The Best Advice I Can Give

An amateur photographer emailed me the other day after he found a small gallery of my work that I have on display over at JPGmag.com and was impressed with my work. He asked for some advice since he is really just starting to get serious about photography, and I figured I might as well write about it in my blog.

I've received a ton of advice from photographers over the years and had my own experiences that have lead me to some opinions regarding photography. Here's a mix of advice from others and my own two cents:

1) Emotions matter. Whether it's capturing emotions of subjects or conveying your own emotions in the frame, if someone doesn't "feel" something when they look at your photo then it's basically just a snapshot. If you want someone to be happy when they look at a photo you need to create a happy photo. If you want the viewer to feel the weight of an emotional moment, then you have to make that emotional weight show in the frame. However, it's not just the emotions of your subjects that matter. Your own emotional state has an impact on the way your photo turns out. If you're feeling energetic and playful then it's a safe bet that some of your photos will communicate that feeling. On the other hand, if you show up feeling like you don't care about what you're photographing, that is going to show up in the images as well.

2) Assume the worst and sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised. This bit of depressing advice comes courtesy of one of my favorite college professors. In short, if you prepare yourself (both in terms of equipment and psychologically) for the worst case scenario then you'll be even happier when good things happen ... and prepared if the shit hits the fan. If you show up to a photo assignment with only one lens then that will be the day that you wish you had brought another lens for a different angle or that will be the day that your one lens breaks. Likewise, even if you're certain that the first photo you took on an assignment is absolutely perfect you need to keep crafting more photos. You never know when that "perfect" photo will get accidentally deleted or whether that "perfect" photo will get rejected by an editor.

3) Keep studying and working on technique. Good photographers never stop learning about photography or stop studying new technologies. Many of the worlds best photographers nearly went bankrupt in the early part of this century when they were slow to transition to digital. Just because what you're doing today works today don't assume it will still work tomorrow. Similarly, even if you think you've mastered the basics of exposure and composition to the point that it's second nature, keep working on them. The "fundamentals" of photography are important for a reason. You need to know the rules before you can creatively break them without looking like an idiot.

4) Ignorance is your friend ... if it's someone else's ignorance. Knowledge is power, and if you have it and someone else lacks it then you can benefit. Some of the best opportunities I've had as a photographer came when someone else didn't know any better. Maybe it was my first magazine assignment when the editor thought I was someone who had been published in several other magazines. Maybe it was my first wedding assignment when the bride and groom had no idea I'd never photographed a wedding before. Then there were the times that subjects were willing to spend their time (and sometimes their money) in order for me to get a great photo not knowing that there was a good chance the photo would never be published. Those moments of opportunity often generate amazing photos ... and they wouldn't be possible if not for the ignorance of others. Just be sure that if you're going to take advantage of someone else's ignorance that you are a knowledgeable photographer. Ignorant subjects and skilled photographers make for great photos. Ignorant editors or subjects combined with ignorant photographers make for horrible photos.

5) Equipment doesn't matter ... until it does. Anyone with half a brain knows that the photographer is more important than the camera. However, any photographer with half a brain knows that sometimes having the right tool for the right job is essential to creating the image you need. Some images require shallow depth of field to isolate your subject. Sometimes landscapes or large group portraits require huge depth of field so everything is in focus. Occasionally you need high ISO to capture a candid portrait in low light. Other times you might need $15,000 in wireless strobes in order to creatively light an entire building for a corporate advertising assignment. Then there are times when you can take a $250 compact point-and-shoot digital camera and capture an award-winning image that skyrockets you to fortune and fame. The point is that a good photographer understands when it's important to have the right gear ... and knows when the gear doesn't matter.

The last jewel of wisdom that I've acquired over the years comes from none other than my dear old parents. The single best piece of advice I can give to aspiring photographers is, "Be responsible." This applies both photographically and in terms of your overall life philosophy. Take responsibility for anything that remotely can be considered your responsibility. Whether it's researching a subject prior to going on a photo assignment or having the right equipment you need to get the job done ... just make it your responsibility to get it done. Maybe being responsible means showing up 30 minutes early to an on-location photo shoot so you have enough time to get the shots you need. Another time your responsibility might involve calling a publicist a dozen times in one week in order to get a celebrity to sit down for a portrait session. Responsible people accomplish great things in this world. Irresponsible people who don't care about anything rarely rise above the depths of mediocrity.

Reminder Time: Brand Doesn't Matter

While on location at a photo shoot a little while ago I was approached by an amateur photographer who wanted to ask me about the equipment I use because he wanted to find "a camera that takes good pictures." Well, since people ask me this type of question all the time, I figured I might as well post an in-depth answer in my blog.

Over the years I've used a variety of film and digital cameras and lenses from almost every manufacturer you can think of (and probably some you've never heard of). Excluding my lengthy list of film cameras, if I focus on just professional digital cameras (DSLRs) I was exclusively a Nikon and Fuji DSLR user for roughly five years, then I switched to Canon for one year ... and then I switched to Pentax and I "might" stick with them.

That said, I also currently use Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, and Nikon point-and-shoot cameras when I'm not working in a professional capacity.

There's a lot to love and hate about every camera system on the market. Every DSLR system has its strengths and weaknesses. There's almost never just a single lens or single DSLR that can get the job done ... you can usually create the same types of images with cameras/lenses from different manufacturers. It all boils down to personal preference and shooting style.

Camera and lens manufacturers (and their ad agencies) want you to believe that the only way to get that perfect shot is if you use X camera or X lens. That's just complete nonsense. Yes, to some extent you may need certain features in order to get very specific shots in very specific ways, but the skill level of the photographer is MUCH more important than the choice of equipment.

It's ultimately up to the individual photographer to use the gear that he/she prefers. The only reason to stick with one particular DSLR system is so you don't have to spend huge amounts of money building a well-rounded kit for multiple lens mounts. My suggestion is to take your time researching (and going to camera stores to try out different cameras) before you make a choice.

Brand obsession/brand loyalty is for shutterbugs who need to believe that a bad camera is to blame for their bad photos. Photographers don't give a shit about the name printed on the gear they use ... they just need to know it's capable of helping them craft the image they want without getting in the way.

The Value of Photography

Let me start my latest post by acknowledging that it has been too long since my last update. I apologize for the delay. Life and work have been keeping me very busy. That said, work is precisely what motivated me to write some commentary in my blog.

Not too long ago I was approached by a potential client looking for a wedding photographer to capture their special day. This isn't an uncommon event for me ... I've photographed more than 100 weddings in just the last five years. The individual in question was looking for the typical wedding day coverage: eight to ten hours of photography before the ceremony, during the ceremony, after the ceremony, and at the reception. Basically, they wanted me to cover their entire wedding day.

The individual in question admitted that he hadn't looked at the pricing on my website nor did he have an opportunity to check with other wedding photographers. That said, he proceeded to tell me he was looking to spend no more than $100.

One ... hundred ... dollars.

I realize that we live in a modern digital age where everyone who buys a $500 digital camera thinks they are a "professional photographer." Likewise, I recognize that everyone (and I do mean everyone) deserves to have a skilled, experienced photographer at their wedding day. That said, let's stop and consider a few things.

First, the cost of an average American wedding is $16,000 to $20,000. Those are "conservative" numbers since most industry experts say the average total cost is closer to $30,000. While there are many couples who manage to spend much less for their entire wedding day and honeymoon combined, most weddings fall within this price range. The ceremony itself is generally only between $800 and $2,800. The largest expense is usually the reception hall and catering which usually falls in the $10,000 to $15,000 price range. Couples generally spend between $1,500 and $4,000 on flowers. Attire (NOT including the bride's dress) usually runs between $1,000 and $3,000. Photography and videography typically costs between $2,500 and $6,000.

The statistic that always amazes me is the fact that people typically spend almost as much on flowers as they do on their wedding photographer and video. Most of the wedding flowers will be dead before you get to your honeymoon, but most couples spend almost as much (or even more) on flowers as they do on their wedding photos and video. Your wedding photos and video are second only to your new spouse in terms of important things you get to keep from your wedding day. The rental tuxedos get returned, the food and cake are eaten, flowers die, bridesmaids burn their dresses in a ceremonial fire a week after the wedding, and after the wedding day the reception hall will kick you out.

Memories will fade, but the wedding photos and video will be the lasting keepsakes that the husband and wife have to remember all the details from their wedding day. How much is that worth to you and your family?

Which brings me back to $100. Eight to ten hours of photography on your wedding day for $100 broken down hourly comes to $12.50 to $10 per hour. The "average" employee working at Costco earns $17 per hour (ABC News) plus benefits. The "average" employee working at a Starbucks barista (making coffee) earns $18 per hour (Fortune magazine). No one working at Costco is responsible for photographing your one and only wedding day. Starbucks doesn't require employees to have a detailed working knowledge of photography, portrait posing, album design, or the experience to know when and where they need to be in order to capture that "once in a lifetime" photograph on your wedding day.

Ask yourself, How much are the memories of your wedding day worth?

What's in a name?

I hate to get into conversations about equipment, particularly conversations about camera brands, because equipment has the least impact on a photographer's work. That said, many photographers have recently been debating the quality of cameras and lenses from some of photography's best-known companies. For example, there are numerous Leica owners who are flooding photography-related websites complaining that the Leica-branded lenses used on digital cameras from Leica and Panasonic are not "real" Leica lenses.

Let's think about that for a second.

For years, the only Leica lenses were lenses manufactured in Germany by Leitz/Leica for the Leica rangefinders (first screwmount followed by the M-mount).

By the 1970s and 1980s Leica (and just about every company that cares about profit) realized that outsourcing to countries with cheaper labor/production was more cost effective. A great example of this was the Leitz Leica CL (also known as the Leica Minolta CL) and the Minolta CLE.

The lenses for the CL were manufactured by Minolta under Leitz Leica supervision and carried the Leitz/Leica logo. The Minolta CLE lenses manufactured at the same Minolta factory carried the Minolta logo.

That said, the "Minolta" branded CLE lenses use the exact same traditional Leitz parallel focusing cams ... while the "Leitz/Leica" branded CL lenses have angular focusing cams (not a very "Leica" design at the time).

In late 1990s through 2000 Leica teamed up with Fujifilm to release a series of "Leica" Digilux cameras such as the "Leica Digilux 4.3" which was actually just a relabeled Fujifilm FinePix 4700Z. That's right. The "Leica" Digilux 4.3 was manufactured by Fujifilm in the same factory using the same parts, just with the Leica logo stuck on the camera. It was NOT manufactured under the supervision of Leica beyond some superficial oversight.

A couple of years later Leica teamed up with Panasonic and Leica engineers began working with Panasonic to design and manufacture lenses and cameras (which would be manufactured by Panasonic under more direct supervision of Leica personnel). These lenses carried the Leica name.

But really, I'm going past my point. How do you define a "Leica" lens? Heck, I'm sure there are some "Canon L" lens owners who say that the Canon L lens on the Canon Powershot Pro1 isn't a "real" Canon L lens.

Likewise, I'm sure there are many Nikon SLR/DSLR owners using "Nikkor" lenses who don't think the Nikkor lenses on Nikon compact cameras are "real" Nikkor lenses.

You're talking about a brand as much as you're talking about lens design. What works in terms of lens design for a 35mm film camera doesn't always work for a APS-sized digital image sensor. Likewise, what works in terms of lens design for a 35mm rangefinder camera doesn't always work in terms of lens deign for a 1/1.8" digital image sensor.

In fact, I'm reasonably certain that if you removed the "Leica DC Vario-Elmarit" lens from the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 and replaced it with the amazing "Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux M" that you would end up with horrible image quality ... because that "real" Leica lens just isn't deigned to work with a 1/1.8" sensor.

Bottom line, sometimes manufacturers have to change lens designs in order to evolve with modern technology. Likewise, sometime manufacturing is outsourced so companies save on expenses and consumers can have cheaper prices. That doesn't always make the new product any less of a quality product ... it just makes it different.

When a company sticks their brand on a product it means they're willing to put their reputation on the line for that product. That's enough to make it a "real" whatever the brand is.

Dust, dust, and more dust.

I usually hate technical/equipment reviews when it comes to photography, but since moving from film Single-Lens-Reflex (SLR) cameras to Digital SLRs several years ago I discovered a common problem that many digital photographers face.

Dust.

Photographers rarely worried about dust ruining an image back in film days because the frame of film was only exposed to the open air inside the camera for a moment before the film was wound/advanced to the next frame. With Digital SLRs, the image sensor that sits inside the camera is exposed to air (and dust) at all times. This means that dust particles can settle on the image sensor and create ugly dark spots on your images where the light is being blocked by the dust.

A few brave photographers use sensor swabs and sometimes even cleaning fluids to remove dust particles from the image sensor. Most photographers use handheld air blowers to blow dust off the image sensor. Some camera makers have even developed complex anti-dust systems that literally "shake" the image sensor inside the camera to knock dust away. Of course, cameras with this feature usually cost more than cameras without this feature.

The staff at PixInfo.com recently published a review of several cameras equipped with anti-dust systems and made some interesting findings.

Long story short: dust on DSLR sensors is unavoidable without "serious" cleaning using sensor swab-type cleaning tools or slightly less effective air blowers. Anti-dust sensor shake methods don't do anything.

It's not just the light, it's the darkness.

One of the trends in modern portraiture and wedding photography is "flat lighting" or "even lighting" ... lighting a subject and background with low contrast so that there is little or no shadowing. This is the type of lighting you often see in portraits done at Wal-Mart or a local shopping mall. Flat lighting is even starting to become popular for landscapes in travel magazines. Popular but lifeless.

Why do I say flat lighting is "lifeless?" Because, just like your parents taught you as a child, you can't have good without evil ... and you can't have light without darkness. Contrast is one if the key elements of photography (and virtually any art). When you have highlights contrasting with shadows you get detail, depth, dimension, and color saturation (if you're shooting in color). Similarly, contrast (as in the combination of positive and negative space) adds drama and emotion to an image.

When a photographer uses flat lighting they are sacrificing all of the the above. This might sound like art class 101, but it's important for photographers and their clients to keep this in mind.

One particular photographer who seems to understand the overwhelming importance of light and dark in his photos is Patrick Hoelck. Hoelck has made a name for himself in recent years by going against the trend of flat lighting and making darkness just as important to his images as light. His recent work ranging from publicity photos of Clint Eastwood to portraits of the cast of Battlestar Galactica has created quite a stir in Hollywood.

This is the type of photography that requires forethought on the part of the photographer and effort to compose both subjects and the position of light. This isn't something that can be accomplished just with the click of a mouse in Photoshop.

What are your experiences with contrast in images ... or with flat lighting? Feel free to post your comments.

It's The Photographer ... Not The Format

I recently discovered that one of the leading celebrity photographers of the current generation, Lionel Deluy, is doing something that many "know-it-all" photographers claim is the worst sin a professional photographer can make. Deluy photographs the vast majority of his work using (GASP) the JPEG digital image format.

Over the years as digital photography has replaced film many photographers discovered that JPEG (the same standard image format used in most digital cameras) causes a loss in image detail and color ... and creates JPEG artifacts (essentially pixels that shouldn't be in the image). The reason is that JPEG is a compressed or "lossy" format. When an image is saved as JPEG the image is basically "squeezed" into to tiny file and some image information is lost as a result of the "squeeze." Professional photographers quickly discovered the RAW format: essentially a huge image file containing every last bit of information captured by the digital camera's image sensor.

As a result, a large number of working photographers started using RAW because they were told it was the only way not to lose part of their images. Some clients even started to demand that photographers supply them with RAW images rather than JPEG. It doesn't matter that RAW files are several times larger than JPEG files, that the files often cannot be opened by various image editors, or that when the images are opened they take longer to process than a JPEG file.

So why is Lionel Deluy (and the overwhelming majority of amateur and professional photographers) using the JPEG format rather than RAW? Because the human eye will never notice the difference.

The simple fact is that during the various printing processes used to create photographic prints or display images on a monitor there is a great deal of image data and detail that is lost and never seen by the human eye. In fact, we often tend to see details in images that aren't even there because our brains "fill in" details that we aren't seeing. More to the point, many photographic printing methods require that the image be used in JPEG (or another compressed format) before the image can be printed.

What is the point to using a huge RAW image file if it has to be turned into a JPEG sooner or later? As Lionel Deluy said in a recent issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine, “I don’t see enough of a difference, and it takes so long to process." Bottom line, the difference between a bad photograph and a great photograph is the photographer ... not the file format.

The Beauty of Light

It's not too often that I find photography related blogs that aren't focused on reviews of the latest camera or accessory, so I was pleased to find the Strobist blog while browsing of the Web.

Strobist is written by David Hobby, a photographer for the Baltimore Sun whose hobby (bad pun not intended) is spreading the good word about using off-camera hotshoe flashes for professional lighting.

Rather than use huge, heavy and expensive portable studio lights, Hobby uses simple flash units on portable lightstands with basic light modifiers. The truth is I'm probably making it sound more complex than it is. The bottom line is that Strobist teaches people how to get professional lighting results in quick and easy steps ... for a fraction of the cost of traditional equipment.

If you're interested in learning how to give your subjects the quality light they deserve (and making your photos into something spectacular) I suggest you stop by the Strobist website and read some of the many free how-to articles.

It's called "photography" (or "light writing") for a reason. Light matters.

Copyright and the Digital Age

I recently read an interesting story online about a father who wanted to know if he would be violating copyright law if he scanned a print he purchased from a photographer and made prints for all his family and friends. He argued that he "owns a scanner that [he] intends to use" and that he thought $15.99 was too much to pay for prints.

Regardless of whether you think prints are worth paying for, the copyright of another photographer's images does not belong to you. Unless permission is given by the owner of the copyright, you have absolutely no right to reprint a photo either for personal use (scanning the photo and using it elsewhere) or for distribution (which includes publishing it online or sending it via email). This is a clear copyright violation.

It doesn't matter if you're selling it or giving it away for free. If you don't hold the copyright on a creative work then you have no right to reprint or distribute the work. Just ask the many kids (and their parents) who have been sued by record companies for illegally distributing music over the internet. In most cases these people shared music for free ... but they were violating copyright by distributing a creative work belonging to someone else.

Under Title 17, section 504 and 505 of United States Code the owner of the copyright can not only make you pay for his attorney fees, but you can be forced to pay statutory damages in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.

Even worse, if the court finds "that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000." Are you ready to lose your house because you don't care about copyright?

Will most photographers bother trying to take people to court? Probably not. But I think you need to seriously consider that $15.99 (or whatever a photographer charges for prints) is a small price to pay in order to protect you from paying damages that are a minimum of $750 or a maximum of $150,000.

I know that in the digital age where photos instantly appear online it's easy to forget that photos have value and that the creators of those photos have rights. But regardless of whether you see the value or not, photographers have the right to control their images. Again, we can all debate the law until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that copyright violation is a serious offense punishable by law.

Jack of All Trades, Master of None

In recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of "package" wedding service providers. These are places that provide the limo, flowers, reception hall, caterer, cake, DJ, videographer and even your wedding photographer. You pay one large fee for the "complete package" rather than a number of smaller fees. One main vendor hires "subcontractors" for all of the jobs listed above or one individual may have multiple duties.

I've heard too many horror stories about these types of "package" vendors who send "wedding photographers" who have zero experience photographing weddings and are armed with next to no photographic equipment other than a single digital camera and a memory card. Of course, when brides and grooms see the proofs from their wedding day they are almost always disappointed.

I honestly can't feel sorry any more for brides and grooms who hire people like I've just described. If the bride and groom expect a single vendor to handle every detail of their wedding then it means the bride and groom didn't do their research. You wouldn't expect a brain surgeon to be a great OBGYN, so why would you expect the guy you hire to drive your limo to do a good job with your wedding video or wedding album? Ask to see albums, prints, and proofs from at least two other weddings before hiring a photographer ... and ask some basic questions about the photographer's equipment and previous experience. And make sure that the person you interview before the wedding is the same person who is photographing your wedding.

As I've said before, equipment is not a huge factor. I don't care if a photographer is using cheap equipment, but if he doesn't have a selection of good lenses or external/hotshoe speedlights then he isn't equipped to handle many situations on a wedding day.

Much of my wedding work is done with available light, but I would never show up to a wedding without multiple speedlights ... because you can't anticipate every situation and you have to be prepared to create the light that you need in order to capture those once-in-a-lifetime moments.

While I understand the need to "stick to a budget" for a wedding, there is a difference between shopping for the best value and just hiring the cheapest person you can find. Once you've lost the opportunity to capture great memories of your wedding day, that's it. You only get one wedding for each marriage.

This becomes a big problem for experienced wedding photographers because "most" people don't seem to recognize the difference between experienced, professional photographers and shutterbugs looking to make some extra cash on weekends. These wannabe pros show up at weddings thinking that the $600 camera they got for Christmas means they have the ability to produce professional results even though they have zero experience as a working photographer ... and 99 percent of the time the results are horrible. Then, when brides and grooms see the bad photos they think, "The professional photographer we hired was horrible. All professional photographers are overpaid hacks."

It doesn't matter that an experienced wedding photographer would have produced MUCH better results. The "jack of all trades" wannabe photographer they hired was terrible so all "professionals" are worthless.

In short, experience and focus matter. By "focus" I mean, if you're looking for a photographer then hire a photographer ... not a florist or a DJ with a camera.

A Photographer's Christmas Wishlist

Over the past month I've found at least two dozen websites with gift idea lists for photographers. Every single list is loaded with cameras, lenses, tripods, portable hard drives, photo editing software, and every camera or studio accessory you can think of. In short, every list I could find was focused on equipment. While every photographer, myself included, would love some expensive photography toys for Christmas the reality is that deep down equipment doesn't satisfy our inner creative urges.

To that end, here is a quick list of some gift ideas for the photographers in your life:

1. Any book by David Alan Harvey, such as Divided Soul or Cuba: Island at a Crossroad. Harvey has an amazing talent for composition and his photos have inspired many photographers over the last two decades. Most of his recent work is done with a single DSLR and simple prime lens ... a reminder that skilled photographers (not expensive equipment) create great images.
2. Any book by Steve McCurry, such as Portraits, The Path to Buddah or South Southeast. McCurry is best known for taking the famous National Geographic cover photo of the "Afghan Girl" but that photo is just one small example of why he is considered perhaps the greatest living master of candid portraiture.
3. A copy of Leros by Alex Majoli. Yet another inspiring photographer, Majoli is one of the Magnum Photo Agency's best young photographers and has won many of the most prestigious awards in photojournalism ... using cheap point-and-shoot digital cameras. That's right. Majoli crafts award-winning images using some of the most "average" digital cameras on the market ... the same cameras that your relatives blamed for "taking bad pictures" last Christmas.
4. A Video iPod. What does this have to do with "satisfying inner creative urges?" Well, more than you think. The latest generation of iPod can store digital photos, audio books, podcasts on photography and Photoshop techniques, or just stimulate creative energy with some TV, movies, or good old fashioned music. Some of the best photographers in the last century admit to being inspired by music, TV or movies. An iPod means inspiration is with you at all times.
5. A weekend vacation just for photography (and absolutely nothing else). Whether it's a trip to a local city or a vacation to a national park, photographic opportunities are everywhere. Sometimes the photographers in our lives need a loved one to push them out the door ... otherwise they get stuck working on Photoshop all weekend or browsing online camera stores. You can't take great photos if you don't get out and see the world.

Oh, and something EVERY photographer would like for Christmas is to never hear the phrase "Your camera takes really nice pictures" ever again. Simple recognition and validation of a photographer's talent and effort goes a long way ... especially around the holidays.

What are some other ideas for Christmas gifts for photographers? Feel free to post your comments.

How to Choose a Photographer / How to Choose a Client

One of the issues that makes the single most significant impact to the quality of your wedding photos or portraits (regardless of whether you're a client or the photographer) is choosing the right person to work with. Just as I mentioned in my last article that emotions matter in terms of creating great images, the relationship between client and photographer makes all the difference in the world between photos you love and photos you can't stand to look at.

Most people looking for a wedding or portrait photographer struggle with how to choose the right photographer. But I'm amazed at the number of photographers who don't put any thought into choosing their clients.

How you choose a photographer or a client will depend on what is most important to you. Some clients are mostly concerned about price (the lowest) and some photographers are mostly concerned about getting business (any business). These are the types of relationships that usually result in disappointed clients and frustrated photographers. There are many issues that need to be considered when choosing the person you want to work with. The most important thing is to go into the interview with your eyes open.
Most photographers are thrilled to show you sample albums, but most photographers are only showing you the best photos they have ever taken. While this work might be amazing, it rarely reflects the results from a "typical" wedding or portrait session. Ask to see the proofs from the photographer's last two weddings or portrait sessions. This will give you a more accurate idea of the kind of work the photographer produces on any given day. Granted, no one should expect every photo to be a masterpiece, but if a photographer can't show you proofs that he was willing to show other clients then that should be a red flag.

Long story short, if you're looking for a photographer you need to keep in mind that "What you see is what you get" ... but only if you're seeing a realistic sampling of the photographer's work and not just their best. If you don't like what you see then don't hire that photographer.

Likewise, there are red flags that photographers overlook when meeting potential clients for the first time. It's perfectly normal (and expected) for a client to have expectations about the kind of images they want from a photographer. However, if a client spends most of their time talking about what they didn't like about other photographers, or pointing out things they don't like in either their current photos or the sample photos you've shown them, this is a dead giveaway that the client is probably going to nitpick every proof they are shown regardless of the quality of the photos. When it comes to photography (or any art for that matter) there will always be clients who have a preconceived notion in their minds about how the finished image will look. If the finished result doesn't match their imagined result they will not be happy ... regardless of what others think.

Long story short, if you're a photographer looking for a client you need to remember that "The customer is always right" ... even when they're not. It doesn't matter if you craft the best photos of your career. If the customer is not happy, that's all that matters. If you can't make a client happy then don't take the job.

These are just a few of the issues that impact "The Big Picture." Feel free to comment about the things that matter most to you when selecting a photographer or selecting a client.

Emotions matter

There is an old saying among wedding photographers, "If the bride and groom (and their families) are happy, your job is pretty much done."

Now, any experienced wedding photographer will tell you there is much more to creating wonderful wedding memories than just a happy couple, but the emotional state of your subject (and your emotional state) has a serious impact on the image. This applies to every type of photography I can think of, not just wedding photos.

If I show you a photo of a crying child in a Santa hat your instinctual response will be to feel sorry for the child. If I show you a laughing baby in a Santa hat your response is likely to be happiness and joy ... the kind of feelings people want to have around Christmas time. The simple truth is that human beings are emotional creatures. If you show me a portrait of someone who looks uncomfortable I am going to feel uncomfortable about the photo. More importantly, if you show me a photo that lacks any emotion, I'm not going to feel anything about that photo.

That does not mean that every photo needs to be of a living human being who is expressing emotion, it means you have to bring out the emotion in your images and the people who view your images. Some of the greatest photographers in history made their careers by bringing emotion to objects that that have none ... and making people feel something when they look at the photos. Ansel Adams is not famous for taking snapshots of mountains but for making people feel the depth and majesty of unique landscapes. Bruce Gilden became one of the Magnum Agency's best photographers not because he took photos of weird people and objects ... he makes people feel regardless of whether he's taking a portrait of a homeless man or crafting an image of empty boots for a fashion magazine.

Photography, like any other art, is only powerful when it evokes an emotional response from the viewer. Whether it's a smile, a feeling of sorrow, or a sense of awe and wonder, emotion is the difference between an image that lands on the cover of a magazine and one that ends up as a sidebar on page 60. Feelings are what separate unforgettable memories and snapshots.

Feel free to share your stories about how emotions made (or didn't make) an image into something truly special.

The eye ... not the camera.

Few "relatively" unknown photographers have grabbed my attention in recent years the way that Phil Douglis has with his work.

Douglis, director of The Douglis Visual Workshops in Phoenix, Arizona is well known in some photography circles, but is still relatively unknown to the general public.

Whether he's capturing the expressions of Hmong Children near Laos or drawing attention to details in a rusted steam locomotive in Oregon, Douglis evokes an emotional response from the people who view his photos. Douglis calls his pictures "expressive" images.

In his own words, Douglis describes expressive imagery as "photography that interprets, rather than describes, what we see to others." Douglis provides a more detailed explanation of his method for crafting expressive images on his Web gallery and displays some of the best photojournalist work I've seen in the last few years.

One of the other reasons I find his photos even more interesting is that Douglis flies in the face of convention and uses compact digital cameras and all-in-one "prosumer" digital cameras for almost all his work. I'm not talking about the latest digital SLR and $2000 lens, I'm talking about the same $500 point-and-shoot digital cameras that mom's and dad's complain "take horrible photos" at football games and on vacations.

Why is Douglis crafting amazing images with cheap cameras that "can't take good photos" when the majority of serious photographers have given up on these types of cameras? Because great photography is more about the photographer than the equipment.

When most photographers want to improve their images they think (thanks to successful advertising from camera manufacturers) that they need a new camera ... but what they really need is a new eye-to-brain interface. The difference between a "snapshot" and powerful image boils down to the photographer's ability to add meaning to the photo. There is no camera that can do that.

Welcome to The Big Picture

Your view of photography is about to change ... for the better.

The Big Picture came to life out of the hundreds of technical review websites and blogs that dominate the Web and that have made photography more about equipment than about the photographer and the photos.

Technology and technique have always gone hand in hand when it comes to photography, but the core of what makes a great picture great has more to do with the photographer's eye and the subject than the camera, lens, light, and ISO being used.

Rather than focusing on reviews of the latest camera or tests of the newest lens, The Big Picture turns the creative eye on issues that matter to photographers. Whether it's simple composition tips or advice on best business practices for working photographers, successful photography is about more than the brand name on the front of your camera.

Every skilled photographer has created at least one amazing photo and endured comments such as "Wow! You must have a great camera," or "What camera do you use?" Most people don't meet a great author and say "Wow! He must have a great writing pen," or "What version of Microsoft Word do you use?"

Photoshop, the single greatest invention for photographers since the camera, has spawned a generation of people who "pixel peep" (criticizing every pixel of an image without ever looking at the image as a whole).

Somewhere, somehow most people have lost sight of "The Big Picture" when it comes to photography. We aim to change that.