Grace

Something that I rarely do— I planned this shot out ahead of time, magazine cover style, purposely leaving ample negative space at the top for the type. I've actually done a couple of calendars for hire in the past, one of which was girls in bikinis on motorcycles... you won't be seeing any of those on this blog.

Jade Vixen

To most people, vintage photos are often interesting simply because they're old. There's an other-worldliness to relics of past eras. It's exotic. It's like how a foreign accent makes someone more alluring and attractive. It’s that mystical feeling you get looking at an old castle or cathedral. It's not a part of your general everyday experience and therefore it's enchanting. Likewise, we tend to associate authenticity with the style of a bygone photo because they have stood the test of time. They describe a world past— and, as such, they have earned a sense of importance. In short, this probably sums up why I enjoy making my own images look like they are actually vintage. The key is that they have to definitely look genuinely classic in every way, down to every detail— otherwise, the illusion is broken...

Suhanisa

Color or b&w— the dilemma. Personally, I indulge more into b&w. I've always done both, though. With film, you had to decide beforehand. With digital, you can compare both, and go with what you think works better. You still have to make that decision, though. I started this blog five years ago with the conscious decision to keep it all monochrome here, as a way of forcing myself to stick to some strict rules. One less thing to think about... and it looks like I'm passionate about something at the same time. Which I am— I'm lazy and passionate at the same time! This work tends to lend itself more to monochrome anyway... but sometimes an image does work better in color (or sepia). If that is the case, I typically don't include it here. Why show an inferior version?

Sonia

How did it happen that clicking "like" has become the highest response to art? I don’t want you to “like” my art. I want you slow down and be moved by it. I want to make you think. To perhaps make you uncomfortable. I want it to raise questions. Or stir people to wonder. If not my art, well, then the art of someone else... and I want your art to do the same. It’s a noble and worthy goal. Part of the way that I started down the road of this craft was tearing images from magazines and putting them into scrapbooks. I collected photography books. I revered those images. I lived with them and thought about them for years. I knew the names of the men and women that made those incredible images and I wondered what it would take to be as them. It never occurred to me to ask what lens they used because I suspected deep down that whatever it took to makes those images was so much more a part of the artists themselves than the particular gear. It had something to do with determination, grit, a stubborn & patient refusal to do anything but whatever it took to make the photograph. I wonder if they got to their best work because they were busy doing it— not posting their initial successes on Instagram instead of digging deeper. Instead of taking the long slow road to mastering a craft. We are not teaching people to revere our work. We’re putting it so quickly into the world and it’s forgotten almost as fast. We’re treating it as though it’s disposable. Shoot. Share. Move on. There so often seems to be so little room on screens for depth. Please understand that this is not a rant against social media. As so many others do, I use it, and it has it's place. No, this is not a rant, it’s a plea— that we transcend social media and do something more with our work. It’s a plea to print our work, and live with it, and be slow to sign it. The way it used to be done, for a good reason. It’s a plea to put it in books or in places we can thoughtfully react to it, not merely consume it as typical mass media. Don't just fluidly scroll through, and occasionally click "Like". Slow down and thoughtfully react.

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