Brief background:  If you’re not familiar with what “raw” is, it’s the camera’s native image storage format.  It’s the digital equivalent of a negative.  And, for the record, raw is not an acronym, so stop writing it in all caps!

Software programs (e.g., Lightroom 2) have allowed us to make just about as many changes to a JPEG (that is an acronym) as to a raw file.  So it no longer really matters.

Get it right in the camera and file format is irrelevant.  A raw file is a digital negative.  So start thinking of it as a negative.  Once you fully embrace the philosophy that you need to get it right in the camera, your post processing time will be greatly reduced.

So.  Why do those photographers tell ya to “shoot in raw”?  Simple.  Programs do allow a (however slight) greater range of changes to a raw file as to a JPEG.  Also, JPEG is a “lossy compression” based file format.  That means that data is literally thrown away when you save an image as a JPEG (either on your computer or in your camera).  The amount is dependent upon the settings used when saving that JPEG.  You have some control over this when you save a JPEG on your computer, but you have no control over this on your camera.

What changes can you make?  Easy.  Name something.  Did you not get the exposure correct in the camera?  (Shame on ya, meter better next time.  lol)  Programs (I’ll just use Lightroom from now on) allow you to “correct” the exposure by up to 4 stops of exposure.  It’s been my experience that anything beyond about 1.5 stops “recovery” is iffy.  I’ve personally never been able to get good results from anything beyond 2 stops.  Let’s face it.  If you’re off by that much, you screwed up royally.  Yes.  I’ve been there.  I’ve done that.  We all have at some point.  It’s not the job of software to cover our asses — that’s our job as photographers.

White-balance is another common area of post-processing correction of screw ups that shooting in raw format allows you to fix — if you can correctly see color.  If you can’t — and 15-20% of the population has some form of color blindness — then you need to use some mechanical means to set the white-balance.  A popular method is to use a gray card.  I personally don’t like this method as most often it is used as a post-processing-only method.  (Sure, you can use it to set the white-balance in-camera, but that requires changing the vantage point by zooming in to fill the frame with the card… and really, how often is that possible or easy.)

My preferred method of white-balance is to use an ExpoDisc.  This makes it very simple to get the correct white-balance — providing you have access to your subject’s location under the lighting condition you’ll be shooting with. Yeah.  A couple of pretty big prerequisites.  But no different than using the gray-card method.  The nice thing about the ExpoDisc, is that it’s an in-camera-only solution.  I have the white-balance set correctly when I press the shutter — most of the time.

Occasionally the color balance will change over the course of a shoot.  This means that the white-balance setting from the start of the shoot will not be correct for later in the shoot.  When that happens, you’re stuck trying to white-balance in post — unless you have access to the subject’s location during the shoot (which isn’t the case for music performances).  In those situations, shooting in raw doesn’t fix the white-balance for you.  If you’re like me, you’re stuck guessing.  Sure, I use something that’s in the image that I think is white, black, or neutral gray, but I’m never 100% sure.

Shooting in raw doesn’t fix anything — you have to do it yourself.  So get it right in the camera and you won’t have to fix it.

Prime lens:  a lens with a single focal length (e.g., 50mm*)
Zoom lens:  a lens that has an adjustable focal length (e.g., 19-35mm)

Zoom lenses make it so much easier to photograph subjects.  They allow you to change the focal length to either include more or less of the scene.  Prime lenses, on the other hand, require that you, the photographer, physically change position in order to control what is included.

Prime lenses, purportedly, do a better job at producing tack sharp images at their focal length than a zoom at the same focal length.  I personally don’t feel this is as big of a difference as it may have been at some point in the past, and it certainly shouldn’t be your only reason for buying a set of primes over a zoom.

It’s been my experience, however, that prime lenses are less expensive than zooms, when you compare “lens” to “lens”.  They’re simply less complex lenses and therefore require less “stuff”, so don’t cost as much to manufacture.  However, prime lenses are much more expensive than zooms when you compare “focal length” to “focal length”.  Why?  Because you’ll have to buy several primes, but only one zoom, to achieve the same focal range.

Q: So, why do I even have a prime lens at all?  You certainly sound like a zoom advocate.
A: Well, I sound that way, because I am.  I love my zooms and wouldn’t trade them for a whole slew of primes for anything.  The reason I have the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens that I have is twofold: 1) it’s just a newer version of the very first lens that I ever used on an SLR; and 2) it was $80, so it was “very affordable” to buy as a “toy”.  I honestly didn’t have any need for it when I got it, and it actually sat in my camera bag for several months before I even took it out to play with it at all.  I guess I was figuring on using it just to experiment around with the very small depth of field (DoF) that it would allow me to achieve.

Q: Are you regretting buying it?  You kind of sound that you are.
A: Heck no!  I’m glad I got it when I did.  Shortly after I bought this lens, the price jumped to where it is now:  $100.  I’ve also found that it’s a good low-light lens… and that’s what I primarily use it for.  Somewhere back around when I ordered it, I stopped shooting “art” — and since that was the purpose I had in mind (small DoF) I didn’t have a use for it.  Jump forward to today, and I’m once again wanting that small DoF.  However, this time it’s for portraiture instead of “flowers and such” (AKA “art”).

Q: Would you recommend buying a prime lens?
A: Sure.  Just not as your only lens.  Shooting with a prime requires a different mentality that can be challenging at first, especially if you’re like me and very used to zoom lenses (heck, even our cell phone cameras have zooms).  If you have some extra money, love photography for the sake of photography, love pushing your boundaries, then by all means get a prime lens.  Just don’t do like I did and let it “gather dust” for a few months.  Stick it on your camera and go out and shoot.  Leave the zooms to home so you’re forced to use that single lens.  It’ll change how you view the world.

* Note:  50mm is, in the 35mm film/digital world, also a “normal lens” meaning that it gives a view of the world very similar to what we see with our own eyes.

Historically heavy rains over the weekend of May 1st and 2nd created a disastrous situation in the Middle Tennessee area.

Nashville is just one of many communities affected by these storms and the Cumberland River is just one of several that overflowed into peoples’ homes and businesses creating an incalculable financial loss to the region.

These are my, ever so few, shots of this devastation and were taken with the utmost care to remain out of the way of all rescue/repair workers and transportation to these locations was either foot or bicycle.

LP Field's southern entrance and parking lots	LP Field's southern entrance and parking lots
Kayaking through the LP Field parking lots by Shelby Ave.	Kayaking through the LP Field parking lots by Shelby Ave.
4th Ave & Demonbreun, home to the Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum where countless irreplacable artifacts, that depict the history of country music, are displayed.	It's got to be a bad sign when water is coming out of cracks with that much pressure.
The entrance to the parking lot beneath Hall of Fame Park and our barely broken in Schermerhorn Symphony Center.	Pumping out the flooded parking lot beneath Hall of Fame Park
Pumping out the flooded parking lot beneath Hall of Fame Park	Reflections of once beautiful, now flooded, buildings in a pond that once was a street.
Reflections of once beautiful, now flooded, buildings in a pond that once was a street.	This poor displaced critter came wondering across the bridge, saw a bunch of people, and headed back.
The peacefulness of this scene belies the width of the river at this point.	Trunks of trees floating past LP Field, the river normally ends at the trees on the opposite bank.
Riverfront Park is completely underwater. Only the tops of a couple of flag poles remain poking thru the water. The depth guage is completely submerged with the 51.9 ft water depth.	Debris floating down the Cumberland as evil looking eddies form above Riverfront Park.

If you don’t have steady paying clients, fear can begin creeping into your mind.  Fear about where your next rent check or car payment will come from can be a very strong paralyzing emotion.  This can lead you to selling all of your equipment and giving up on your dreams.

I’ve been close.

Very close.

Several times.

If you are finding yourself close to that point, I highly recommend reading this article in Rangefinder Magazine about Atlanta-based music/editorial photographer Zack Arias:  http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0410_Arias_Smith.pdf If you aren’t familiar with Zack’s work, check it out… and take a look inside his mind on his blog.

I read that article recently and found myself reading an article about a photographer who has overcome a lot over the last few years to become one of the better photographers who I’ve encountered online.  I also found myself realizing that the only thing stopping me from achieving the level of success Zach has — or more — is my own fear of failure.

Fear, however, can be a motivator.

Fear of loosing our work can lead us to develop better backup systems.

Fear of equipment damage can lead us to develop better equipment handling, storing, and transporting methods or procedures.

Fear of missing the “perfect shot” can lead us to become better photographers.  Instincts become honed to know when the decisive moment will happen or what camera settings are required or even what equipment is needed.  (Having the lens cap off is a good start.)

Don’t let fear control your life, but do let it guide you.

What to Call Yourself

When you are starting out, you might not want to split your photography into multiple entities since you might not be sure of which genres you will ultimately decide upon.  This might work, but it also might lead to problems depending on which genres you attempt and your particular client base.

Some Genres Don’t Mix

If you are even remotely considering trying to do any form of Glamour Photography, stop and think about it.  You might not have any problems with the genre, but what I’ve found is that glamour does not mix with any other genre well.  Let me say that again:  Do not try and shoot glamour under the same business name as any other genre.  The fashion folks look down on anything glamour related.  Also, most folks look at glamour as “porn” — especially the Erotic Photography side of Glamour — and don’t want to be associated with that genre, even remotely.

You should have the point by now — Glamour needs to be done, even if only temporarily to see if you want to pursue it further, as a totally separate entity disassociated from any of your other photography.  But if you don’t have the point yet, think with your wallet.  I know that my attempting Glamour in the past cost me a paid job in the Music field.  And the rule that I understand is that for every known complaint there are several where they simply didn’t bother letting you know.  So, I figure that attempt at Glamour has cost me a lot of work with musicians.

Fashion Photography that includes nudity (or even lots of skin, e.g., swimsuits or lingerie) should be treated the same as Glamour.  All other Fashion Photography will be discussed later.

I’ve been told, but I don’t know from personal experience, that Wedding Photography is another genre that requires being “stand-alone” — meaning, not mixed with other genres — as people, rightly so, want a wedding shooter who knows the ins-and-outs of a wedding.  And they feel that if you shoot more than just weddings, you might not have the “specialized” knowledge necessary to capture their special day.  I personally don’t have any experience with this, since I made the decision at the beginning that I would not shoot weddings.

Some Genres Do Mix (Sorta)

Music and Fashion photography do mix (sorta).

As I indicated earlier, there are certain types of Fashion Photography (those that involve nudity, lots of skin, swimwear, or lingerie) that do not mix with other genres.  I will be discussing the other types of Fashion (e.g., runways, editorial, and advertisement).

Music Performances and Fashion Runways are similar in that they are both live events that progress quickly and therefore may be shot in a similar (technical) manner, but that is about the extent of the similarities.  The resulting images have not just different uses, but different looks.

The Fashion Photography you see in advertisements, catalogs, and magazines does have a similar look to the types of Promotional shots used in the Music Industry.  It is this type of Fashion Photography that mixes well with Music Photography.  The posing is different.

Some Genres Play Well With Others

Lifestyle Photography seems to be a genre that plays well with all other genres, even if those other genres don’t play well in return.  Lifestyle Photography is just about putting people in real life resembling situations so that the conditions (e.g., model, wardrobe, lighting) may be controlled.  This is something that is highly utilized by Wedding, Music, Fashion, and even Glamour photographers.

I spent several years, back in college, driving around the countryside taking pictures of anything and everything that looked interesting.  I spent literally hours standing on the side of roads taking pictures of rivers running through swamps, tree covered roads, or barns.  Somewhere in all of those shutter clicks I grew to learn how the camera worked to the point that it became an extension of my arm — not something that I was holding, but part of me.  I also learned that I was tired of the subject material I’d shot hundreds of times and looked for other material.  I found that in one of the honor societies I joined in the form of people — headshots and event photography.

Jump forward a few years, another several hundred rolls of film (yeah, mostly of plants, animals, and the occasional event), and I found myself living in Nashville, TN where I was going to a lot of music performances and concerts with some friends — camera in tow to all of them.  I found that I loved shooting music.  The friends I had then thought I was good and told me I should give it a try professionally.  I didn’t.  Not for a few years.

During those years I had become exposed to a large group of other photographers whose vast array of talent — and primary genres — influenced me in more ways than could ever be put into words.  But it was from that exposure that lead me to give model photography a try — particularly Glamour Photography.

Glamour led to Fashion Photography thanks to some of the models I met while trying to eke out a portfolio.

Fashion, and the Performance Photography I continued to do for fun, led to Music Promotional Photography — which I define as being anything other than live performance shots used to promote musicians (think headshots and album artwork).

Trouble with the perception of Glamour among people in the Music and Fashion industries led me to diverge away from the Glamour genre.

Trouble with connecting to (or fitting in with) the Fashion Industry (as little as it may be) here in Nashville has effectively driven me away from the Fashion genre — at least as long as I live in Nashville.

Nashville is Music City.  So when in Rome… um… when in Nashville, do something with the Music Industry.

In part two, I’ll discuss attempting to mix genres under the same business banner.

I just found that recently happened to me.  I changed the focusing mode from “One Shot” to “AI Focus” for a bit on Saturday, since I was shooting moving objects, but forgot to change it back before my in-studio shoot (meaning stationary subject) on Sunday.  As a result, several of the shots weren’t focused correctly thanks to the camera thinking the subject was moving as a result of my focus-then-reframe shooting style.  Needless to say, I’m pissed.  Fortunately I think there’s enough where it didn’t refocus after I reframed to make the shoot worthwhile — and not have to re-shoot.

So…

Checklists.  Make one.  Print a copy out for each shoot and use it.

Here’s what I’m suggesting be on it:

• Camera
  • Batteries charged
  • Batteries installed
  • Card in camera
  • Card cleared off
  • Sensor clean & free of dust or smudges
• Camera Settings
  • ISO
  • Focus mode
  • Motor drive mode
  • White balance
  • Shutter speed
  • Aperture
  • Bracketing
  • Diopter
• Lens(es)
  • Auto-focus/Manual switch
  • Clean & free of dust or smudges
• Meter
  • Batteries still good (enough charge)
  • Batteries installed
  • Proper ISO selected
  • Proper mode selected
• Flash(s)
  • Batteries still good (enough charge)
  • Batteries installed
• Strobe(s)
  • Power output setting
  • Modeling light bulb still works
  • Strobe tube still works

If you can suggest any other items, please leave those suggestions in comments.

I’ve been pleased with the results, but have been wanting to change things up.  So, during my last shoot, I pulled out my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for part of the session.  I followed my “gut” and set the lights at f/2.8.  This required that I swap out one of my AlienBees B800′s with a B400 (which has half the output of the B800).  I think someone was trying to tell me that I didn’t really want to shoot at f/2.8, but I chose not to listen.

What I didn’t like:

Had I listened to that voice in my head, or had I checked with a Depth of Field (DoF) calculator (like this one:  http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), I would’ve had better luck.  As it is, I’m finding a lot of shots that are unusable as a result of the extremely small DoF (about 1-2 inches for some of the shots).  Some of the shots have only one eye in focus, others have only the nose in focus.

What I did like:

The colors in those images seem “warmer” (at least to my eyes) and “better.”  It’s hard for me to explain, since I have “color deficient vision” (which most of you know as “colorblindness”).  That condition makes it hard for me to pick up on slight color casts or subtle changes (such as the difference between incandescent and fluorescent lights).  So, I tend to shy away from lengthy discussions on colors.

There were a few lighting changes that I made to get the room “dark” enough to get the meter reading I wanted, one was swapping out the primary light for a less powerful one, another was moving the secondary light further away, the third was turning off the background lights.  I also know that the ambient light wasn’t registering on my meter.  So, I don’t know what caused it, but I like the look it gave.  Maybe with further testing I could figure out the cause… and it’s very possible that it’s simply that the very soft gray background (as a result of unlit white paper) is just giving an optical illusion of additional “warmth” or color “depth” — or whatever is the right term.

I also really liked — and this is the reason that I wanted to try shooting with a wide aperture — the way the shallow DoF gently softened the shoulders, arms, etc.  In the perfect shots, the eyes and most of the face are tack-sharp and everything else is gently blurred.

What I’ll have to try the next time:

The next time I do this, now that I’ve crunched some numbers with that DoF calculator, I’ll have to try shooting at f/4 or f/4.5 and see how that turns out.  What that should do for me is nearly double the amount that’s in focus, which should make it easier to keep the subject’s face in focus yet blurring the rest of the body.

On a side note, unrelated to the wide aperture bit, I’ll also have to start shooting w/o lighting the white paper more often.

What I recommend:

If you’ve always wanted to try something, stop wanting and do it.  You might not get the results you want the very first time, but you’ll at least know if you want to try it again.

If you’re having trouble getting something set the way that you think you want, stop for a moment and consider the possibility that what you think might be the wrong thing to do.

In the end, trust your gut.  It’ll guide you better than any seminar, book, or blog.  What I mean by that is that a lot of sources told me to light the studio brighter — thus my shooting up around f/10 most of the time — but my gut was telling me to shoot darker.  I finally listened to my gut and was pleased with the results.  Sure, there were more “throw-aways” (some might’ve had better expressions), but the overall result I am very happy with.

However, I do *love* location shots — I’d do ‘em more if I had the $$$ to secure location shooting permits or rent out locations. (rant/ I’m *not* a fan of the “guerrilla” shooting that some photographers do… be legal, get permits… you’re just giving the rest of use a bad rep. & making it harder to do shoots. /rant)

OK… so… location… back to your question.

Yes, for me it does depend on the model… or musician, for that matter.

I’m a huge fan of the “Eastern Block” countries… the architecture there is amazing. Lening… um… Saint Petersburg, Russia (and general area) has some locations where I’d really love to do shoots. So do Odessa, Ukraine; Budapest, Hungary; Bratislava, Slovakia; and the castles of Romania.

Quite honestly, I’d be just as pleased doing a bikini shoot on the Malibu coast as I would if I was in some exotic (and therefore, at least travel-wise, expensive) location.

A fashion shoot on the edge of one of the canyons out west would be great.

The dry lake beds of CA & NV are stunning… and I’d like to shoot on ‘em, but they’ve almost been shot to death (meaning they’re cliche).

Wherever (or I should say, whenever) I do shoot, I try to preserve the integrity, culture, history, and traditions of the location. I also try and leave no trace behind, or leave the location in a better condition than it was when I arrived.

http://www.formspring.me/JonWarrenPhoto/q/312838231