This is the photo that sparked my interest in the tattoo project, which you’ll be seeing more of in the coming weeks and months. I think the elements I liked in this photo, which made me decide to turn it into a full project, and which I will hope to repeat throughout the project, are the lack of makeup, the damp, unstyled hair, and the personal interaction taking place with the photographer. I feel that these details combine to convey a sense of natural beauty, personality, and femininity, which make a stark contrast to the cold, rough character we typically associate with someone (especially a female) with lots of tattoos.

“If I was sick and I was supposed to be going out with that girl tonight, I would get better in a hurry. She is fine.” — My Dad

Having learned a few lessons the first time, I just had to try this idea again. Not to mention, models really seem to enjoy making a mess!

It’s always the ideas that have been floating in the back of my head for days and weeks that end up being my favorite shots from a session. No exception here.

I’ve been posting photos on Flickr for years now, and I have found it interesting to check my activity stats periodically. In the early years, I was averaging a few dozen views in the first day on a good photo. Over the course of nearly four years, a few of those earlier photos have reached view totals over 2000, and several have totalled over 1000 views over the course of years.

Recently, I’ve improved my skills and started shooting more creative ideas. Over the past few months, I’ve watched as the better uploads had over 100 views in the first day, and then one broke 200. Just a few weeks ago, I had one go over 350 on the first day, and I was quite excited. In recent months, I’ve watched the peaks and valleys on Flickr’s new activity graph, and I’ve grown accustomed to an average number of views (for my entire photostream) around 200-300, with spikes around 900-1000 on days when I upload new photos.

I thought that was pretty good, until I looked at my stats for yesterday and saw that one photo had almost 1500 views, and that I’d reached 6280 total views on my stream for the day. That number significantly dwarfs my previous stats rendering them all but flat in comparison! What used to be major peaks and valleys are now little more than a sort of wavy line, followed by one giant spike.

So, what does this tell me? I think I’ve found something people like. I don’t know if it has anything to do with the new camera, or the new lens, or the new lights, or if it’s all just a result of a few really good shots of a really good model. Either way, it really raises the bar for my work. And that’s a good thing.

Sometimes you know you’re reaching a plateau. You feel like you’re just one detail away from reaching The Next Level™, but you don’t know what that detail is. Well, it seems that I may have found it. Now the next question is can I maintain it? And beyond that, what is the next level, and how do I get there?

Happy times.

Oil, water, corn syrup, food coloring. If you heard those terms together would you imagine a photo like this?

That’s me. I just got a new softbox, and who better to test it out on than myself?

I just came across this comparison of the effects of focal length, hosted by Stephen Eastwood.

Seeing the effects of lens compression/distortion laid out side-by-side really makes the comparison easy. Given that 50mm is considered to be closest to “real life”, it makes the most sense to compare all the other focal lengths to that one if you want to gauge what you’ll get.

The wider lenses really seem to re-shape the subject’s features pretty dramatically, narrowing and elongating her head, which might be considered a positive effect for heavier people or people with wide heads/faces. However, the wide-angle lens also seems to exaggerate other features, such as her nose and forehead, so wide-angle isn’t going to do pleasant things for people with big noses or foreheads or chins.

The longer lenses compress the features, but seem to do it at a much more gradual rate — most likely because there are so many more millimeters between 100 and 200 than there are between 50 and 24, even though both cases represent double (or half) the previous length. The compression effect is really nice for reducing the obviousness of any features. The model in the example seems to have a slightly large nose, but from 200mm up it is mostly imperceptible.

While I haven’t tried this personally, it seems that the compression effect from a long lens would have the same positive effect for many other features (such as a saggy chin) — especially when combined with a lighting style that puts the shadows where they best serve the appearance of the subject.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about an epidemic that is affecting the photography community. According to recent statistics, as many as 3 in every 5 photographers may be suffering from MAHS, or Man of Average Height Syndrome. Its symptoms are ugly, and its impact is widespread, but fortunately, there is a cure.

 

What is MAHS?
In order to cure MAHS, we must first understand the problem. In the United States, the average height of the average man is approximately 5-feet-10-inches. This number may vary slightly if you live somewhere else, but the result is the same no matter where you go: portfolios full of photos taken from the perspective of a man of average height, while standing.

The effects of MAHS are magnified in photos of females, due to the fact that the average height of a female in the United States is 5-feet-4-inches. When a man of average height shoots a woman of average height, too often the result is a photo looking down on someone, which is not flattering at all.

The MAHS Cure
Fortunately, there is a cure, and it’s fairly simple. The first step is to stop looking down on your subject. When in doubt, at the very least, you should get down to eye-level with your subject, whether it’s a woman of average height, or a child, or a dog. Looking from eye level puts the viewer on an even footing with the subject, rather than looking down on them.

More appropriate, however, is to get your camera slightly below the eye-level for straight on shots. Since light is funneled into the lens equally from above and below, the best height for the camera is exactly half-way between the top and bottom of your composition.

This is why waist-level finders were invented. Prior to the popularization of the SLR, most pro-level cameras were build with waist-level finders, and even SLRs offered them as accessories. In the modern world of the ubiquitous digital SLR, however, there is a simple solution that costs nothing: a chair.

Yes, you read that right. One of the best ways to improve your photos of people is to sit down when you take them. Try it and see for yourself.

But why stop there?
Looking at your subject straight-on is definitely more intimate, but why stop there? Photos can be made even more interesting by presenting angles that are not normally seen.

Maybe it’s time to think about looking up at your subject. Sometimes that means crawling on the ground, other times it’s as simple as giving your subject something to stand on. Looking up at a subject elevates its perceived value. It adds interest.

Spread the cure
If you’re a man of average height, stop looking down on people. If you’re young, try kneeling, crouching, laying on the ground. If you’re older and less limber, you can at least try having a seat!

Let’s all do our part to make the photographic record of our world more interesting, and help to put an end to Man of Average Height Syndrome.