Makeover Vs Portfolios

Help! I've Spent a Fortune For Nothing!

That's something we hear all too often from girls who want to be models.

A whole industry has grown up to exploit those who want to be models but are tragically ignorant about how to start.

If you read some of my earlier posts on the subject of photography for a models portfolio or index cards, then you'll know there are good reasons to invest some time and money in getting pictures that are just right for you.

The problem is, there are a lot of companies who will tell you they can provide high quality photos for your portfolio when actually the work they do, though okay in it's own way, is simply not suitable for that specialised purpose.

In a nutshell, if anyone says to you that they will provide a 'makeover' service for a portfolio, you should run straight for the door! Let me explain why...

Photographs for your portfolio are meant to show you - your look, your versatility and your style. The whole idea of a portfolio shoot is to bring out the best of you, not to hide you. A little image softening or perhaps some light retouching is reasonable but you must be 100% recognisable as yourself. It may be a slightly more glamorous version of the everyday you, but certainly not to the extent that you are hidden.

A makeover hides the real you. Makeup and effects are so artificial that even those close to you will find it hard to recognise you. How can any agency or client assess whether you are suitable for a job if they can't see you properly?

It gets worse. Makeover style services are usually expensive. That's not to say that the charges are unreasonable for the service they provide, just that you don't need or want that. In fact it's the opposite of what you need, yet you'll probably spend a small fortune on it.

That's just crazy.

Now, I'll be 100% upfront here. We at gibsonsphoto.co.uk do provide both portfolio services for models and makeover and personal glamour services, too. We also provide specialised glamour portfolio services and even run a well-respected annual free-to-enter model contest. The point is, we would never tell a modelling hopeful to book a makeover. It might be more profitable for us to do that, but makeovers and personal glamour sessions are strictly for personal fun and enjoyment. Portfolio shoots are for business.

Here's a plan

Let's say you have allocated a budget of £1000 to get your modelling career of the ground. It's not an unreasonably huge sum, in fact it's a tiny amount to invest in a small business, which is how you need to think of yourself.

If that £1000 is meant to cover the cost of a portfolio shoot, making up a book and maybe printing some index cards (though they can wait until you need them to send to clients) as well as making sure you look fit, tanned and healthy, it will disappear like snow on a summer's day. You could easily spend half of it just on train and taxi fares if you have to visit a dozen or more agencies on a few different days.

Go for a makeover session and you'll easily blow that £1000 in one go on pictures that will be useless to you.

Instead, find a professional photographer who is experienced in portfolio work and happy to spend time experimenting with you photographically. He or she may well have thoughts about the type of pictures which would suit you, but you also have to make some decisions about the types of work you want to do. Enter a free modelling contest such as our own London ModelGirl.

If you and your photographer work well together, you may even be able to negotiate a time-for-print or time-for-cd type of deal where you get practice, experience and lots of pictures for free while your photographer gets to try out new photo ideas of his own with you. You'll have less say in the types of pictures that way, but maybe you'll discover new things you would not otherwise have thought of, too.

The point is, you should be aim to have several full sessions in the studio of a couple of hours each, just playing with ideas. See what you enjoy doing and what looks good. Don't expect to get more than a few good pictures from each session, though you might if you work well together.

An experienced professional should be able to advise you on the best ways to hold yourself, improving the appearance of your limbs and body. He or she should be able to help build your confidence and draw out the model inside you.

Oddly enough, this is exactly where a portrait photographer will be much better than someone who usually just deals with professional models.

Many fashion and editorial photographers find it very hard indeed to work with inexperienced models. The big names are often hopeless with ordinary people.

An experienced portrait photographer is much more likely to have both the patience and the people skills to help you make the transition from beginner to experienced model.

But what you don't want is a makeover. That's a completely pointless waste of time and money which won't give you any opportunity to explore your own style and certainly won't give you any usable pictures for your portfolio.

To explore your modelling options at a reasonable cost, just visit us at gibsonsphoto.co.uk/portfolio or the London Glamour Studio.

Do I Need Professionally Taken Photographs in my Modelling Portfolio?

The Misunderstood Modelling Portfolio

New models tend to think that their portfolio is all-important in getting that first agency contract. Yet many agencies seem to downplay the importance of a portfolio. In particular, agencies often cast doubt on the value of professionally-taken  photographs in helping a prospective model get accepted by an agency.

At the same time, photographers and art directors - the people who actually book models - are usually very  much more interested in a model's portfolio, or their z-card. It's hard to imagine anyone actually agreeing to book a model without having seen examples of their work with other professionals.

So what's the truth? Is money spent on good portfolio photographs likely to be an investment or just an unwarranted expense? As a model, do you need professionally-taken portfolio pictures?

This article attempts to deal sensibly with the issue. A lot of people won't like it because it's not in their interests for you to know the truth. But if you're an aspiring model, you should read on and learn the things agencies don't want you to know...

Fact 1 - Agencies are not staffed by creative people

Much as they might like to cast themselves as an important part of the creative industries, the role of an agency is really just that of a bureaucrat. They simply a way of putting the creative people - the photographers and art directors - in contact with the models they want.

Agencies often claim they can spot potential models from any old snapshot, but simple logic says otherwise. Few famous models were taken on by the first agency they contacted. If agency people were so good at spotting raw talent, why would that be?

The fact is agency people can't reliably spot your talent, even when you're standing right in front of them. To suggest an informed decision can be based on any old snapshot is simply farcical.

Fact 2 - Agencies don't make the rules

There's another obvious limitation on agency's expertise - they aren't the people who actually decide which models get work! That is down to the photographers and art directors who book those models.

In truth, agencies only know what look is 'in' by seeing which of their models are being booked. And agencies are often guilty of being far too narrow-minded about the types of models on their books. That means they either won;t even try to find work for you because they don't think your look is 'in' or you'll always be competing with lots of very similar models from the same agency for every job.

Fact 3 - Agencies make their money from you, the model

So, why do agencies so often say 'don't bother getting proper photographs done before contacting us, just send in a snapshot'?

In many cases it's because they have lucrative deals with one or more photographer friends and will earn a cut of the cost of creating your portfolio.

They will most likely organise printing z-cards for you, at your expese. If they have to licence another photographer's images, they won't be able to keep as much of the money they charge you.

Of course, you may well be told you can go to any photographer you like, but if you don't choose one of their people you'll probably be told the pictures are no good...

Sometimes an agency will offer to pay for your portfolio shoot, book and z-cards and take the cost from your future earnings. You might think that suggests they are confident  they can get you work.

The catch is that, as with musicians and record companies, you may be paying back those promotional costs for a long, long time. And you may be exclusively contracted to that one agency for as long as that takes. You end up working mainly to benefit them instead of yourself.


 Fact 4 - The customer is king, so provide what the customer wants

Whatever an agency says to you, they are not able to give you work. That's down to the people who will actually pay the bills. Those are the people you really have to impress. You do that with a great portfolio and with great z-cards.

A portfolio is usually a book of photographs and magazine cuttings. An experienced model will have a portfolio which mainly consists of images of work she has done. A new model necessarily cannot use images from previous jobs as she hasn't done enough, or any at all. Since she has only one portfolio, the pictures are usually original prints or magazine pages so there are no licencing issues to consider. Even if she has plenty of work behind her, she may still want to show photographs of herself doing types of work she aspires to but has not yet done as part of a paid job.

Z-cards are similar. These are most often A5 size glossy cards with one or more pictures on one side and smaller images on the other, plus all the necessary information about the model. It will include her personal details - height, bust, eye colour, hair colour and lots more as well possibly a resume of previous work and a list of work for which she would like to be considered. A z-card will most likely only show pictures which were done for the purpose.

So, we're back to needing good quality photographs in a variety of styles. You'll need to licence them to be  used in that way, but there's no getting away from it. If you want to have a modelling career, you will have to spend a sensible amount of money on good professional portfolio pictures in the styles you want.

Fact 5 - You're a self-employed businesswoman!


The biggest mistake most new models make is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the business itself. As a professional model, you are your own business. You are the only saleable product you have. You must think of yourself as an entrepreneur. If you go into modelling thinking like an employee, you're lost. No-one will pay you if you don't get work. No-one will help you out with advice or expertise unless they expect to gain themselves. And there's no sick or holiday pay, either. It's a tough world out there!


Basically, it's up to you to ensure that whatever you do is in your best interests. Agencies and photographers alike will take exactly the same attitude. Don't expect any favours and you won't be disappointed. Anyone who tells you they put your interests ahead of their own is being at best condescending, at worst downright dishonest.


Fact 6 - When you pay a photographer, you're the customer.


The most obvious advantage of booking a photographer to shoot pictures expressly for your portfolio is that you get to choose the styles you want.


Before you even go near any agencies, you take time to  experiment a little. Discover what suits you, both in terms of your look and your attitudes and preferences.


You need to be brutally honest with yourself at this stage. 

- Don't aim for catwalk and high-fashion work if you aren't tall and slim because you'll just be wasting time and money.


- Equally, don't go into glamour work unless you are totally comfortable with your body being on show.


Even if you're not planning a glamour career, do be aware  that some degree of nudity is mainstream in just about all types of modelling these days. Have you seen a fashion show recently? Or most TV or magazine ads?


Conclusion - The Do's and Don'ts


Do spend a sensible amount of money on getting the right sort of photographs for your portfolio and z-cards.
Don't spend a fortune, but be ready to experiment. That unavoidably means wasting some time and cash.
Don't waste your time approaching agencies with snapshots. You'll get nowhere fast or taken for a fool.
Don't get 'makeover portraits' for a portfolio - that's a complete and very expensive waste of time.
Do think about the types of work you want to do and are likely to be offered and target them ruthlessly.

Good luck!

How Can You Become a Model?

You want to know how to be a Model?

It's a question we seem to get asked lots of times during a promotion such as our ModelGirl contest. It's a natural enough question to ask, but the answer is unfortunately neither clear cut nor simple.

First, decide what you mean by 'a model'

There are basically three types of modeling work:

• Fashion/Advertising/Commercial modelling
• Glamour modelling in all it's varied forms
• Art/Figure modelling

Urgent update 

If glamour modelling appeals to you, you might like to know that The Sun is currently running their annual 'Page 3 Idol' contest.

As you would expect, this is about Page 3 style topless and mainstream nude work for publication in one of the UK's  popular tabloid newspapers. It can be a viable route to making a name for yourself as a model, leading to other types of work later. While the Page 3 Girl is sometimes looked down upon by fashion models, she will most likely be paid far better and have more long-term career opportunities, too.

You will need good quality Page 3 style photographs to send to the newspaper in order to enter, but you can sort those out by entering our ModelGirl contest - choose the Page 3 category by entering at www.gibsonsphoto.co.uk/page3girl

The closing date for entries is not far off - do it today!

Types of Modelling - What's involved?

Fashion, Advertising and Commercial modelling is as old and traditional as the organised selling of goods. For as long as people have been making clothes, trinkets and other goods to be worn or used, models have been employed to demonstrate them. For example, fashion houses used to employ in-house models so that wealthy buyers could see the clothes they were considering purchasing being worn by a person rather than simply displayed. This wasn't a glamorous or special activity, in fact  models were mainly employed for other tasks, modelling only when a client required it.

Products other than clothes also need to be modelled, of course. Everything from earrings to cars, nappies to holiday locations. Models are used to illustrate concepts as diverse as slimming and financial security. In essence, whenever a product or service needs to be presented visually, a model will probably be required.

It's useful to realise that in all these cases, the models themselves are really not important. The idea is to demonstrate and sell the product or service. The model is just a means to do so more effectively. Any suitable model will do.

This type of modelling work is not particularly well paid, except for those who effectively cross over into glamour territory by establishing their own 'brand'. The few well known supermodels are well paid and can earn a whole lot more from their own merchandising too, but for most commercial models it's really just an ordinary day job.

Glamour modelling in it's modern form grew out of the idea of stardom - the appeal of individual performers above and beyond the performance itself. A glamour model does not illustrate a product or service, but is herself the main or only subject of the photograph or other work. Where commercial models are essentially anonymous and replaceable, glamour models are presented as individuals to be desired or emulated.

It's this personification which really defines the glamour model. The product being sold is effectively the model herself rather than whatever clothes or objects she wears or locations she inhabits.

The trend in recent decades to treat commercial models as 'supermodels', to allow their individual personalities to show through, often to the extent of making the model more important than the product, has significantly blurred the distinction between these two types of modelling.

Most glamour models have a rather short career. It is by it's nature a field where women want to remain girls for as long as possible and even a model in her late twenties will be generally seen as 'mature'.  While it lasts, it can be a fun, well paid job with paid trips to exotic places and loads of attention - stardom if you like. Most glamour models with any ideas about a longer term career will gradually try to extend their activities to acting, TV work or other areas only slightly related to glamour modelling. A few have successfully moved into managing later generations of glamour models.

Art and Figure modeling is where models are used to help visual artists represent humanity within artworks. As with traditional commercial modelling, the model is human but effectively depersonalised - simply a generic human form. It's still quite rare for Art/Figure modes to be known by name. While an artist will often choose to work with one or more models with whom a good working relationship has been established, it's the artist whose name is associated with the work rather than the model. It's not a route to fame for a model.

This type of modelling is not well paid, but work can be steady and may continue to be for many years. There is not the requirement to be young and pretty with a flawless complexion and perfect body in te way there is in commercial or glamour modelling. For many art/figure models, part of the motivation is to be involved in the creation of non-commercial art. If you have artistic aspirations, then you may well enjoy that aspect of this type of work.




Am I the right type?

Physical attributes

Commercial/Fashion models for mainstream work are usually required to be within a specific height range and build. Bluntly, if a woman is not between about 5'8"-5'10" and very slim, she's very unlikely to be successful as a mainstream fashion model. She may find a niche, because there are undoubtedly companies who cater for buyers who wouldn't aspire to the tall, slim look themselves. For those companies, a model is required who more closely matches the physical type of their clients. Such niches will always be tiny though, and it's hard to imagine anyone making a career, much less achieving fame in such a small market.

Art/Figure models can be much more varied in shape and size. The artist is the only person who will usually see them in person, and artists will work with models whose physical characteristics suit their own requirements. Anything from the tiniest of petite models to the largest Rubenesque figure will be required by someone, somewhere, sometime. As with niche commercial models, the career possibilities are unfortunately quite limited.

Glamour models are those who have the best career options. By glamour models, I mean in this instance any model whose individuality and personality are key to any work they do. It's because they have a unique selling point - being who they are - that they command higher rates and a bigger share of the fame than those models who remain essentially anonymous and hence easily replaceable.

Many so-called supermodels do not like to be referred to as 'glamour models'- it's not good for their perceived status to be associated with those models who are more brazen about using their bodies and more particularly their sexuality to achieve their own type of fame. But the truth is, all glamour models make a living from their physical presence and personality.

Conclusions

So, what's right for your career?

The key to making progress in your modelling career is to be brutally realistic about the types of work you are actually likely to get.

You could spend years chasing fashion work without success if you're not the right height or if you have a curvier figure. Conversely, glamour may be unrealstic for you if you are very skinny, though height is seldom a problem. If you are averse to being naked or almost naked, then neither glamour nor art/figure work will suit you, but it's fair to point out that a lot of fashion work these days also involves a degree of nudity.

As general advice, you should choose a category of modelling with which you are comfortable and have the right sort of body and face. After that, it's mainly a question of making yourself known to the huge number of agencies who handle the vast majority of bookings. And sheer, hard work and persistence.

The Original Free Entry ModelGirl Contest

ModelGirl, London's original free model search, is on again at last!

It's been dormant for a few years, mainly because we just didn't feel the time was right, but now ModelGirl has been relaunched for 2012.

We first ran our ModelGirl contest back in 1992 - in the dark days before just about everyone had internet access. At first, we tried to promote it ourselves as a small, local event. Part of that promotion involved sending press releases to every local newspaper we could find to try to get something published about the contest. We were lucky, because the then largest local newspaper group in East London heard about it.

That started a close, cooperative relationship which lasted for almost fifteen years.We ran the contest each year through the local 'papers. They provided free coverage in exchange for our work in shooting all the pictures and administering the whole thing. Clearly, they were happy to have the extra readership the contest brought and to be associated with what became a very successful annual event.

In the mid 2000s, the newspaper group were bought by an even larger publishing company - one which, it has to be said, did not share the same enthusiasm for promoting local events.

That coincided with our hopes to take the whole thing onto the national stage, extending the idea further with a travelling roadshow-style of mobile studio, intended to cover most of England.
As the support from the newspapers declined, we put a huge effort into promoting through every other conceivable channel - supermarkets, health clubs, beauticians, model agencies - you name it, we spoke to them, agreed terms and set things up. Sadly, it was just too inefficient to do things that way and the project was abandoned. Abandoned, but not dead.

As the internet as grown in popularity, it was only a matter of time before we felt it was possible to restart the contest, promoting it through the medium which has grown to replace local newspapers for most people as a source of news and events information.

The continued popularity of similar, TV based contests also convinced us that the time was right.

So, We're running it at www.gibsonsphoto.co.uk/modelgirl and promoting through several internet channels. The search is on!

There's google adwords, of course. That's been driving a couple of dozen entries each day towards the promotional pages on our site. Then there's social media such as facebook, twitter and such.

They all have their place in the overall scheme of things and we expect their influence to grow.

Right now, things are gathering pace. Previous experience suggests we'll see a big infux of entries in the new year, as people start to think more about their futures, careers and what they really want out of life.


While that can sound like just so much marketing speak, the truth is we have 'discovered' quite a few successful models over the years. Some of our entrants, finalists and winners have have success on TV in presentatation roles, in fashion as catwalk models and yes, on Page 3, too.

The contest seems to give those individuals both the confidence and the experience to approach the things they want to do more positively, and that's vitally important in this business. Certainly, we do everything we can reasonably do to help - in the past we often used our network of 'names' to put our models in touch with the right people. And of course, having a pretty full portfolio of high quality pictures to show doesn't do any harm either...

So, while we won't try to pretend it's not a money-making opportunity for us, it's much more than that. It really is a genuine step onto the ladder of success for many of our models.

Of course, we also recognise that there are a LOT of girls who have no intention of following a modeling career, but just want a bit of fun and the excitement that goes with being a part of something like this. That's fine - we'd never exclude anyone. The funseekers are sometimes the most genuinely enthusiastic models of all! They get their buzz and they can get pictures of themselves the like of which they'd otherwise probably never see at prices that are extremely reasonable. We don't try to hard-sell and we don't try to oversell. We do offer a great deal on pictures for those who want them, but with no pressure at all.

Is that so hard to believe in today's manipulating, misleading, rip-off culture where a so-called 'free makeover' can end up costing those fooled into participation a small fortune? I suppose it is. The difference about us is that we're a business that's been established for sixty years. Not sixty days. We have every intention of being around a lot longer, not disappearing as soon as we feel we've milked every possible penny out of our marketing budget and have a reputation that smells like a farmyard.

Of backgrounds, technology and convenience...

Last time, I mentioned in passing about optical front projection as a means to extending creative options in my studio. It's a system I've been using for over twenty years, so I'm pretty familiar with it, both the advantages and the disadvantages. And the technical limitations and hassles associated with it, too.

On the face of it, it's a huge plus to be able to pull up photo-realistic scenery into any image at the flick of a switch. In practice, we have to manage a huge collection of film transparencies, storing them in good condition as well as in an easily searchable manner. It can be a problem if it takes several minutes to locate a specific background while a client is waiting... We also have to maintain the screen itself. Frequent washing with warm, soapy water helps remove the inevitable fingerprints, but small creases are harder to deal with. Over time, a screen becomes damaged to the extent it becomes unusable, and these things are not cheap to replace.

The other most significant drawback is the need to employ unusually controlled lighting techniques. For most types of studio work, diffuse light is most commonly needed. But the direction of light has to be carefully controlled when using optical front projection. The screen typically has a cutoff point around 25 degrees or so from normal, where 'normal' is the angle of view of the camera. This means that any light hitting the screen at an angle of less than about 25 degrees to the camera's own view tends to wash out the background image. To provide this combination of diffuse yet directional light, I developed my own light boxes many years ago. These are about two feet deep and reflect the light from a flat panel in the back of the box, passing it through a grid at the front in order to cut out any wayward bits. This works well, but the boxes are heavy and quite cumbersome. Sadly, I've found no practical alternatives which work as well.

The biggest stumbling block for people using photo-realistic background systems of any sort always seems to be making it convincing. It really shouldn't be hard for anyone calling themselves a photographer to appreciate that matching the lighting direction and quality, together with the perspective is absolutely necessary. It's really not that hard to do, but I have seen some appalling attempts.

In recent years, I've obviously had one eye on the possibilities of colourkey as an alternative to my optical projection system. It's cheaper to use, in terms of the screen. It's less demanding in terms of lighting control. But it's also far less subtle and obviously relies heavily on software. It does though fit in with one development I have considered for a while, but have yet to find a practical way to implement.

The idea is to replace the part of the optical system which uses a flash head, a modelling lamp and a film transparency with a digital projector. The problems are primarily: (1) getting enough light from the projector to give an acceptable exposure time, especially when the output is filtered to match the colour temperature of my main lights. (2) getting enough resolution to provide a convincing background image. (3) keeping the whole system light enough, small enough and running cool enough to be practical. The big plusses would be the ability to file backgrounds on the nearest PC and to adjust them more easily for scale and perspective. The hybrid of digital projection with an optical background system might actually be very useful, having the most important advantages of both, but I'm beginning to wonder whether it will ever be economically achievable.

When a picture shouldn't be interesting

 Most of the time, photographers try to create pictures which grab the viewer's attention. It's what you'd expect when you make pictures to stand on their own merits.

Ribblesdale, January 2011

Sometimes though, pictures need to be there, but not take over. This picture is a case in point.

It was taken half way up the side of a snowy hill in North Yorkshire on a cold and windy day last January. I was out walking with a bunch of old school friends (and yes, we are all getting on a bit...) and simply wanted to document the trip.

In the back of my mind though, I knew that I would have to make a dvd for the group so that everyone could have a copy. And I knew that meant a dvd cover.

A dvd cover is not the main product, just part of the packaging, but if it's done right it can certainly enhance the enjoyment of the product.

As well as looking for pictures which would be interesting in themselves - combinations of light and shade, compositions based on perspective, muted colours and distance effects - and of course including a sufficient number of pictures showing each member of the group in suitably heroic and/or idiotic activities, I also knew I had to shoot a few 'empty images'. I use that term in the same sort of way as the original Japanese meaning of Karaoke; an empty orchestra, acting as a backdrop for some as yet unknown performer. In the case of my dvd cover, that performer would be the text and logos added to the image before it was wrapped around the dvd case.

If I used a picture which was in itself interesting, it could be terribly distracting. Neither the image nor the text would dominate and as a result, neither would hold the viewer's attention. By deliberately choosing an image to melt into the background (sorry, that icy pun just had to go in there...) the text does not have to compete.

It's a common enough technique, used for all sorts of advertising and marketing purposes, but strangely ignored when photographers consider composition. Maybe the idea of producing an image which will only ever be used in a supporting role doesn't sit well with some photographer's egos.

There's another time when I often use this technique of creating empty images. In my studio, I have an optical front projection system. Used sensitively, this allows me to add outdoor scenery and atmosphere to an image created in the studio without resorting to digital methods. such as greenscreen. Optical has an important advantage because of the inherently much greater ability to composite with extremely fine detail such as hair and gossamer-fine fabrics. The key things to remember are to match the lighting effects if you want to create a realistic composite and to remember that the background image is just that - a background - and you don't want it to attract attention to itself. Done right, the effect can often look more natural than many pictures actually taken on location!

Other times, the frontpro can be used to deliberately create very artificial effects - backgrounds which don't even try to look like normal scenery. That's another story...

How deep is your field?

Professional photographers often talk about depth of field, but what do we mean and why does it matter?

Simplistically, depth of field (DoF) is distance between the closest and farthest objects from the camera which appear sharply focussed. It's usually said that the things which affect DoF include the focal length of the lens in use, the aperture which is set on the lens and the closeness of the nearest object. You can use it to control the sharpness and thereby the visual impact of objects in different parts of your pictures.

Use a lens with a wide aperture, you get shallow DoF and can throw items in the foreground or background out of focus at will. Use a small aperture and you can maintain sharpness over a huge range of distances - look up 'the f/64 club' sometime for one extreme. On many older lenses, in the days before auto-focus and ultra wide angle zooms, the manufacturer used to helpfully mark a depth of field scale on the lens body. The idea was that you could gauge the depth of field by comparing the marked lines against the aperture marks. You could turn the focus ring until it matched the distance for the closest object you wanted sharp against one line and the furthest against the other, adjusting the aperture to the value indicated as necessary. In theory, that meant you could quite accurately control the way people would view your images.

But that's only half the story...

More fundamentally, DoF depends on the capabilities of your own eyes. Your eyes, like any optical system, have limited resolving power. There's a very simple experiment you can do to test this:

Using a ruler and a wide-nibbed pencil or pen, draw a pair of thick parallel lines on a sheet of paper with a gap between them of exactly 1mm. Pin the paper to a wall or door and walk away a few paces. Check to see if you can still see the gap between the lines. Yes? Then try again from a bit further away. Repeat until you are just too far away to see two lines, instead seeing just one, thick line. Measure the distance you've walked from the paper and you have a fairly accurate guide to your own optical resolving power. You can easily convert this to an angle if you treat the distance between the two lines as the short side of a triangle and the distance from you to the paper as the long sides.

Now, think about a photographic print. It's most likely made up of points rather than line, but the same principle applies - if the angle between two dots on the print is smaller than the angle your eyes can resolve, then you will just see them as one dot, not two (or more).

So, putting the concepts of the DoF of the camera and the resolving power of your eyes together, what you get is an understanding that it's not actually necessary (or possible) for any part of the image to be absolutely sharp. In fact, anything which is rendered sufficiently sharp on the print that your eyes can't see any unsharpness  will look sharp to you anyway. Sounds obvious, really, but that leads to several perhaps surprising conclusions that photographic reference books seldom mention.

- How sharp an image appears to you depends on both it's scale and your proximity to the print. Just like the lines on the paper.
- The DoF marked or suggested on the lens assumes a 'standard' size print viewed at a 'standard' distance. Any other viewing arrangements make it a nonsense.
- In general terms, any picture viewed smaller or from further away will look sharper overall, and the apparent depth of field will be greater as a result.

So, by all means use DoF as a way of controlling the relative sharpness of objects in a composition, but don't be slave to the concept, Depth of field is not absolute.

How can you reduce the amount of adjustment your pictures need?


I was sitting in my studio earlier today, working on some of the boring, paperwork that goes with running a business, when in waked a typical amateur snapper asking for help. It's always a bit irritating, because I have work to do, but we all started as amateurs. And we all have to learn somehow. At least this bloke was asking someone who might actually have sensible answer. Me. Oh well, paperwork can wait, I suppose.

His bits are the bits in quotes. Mine are in brackets...

'I took some photos at my cousins wedding (oh dear, hear we go...) in the West Indies (hmmm, so why wasn't I invited then?) and they all look awful. Red faces. No details in the white dress. (Yes, I know. And shadows so deep you'd break a leg if you fell in) I'm spending ages trying to improve them in Photoshop. What could I do to cut that down?'

Back to me.

Well, there are a whole lot of things to say about that, but just in terms of photography, the main problem is that you're probably letting the camera do the thinking for you. Don't.

Him 'Huh?'

Do things the old fashioned way with the photographer in charge. It's the only way to get things right, especially in difficult conditions.

Let's think about the way a modern, all electronic camera looks at a scene. It doesn't see a picture, just areas of light, shade and colour. It has no idea what they represent. It can only compare them to a standard model and see if they are close enough to what it expects. If there's a lot of dark areas such as big, deep shadows, it tries to make the whole picture lighter. If there are lots of blue/green areas such as the sea, it tries to add the opposite colour, red, to balance it up. It tries to make everything conform to the most boring, ordinary scene it can possibly imagine. And it's imagination isn't very good.

Take control. Put the camera in a manual mode, so you control the exposure. Force it to accept the colour you want by telling it the kind of light you're using. Then use a decent, incident light meter to measure the light actually falling on the scene, so it's not fooled by awkward subjects like a white dress.

The most important thing about photography is light. Light and control. Light, control and empathy. The three most important things about photography are light, control, empathy and composition. Oh bugger...

What are apertures and why are they important?

To a photographer, the aperture is the opening in the lens through which light passes into a camera. It's most important physical property (okay, it's sole physical property of any interest!) is it's size, because that has a number of rather important effects on the pictures you make.

First of all, I'll be specific about what I mean and don't mean by the 'size' of an aperture. I don't mean a simple measurement across the opening. I do mean a measurement of that opening as a proportion of another physical property of the lens, it's focal length.

On most lenses, the maker will mark the focal length on the front. A typical standard lens on a traditional 35mm SLR might have '50mm f/2.8' engraved around the front, for example.

So, what does that all mean? It means the lens has a focal length of 50mm and a maximum aperture of f/2.8, which is the same as saying 50mm/2.8, which is roughly 18mm.

Fascinating, eh? No, not really. Unless you're actually fascinated by numbers.
The point is not the number itself, but what that effect that has on your pictures.

The aperture affects how fast light comes through the hole - a bit like turning on a tap. Open it wide and water (or light) comes streaming through. Keep it small and water is reduced to a trickle. This helps control the amount of exposure on your film or digital sensor. Using the water analogy again, getting the exposure right is like filling a bucket from a tap. You need to fill it right to the brim, not half full, but you also don't want it to overflow. You can do that by opening the tap wide for a short time, or leaving it dripping for a much longer time. To get a full bucket, it doesn't really matter which way you do it. Exposing your film or sensor is the same. You can let in light very fast for a short time, or slower for a longer time. So, a big aperture means we can have fast exposures. A small aperture means we need slower exposures.

The opening also affects 'depth of field'. Big depth of field means you can keep lots of things 'in focus' at different distances at the same time. Small depth of field means you can keep just one thing in focus at one distance and let things at other distances blur. More about that another time...

So, use the aperture to control exposure. That's a technical use. Use the aperture to control depth of field. That's potentially a creative use as it lets you control how people see the things in your pictures.

Last thing for today - why not just give the aperture as a straightforward measurement? Why give it as a proportion of the focal length - what's often referred to as an 'f-number'? The answer is to do with an interesting and very useful property of lenses. Any lens at the same f-number lets light pass at exactly the same rate. That means that it's very easy to measure the exposure as a combination of an 'f-number' and a time, because it doesn't matter which lens is used.