In the second of two guest articles, award-winning photographer David A Williams shares his thoughts on studio spaces. For those of you who may have missed it, you can find his first article on wedding photography HERE.

Studio thoughts

(I’m going to share my experience of a small studio. Obviously, if you plan on a ‘get-em-in, get-em-out’ studio – your choices and needs will be different. And I can’t help you there.) A Studio is just a room. Its just a room where we make pictures. Any room is a studio.  Bear with me here… If you walk into a studio (which is after-all only a room) and the background is set up at one end, where must the camera go? where must the lights go? and where do your subjects go?

Forgive me for raising my voice here but: WHERE is the Creativity?

I simply have a room. I can move chairs, couches and tables – the walls are ragged/painted. If I need a light, I set one up.

Think of it this way… how many of us love shooting location work? Why? I would suggest it’s because we photograph in depth. My studio does that precisely because I have no fixtures that dictate to me what I must do.

Find a building or room that faces north. Use daylight. Frontally, or side or whatever.
Use One Studio light with a dirty great big softbox or preferably a Larson starfish or equivalent. One light. Use silver (not gold, not white) reflectors. Did I mention use one light? (there is only one in the sky). Do NOT bolt anything to your ceiling or walls – do NOT use scissor lifts etc. Especially if you want to aim for, or maintain a casual style of work.

What I’m challenging on is the concept that you MUST have this type of setup, or that you must have multiple lights to make great portraits. When I started in photography, I was told I should have at least three studio lights. Daunting, expensive and not quite correct. Fortunately, my father educated me that the work I most liked used one light (David Bailey, Snowdon, Irving Penn et al).

(Pretty much everything you ever see of mine is one light… FWIW)

My reception area IS my studio. Why would I take people from lovely light and nice furniture to another environment when its all right there to start with?

Think of it this way, why do we love environmental portraiture? Depth is one reason, a natural feel to the background is another. Personally, I appreciate really good environmental portraiture more that work against a background.

I did a series of ‘mentor’ lectures throughout Asia and India for Kodak a while ago…it was a very interesting experience. Every wanna-be photographer goes to a studio to learn.
Every Studio has five lights.
Very few Studios know how to use those five lights.
They use black backgrounds.
The lighting pattern as taught, is hairlight too bright, sidelight too bright and the rest totally flat.
I was photographed in a ’studio’ that was less than 8ft square with five lights.

During one of the seminars I shot a model, low angle, in a hotel at the bottom of some steps, with a single light and a car sunblock screen for a reflector. I dragged the shutter to incorporate the towering garden foyer and ’splashed’ colour up the stairs with a little flash wrapped in unexposed but processed film.

The resulting ‘kodak-roid’ (fuji disguised) when pealed apart caused absolute consternation, admiration and wonder. “Be-yoo-tifool Mr.Williams” “So ravishing M.Williams” “The quality is incrediable Mr. Williams”……..

The final comment from the guy most vocal in his admiration floored me: “But Mr. Williams, this isn’t professional photography – it hasn’t got five lights!”

My final comment on this subject is this:
A studio is simply a place where you make a controlled image. It’s an area out of the rain, nothing more. You don’t have to listen to music only in a music room. You don’t need a special shed to do carpentry. It should therefore be as versatile and as simple as possible. Make your decisions based on what is a natural extension of your wedding work. If you do beautifully controlled posed wedding work in the best tradition, your studio will need to reflect that. If you’re casual and PJ…..?

And yes, in Australia (southern Hemisphere) we look for south light.

A writer interviewing Snowdon was enjoying the comfortable ambience in the room were they were talking. He then said to Snowdon, “Perhaps we could look at your studio now?”

Snowdon replied “You’re sitting in it”

You can make wonderful clip together light diffusers. I haunt ‘Schmattah’ (sorry if that’s spelt wrong) that is, fabric shops. A simple curtain will probably cost less, and be less invasive of your area.

“Good portraiture has nothing to do with how many lights you have, how strong they are, and what brand they are….it has everything to do with the QUALITY of the light you have – and how you modify it, no matter how small.”

His name gets overly used in relation to portraiture, but what lighting system did Rembrandt use? What about Reynolds, Lely, Rubens, Van Dyck? …imagine:

“Mr. Rijn, (I so admire your work, and I’m just starting out in painting) what hair light did you use on that portrait of a man in a hat?”

It isn’t about multiple lights, it isn’t about expensive props, it’s about the subject, the light, the ideas and the expression.

Just further to my quotation about the quality of light, let me explain further, and the hotel light bulb point is part of it… A candle has a certain style of light, early morning light is a different quality to late afternoon (and a different colour) direct sun was something I avoided until I was exposed (sorry no pun intended) to the work of the Western Australian photographers…

We know that all of these light sources have widely diverse characteristics and intensities. Knowing how and when to use these, and how to replicate them in the studio environment is more important.

My point is that it makes sense to explore what you have to work with first, before you go accumulating gear which may or may not suit your requirements, environment usage, intent or throughput.

Throughout my involvement with photography, I always felt a new camera, lens,or a new light would improve my photography. It’s taken almost 30 years for me to fully understand my Dad’s maxim about simplicity.

A female photographer told me she has just acquired a great reception area filled with natural light.  I would really like to see what she comes up with… especially with her eye. Maybe she could show us what she does with a single diffuse studio light in the same position as the window?

Don’t get me too wrong – I love the studio, but I agree we can take it too far… there’s a little thought:

Why do Americans love making films in Australia & New Zealand? One of the reasons is that in the ‘States you have a team of brilliant lighting technicians that can direct 10 gigawatts of totally pristine light replacing and controlling the light existing on the scene’… ‘In Australia, we’re used to the last actor on the set leaving the door open’ (it’s a joke by the way…)

Not all existing light is wonderful, nor is all studio light. It’s down to the individual. At some time there will be a return to the Studio. How we respond to that will ensure our future. The biggest mistake we could make is to return to what has been done, rather than learn from other sources.

We found our portrait market decaying due to over-promotion 10 years ago. Many studios were producing work which simply didn’t compete with the in-store photographer (not different enough). I personally think that there will always be a demand for Studio photography, but I look to the beautiful editorial portraiture from ‘Vanity Fair’ and the like for direction.

For me, (and this is just my opinion) I don’t think the future lies with the standard lighting set-up, standard backgrounds, and standard poses. (BUT to know all of this is vital).

Many Aussie studios who experimented with glamour photography used exactly the same lighting they would for families – no study of Hollywoods Hurrell, Bull or Hesse, no study of Horst or Parkinson, no study of Schrebnezki, Bailey, Lategan or Scauvello. If they’d studied (particularly the latter) they would have realised that the lighting is the simplest you can find, and is not reliant on gobs of make-up and cheesy gauze to make a woman look superb.

I believe there will be a demand for the elegance of Norman Parkinson pictures from the 50’s – it’s already appearing in editorial portraiture… Are we ready?

Bookmark This:

verb – To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.[dictionary.com]

It’s almost impossible to avoid reading or hearing about the “financial crisis” of World economies, and all the doom & gloom that is to follow.  It’s also difficult to avoid feeling some sense of insecurity and fear…and guess what, you’re not the only one.

So, what can we do?  There are many ways out of this storm.  For me, it’s to team up with other like-minded people and together, I believe, we can survive and then prosper on the up-swing.  This is what I find special and encouraging about 4togsblog.co.uk.  In fact, 4togsblog was the root for an initiative that I’ve recently started called United Photographers, a site for creative wedding photographers in Cape Town, South Africa.  At the heart of United Photographers, is a blog aggregator.

While, 4togsblog looks at the social lives of it’s members (much like Mammoth Men), I took the concept and applied it to the business of photography…in my case, wedding photography.  What if you collaborated with 10 of the most creative wedding photographers in your city?  How true would it be to be judged by the company you keep?

So, why would you want to mix with the competition?  Well, if you’re offering the exact same service/product, then there’s competition.  However, if there’s diversity, then it’s not competition…just opportunity.  Opportunity to cast a wide net and feed off each others opportunities and in the era of SEO, blog aggregation is a funnel for web traffic.

To conclude, I encourage you to look out for examples of collaboration between “competitors”.  You can leave them as comments to this post.

Bookmark This:

Firstly I realise that I’m a girl posting on a blog full of men and I’m about to tell you why female photographers are so much better for boudoir, I’m aware I might just get shot but hey I can take it.

OK, so if you don’t know what Boudoir photography is all about it’s been around for a while but lately it’s getting picked up everywhere.

Boudoir is about you, yes girls that’s you, it’s about being sexy, it’s about being fierce, it’s about celebrating the woman that you are!

So there are male photographers who do boudoir and I’ve seen some great stuff shot by men but can a man really get into the mind of a woman? You know the old adage that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, well I think that’s a pretty true statement.  As a woman I know when I photograph my clients how they want to look and feel and I also know that we women have hang-ups that men don’t even notice. A woman might be a size 8 and still hate her tummy and as I woman I thoroughly understand that, and I think women are more open with women than they are with men.

Hey, I have pretty much an all male group of friends but if I’m ever going to have a boudoir shoot I wouldn’t in a month of Sundays hire a guy.  I trust that women know how women want to look and it’s usually a whole lot different than the way men think they want to look. Essentially boudoir isn’t salacious, it’s not even in the slightest bit slutty and it’s only suggestive if the woman wants it to be.

I also have lumps and bumps (and more than most I hasten to add) and it’s posing by a woman for other women that ensures that my ladies end up with photographs that they love so much they want to share them with their partners and in some cases the entire world.

I truly believe that the male psyche cannot ever understand female body hang-ups because the average man doesn’t ever have them, when was the last time you spoke to a man who was worried about the way his tummy or boobs looked, hell men don’t even have boobs so how can they appreciate how we women feel about them, and believe me when I say that men have a different way of thinking about them than we females.

So I realise now that this posting may be slightly controversial but when I first approached the guys about guest blogging I was told to think of something thought provoking and I really hope this has been, I would love to hear your opinions (male and female) can men ever compete in the world of boudoir and do they understand the needs and wants of women seeking boudoir photography?

Bookmark This:

It seems that my images from our recent beer train adventure are destined to stay in the camera for a while yet. Intense fatigue, brought about in part from the quaffing of ale, meant that I didn’t find time to process them last night. In the meantime, lets crack on with our series of guest articles…

Mandy Charlton is a successful wedding, portrait and boudoir photographer based in the North-East of England. She has been solely responsible for building her own unique brand in a relatively short space of time, and her vibrant style makes her work immediately recogniseable (and occasionally copied!).

Mandy prides herself on her relaxed style, and the beautiful images that result from it. Her children’s portraits are particularly wonderful and provide a wonderful keepsake of a child’s development.

More of Mandy’s work can be seen on her website.

Bookmark This:

A busy weekend ahead for the 4 Togs… Leeds Beer Festival this evening, followed tomorrow by a 4 Togs recreation of Oz & James’ Beer Train Adventure. Cameras will be very much in evidence, but we can give no assurances on quality!

In addition to that, we have an article on Boudoir photography from Newcastle-based Mandy Charlton, the second in a series of articles from David A. Williams and news of a very interesting photography project that is going to be open to absolutely everyone.

Please keep checking back for more information, or follow us on Twitter: @4togsblog

Bookmark This:

Horst P Horst said something to the effect that the quality of the image “…has to do with eye appeal”.

Eliot Erwit, in an interview with Australian photographer Peter Adams, said:
“Good photography is not about zone printing or any other Ansell Adams nonsense. It’s about seeing. You either see or you don’t see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more”.

Okay…..I don’t fully agree with the Ansell Adams bit, but I do agree with the principle behind Erwit’s rather forceful statement.

I entered wedding and portrait photography when Monte (Zucker – website here) and the other wonderful guys from America were trying to educate us Aussie clods about posing and lighting. And they did a terrific job of it too. Most quality Aussie photographers owe a lot to Monte, Leon Kennamer and the like.

And quite so. Wonderfully simple lighting concepts (most of the time) and effective, elegant posing (all of the time) and above all else – animation and life in the subjects (something many photographers have forgotten in the search for perfect pose and perfect light!)

Here’s where my quote comes in: “Good Wedding photography is not about complicated posing, painted backdrops, sumptuous backgrounds or five lights used brilliantly. It is about expression, interaction and life! The rest is secondary”.

Elliot Erwit also said: ‘All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for an inability to notice’.

(If I seem to quote lots of other photographers, it’s not me showing off, it’s simply a reflection of the richness of information already dispersed to us…we just don’t always remember. Or study. It’s also often easier to pin our hopes of greatness on a new lens, or another light)

But the most blindingly simple thing anyone ever said to me about Wedding photography, was also this simplest: “Weddings are a social ritual. What makes a Wedding different from all the other social rituals? How do you show someone a Wedding who has no idea what this event involves, or how it progresses”?
(Tony Whincup Anthropologist, New Zealand Master of Photography and educator in photography.)

You see I’d been led to believe that Wedding photography was all about the right pose, the right light and a written-down series of manufactured images.

And it truly is. But that is the beginning, not the pinnacle.

For me, the most important aspect in photographing a Wedding is involving yourself with the event and the people. It’s about the vivacity, the interactions and sheer life force that is bought to the surface. (I just love it when people think I’m a friend of the couple they just haven’t met yet, which happens to do photography!)

If you’ve studied and practised posing, observing lighting, and learned to assess an environment you’re halfway there. But how good are the images going to be if your priorities are with the technical, and not with the activity happening before you?

A beautifully posed and lit image of a subject who has gone dead-behind-the-eyes is exactly that. The subject has no FEELING in, or for the image. They may agree they look good, and in the absence of an alternative – they will accept the image.

There is nothing wrong with an image construction. Advertising photographers deal with it everyday. But still we come back to the essential of a people picture that goes far beyond technique. And that is the photographer giving life to the creation they have assembled. Otherwise, why would so many people say, so often, and with such conviction that they like “caught” images of themselves rather than the posed?

I challenge you to think of the eyes and entire body language of a person. You know when an attractive person is REALLY relating to you?…and you also know when that same attractive person is suffering from “The lights are on but no-ones at home”.

People go “dead-behind-the-eyes”. And it is the mark of the true Master photographer that you can see the life within – even in a solemn or reserved portrait.

Great looking people still have to be animated in a positive way to look great. The pose is a contributing factor to the success of the image – not the be-all and end-all.

We only have to look at the brilliant portraits made for such magazines as “Vanity Fair” to understand the importance of interaction and communication between photographer and subject.

Lastly,

The most distressing thing to hear from any photographer is that they’ve “Seen it all before”. Sad, because that means there’s nothing left to see. It’s something I try to never say, although I might well suggest great familiarity with it all. Every wedding has a skeletal resemblance, but the musculature is always different. Saying you’ve seen it all before removes your ability to react to, and respond to wonderful interactions. It makes you cynical. Cynicism is one of the greatest contributors to a lack of creativity. And if you cannot be creative – then how can you gain satisfaction and enjoyment from an occupation based on creativity?

In this day and age it surprises me that so many photographers believe there is only one attitude, one way of doing something, and one acceptable result. Take digital for example. The number of well-educated and experienced photographers who say, “The only way to get quality is on film” is unbelievable. They have obviously distanced themselves from the information and education surrounding digital. Or is it clinging to the known out of fear of the unknown? Are we afraid of having to learn new things and of being the “new boy again?”. I think the answer, for many of us, (sadly) is yes.

Bookmark This: