping the windows dirty. I was in this warehouse studio for fifteen years, and the windows (and sills and trim) that I used for shooting I never cleaned once. I kept a few that I didn't use for shooting clean so that I could have a nice view of Chinatown.

Sienna Luna

"Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. " ~Abraham Lincoln

Devon

I have always loved film grain. While some photographers may have disliked and avoided it, most had an affection for it and still do. Digital noise has never really garnered the same love. I think one of the biggest reasons for the love of grain is the look and aesthetic of the film— its' slight roughness, and its' organic nature. With most modern digital cameras, the photos are too crisp. Too sharp. Too perfect. It was the imperfection of vinyl records which made the music sound much more warm, friendly, and personal. When listening to music on a vinyl record, there are cracks, hisses, and pops. The audio isn’t crystal clear— you hear some “warm” noise in the background, which I feel enhances the musical experience. I feel the texture of good (there are different kinds) film grain is sublime. I think grain often makes photos more beautiful because they feel more authentic, more real. Grain makes a photo a little bit less visible, a little less clear— just like our personal memories, thoughts, and nostalgia from the past. Life isn’t perfect. It is jagged, rough, and imperfect. Life is often fuzzy and uncertain. I like to have my photography reflect our lives— finding beauty in the imperfect.

Joe & Lissa

I tend to shoot intuitively— I pick up the camera and shoot. I may be simplifying this a bit— previous viewers of this work may notice familiar set-ups. Those set-ups are easy though; I've thought about them over time, and it rarely takes me more than a couple of minutes to get things ready. Pick up the camera and shoot has been my main credo for a very long time. I don't like to think too much when I'm shooting. I prefer to keep moving.

When I'm editing, though, is when I do my thinking. I ask myself questions, in order to pick the best images. Does this image tell a story? It doesn't even matter to me if a viewer imagines something different than I intended, as long as the image has the ingredients to get an imagination flowing. Does this image elicit an emotion? My favorite photographs are always the ones that evoke a feeling or a memory, transporting you to another place and time. Often this means avoiding the obvious shot... I try to capture the moments that reflect the story of someones individual experience to create something unique. Is the approach creative? I define "creative" as an image that goes beyond predictable techniques and treatments. In more specific terms, the best creative images show subjects through the photographers' eyes and perspective. In other words, I try to reveal my subject in extraordinary ways— ways that the viewer otherwise would not have seen. Is it deliberate and purposeful? Every element in my images should have a purpose (even if an abstract one). Nothing should exist just because “that’s how the scene looked”. The highest expression of photography is to make the whole image considered and intentional— capturing the world in such a way that your vision and emotion are seamlessly conveyed to a viewer. If anything in your image looks unnecessary, or it distracts from your goal for the photo, I'm not making the most of a scene.

Michiko

I tend to look for an unusual point of view. I love a point of view like this. To me, it seems to force the viewer into the image and become part of the image. When you shoot from below, typically a subject can make the viewer feel as though the subject is in control of a situation. The simple act of looking up at a subject/object can impart a loss of control or the idea that the object is unobtainable.

Rose

This is a one hundred percent unashamedly inspired homage to George Hurrell portraits from the 30's & 40's. George Edward Hurrell (1904 – 1992) was the foremost practitioner of the glamour idiom in photography and helped to create the standard for the idealized Hollywood glamour portrait. He invented the boom light (like used here) and is credited with developing other innovative lighting and darkroom techniques. While his photography was generally considered commercial photography during his career, he is now rightfully considered a pioneer in the history of photography.