The BPR Top Ten Photos of 2009: Number Ten

When I decided to put together a list of my top ten personal photos from this past year, there were a handful of obvious photos that I had in mind, of which none should come as a surprise to anybody who has followed my work. What became difficult was picking the rest, as well as simply remembering some real gems that may have gotten lost in the shuffle. So I didn't rush to publish the list so I would be able to have time in case any of those gems "popped up" in my head. A couple did, and I was also reminded of a few on Facebook after I announced the list was forthcoming.

The important thing to remember is that this isn't necessarily a list of the "coolest" or most popular photos I've taken. These photos each represent something of a milestone for me as a photographer who's been developing my skill set non-stop since I bought my first digital camera in 2003. I didn't go to school to study photography; in fact I've only taken one photography class and that was Photography 101 (with a film camera and using darkrooms) as I was studying for my graphic design degree. I didn't learn anything about lighting or composition or anything beyond the basics of operating a manual film camera. So everything for me has been learning on my own for the most part except for brief stints assisting a couple of wedding photographers (Joshua Hoffine and Kevin Sisemore) in 2007. As such mainly these photos represent me achieving something skill-wise and maybe even a couple of them will be "dull".

Of course there are exceptions -- especially towards the start of this list -- and some live music photography is represented. And as I've actually logged in a couple of "ties", it's really a top twelve list and not a top ten ;) For the other photos that barely missed the cut, I will have an Honorable Mention list.

And so...  

Number Ten  

TIE. Rattle and Hum at the Brooksider, July 25th/Tyson Leslie at the Brooksider, May 30th.

So after all that preamble about milestones and pushing my skill set, I open with two live shots. But live music photography is such a huge part of the work I do these days that I can't ignore it completely. If there was any "skill" in nailing these photos, it was being in the right place at the right time, and always being on the lookout for a great shot. And that's what both of these photos represent, in addition to great composition. Lasers help, too.

Next post: Number Nine.

The Week that Was in BPR Photography

So the past week was quite an adventure shooting several bands/events. I really felt that the overall quality of the photos was above average with some really special highlights (the 90

Minutes publicity photos). Glad to see such a wide range of familiar faces at each stop.


The guys from Pogey were fantastic. They played the KC Irish Fest last year, opening for The Elders, and that was first time I took photos of either band. And in fact I was just messing around; I really didn't plan make an impression with either act. But I got backstage access thanks to Shawn from the Zeros and ended up taking some of the best live photos of any show I'd taken pics at. And that led to Pogey buying all the pics I took and the Elders hiring me for future gigs and eventually some new publicity photos. And shortly after last year's gig Pogey asked if I would come back and shoot them again when they returned for this year's Irish Fest and that's what happened. I really didn't meet them last year except to briefly introduce myself, but this year I got to chat with the guys and they were great.

I dunno, there's just something about all musicians that seems to be universal in how friendly, enthusiastic and above all appreciative of what I do with the photography. I mean, every band I'm associated with or have worked with is exactly the same. Maybe there's some sort of respect as artists for another another artist. Or maybe they recognize how hard I work to produce the best quality photography for them every time they have me come out and shoot. Or maybe they just love how I make them look like larger than life Rock Stars ;)

The Elders, what can I say. The next day I took some extra photos of Pogey during their second performance at this year's event, then went over to see the guys who gave me a tremendous opportunity by hiring me to do their publicity photos this past summer. I hadn't seen them since that shoot and as always, some of the classiest and friendliest gentlemen I have met. And again, they pack the KC Irish Fest year after year; something to the tune of 25,000 turned up to catch their amazing live show.

And so I had a short three days after that great weekend before I headed out on Wednesday to Lee's Summit and Jerry's Bait Shop to capture Tyson Leslie's 35th birthday event. Tyson's band, 90 Minutes, is one of the more recent bands I've fallen in with this year, and again, like all of the bands, incredibly incredibly supportive of what I do and they're definitely a favorite of my to shoot. I told them once that they were my favorite band to shoot, period, but then I realized that it wasn't fair to several of the other bands who I actually equally enjoy shooting. That doesn't take away anything from them, but each band that I shoot is exciting and enjoyable so you can't really say there is any single favorite; I guess it's like loving all of your children equally, lol.

But the big thing about the 90 Minutes gig this past week was twofold: many guests players from other bands were on hand to celebrate Tyson's birthday and fill in for a song or two, which created a great atmosphere and lots of great photo ops. But other big thing, and for me something I've been pining for ever since I did the Elders publicity pics...was doing some new publicity pics with other bands, and I got to do that with 90 Minutes.

I'll be posting links to all of the galleries I mention in this blog at the end, but these publicity photos really helped me take it to a new level that I've been really hungry to achieve for a long time, but just hadn't quite gotten there before. For me it was about utilizing my lighting rig (Canon flashes triggered by RadioPoppers, stands and softboxes) effectively and creating really cool lighting. The live photography is fun, but this is what I want to do more and more of in the future. My goal is to do less (free) live photography and more studio/posed/publicity photos. If you see me out at an event with the camera, whether it's a band or a VIP party, chances are I'll be there because I was hired and not "just for the fun of it"...although of course, there will be special exceptions.

Friday night...got to see the guys in KC/DC again and shoot a 9.11 event at Fuel in Overland Park. Again, great event, terrific turnout, and some rather, um..."edgy" pics of some pretty excited female fans on stage during "Shook Me All Night Long". When you go to the link you'll see. But for now:

And finally, Saturday night. Quixotic Fusion at the Nelson-Atkins. This act is the single most unique act I've seen and it's amazing that they were founding and are based here in Kansas City. Seriously, this is something expect in New York. It's an ensemble of performers: ballet-trained dancers, musicians, high-wire gymnasts who collaborate to present an incredible, ethereal show. This is an act that everybody who values a great show but also can appreciate the obvious forethought and preparation and planning that goes into this act should make plans to see.

So that was it. Amazing week to be part of.

Links to galleries:

Pogey at the Irish Fest

The Elders at the Irish Fest

90 Minutes Publicity Photos

90 Minutes Live Pics of Tyson Leslie's Birthday

KC/DC at Fuel

Quixotic Fusion at the Nelson-Atkins

Some Ground Rules

So this something of a follow up on my previous note about watermarking. In some ways I've adhered to it, and in some ways not and I need to get back on track. These rules update that note regarding my business practices:

1) I don't mind that people use my pics for their myspace or facebook pages It's actually pretty cool and is great for promoting me. I DO appreciate people leaving my watermark in the photos, or at least noting in the caption my website address. (See below for watermarking policy as it pertains to this.)

2) If I get paid to shoot an event, I put my watermark in the lower right corner when I post it to smugmug or facebook That still enables me to put my own personal stamp to the pic without being too obnoxious.

3) If I don't get paid to shoot an event but still want to shoot for fun, I use the larger version of the watermark over the center of the pic I know, it's annoying, but I've got to put a value on my work, especially in respect to the bands/people who DO hire me and pay me. Note that the watermark DOES NOT appear on any prints that are ordered from my site; it's just a web thing.

4) For every print that's ordered from my site, the buyer gets an 800x500 web-res version of that pic with no watermark For your facebook, myspace, emailing, etc. This is a new policy and hopefully motivates people to order prints.

5) PRINTS ARE HANDLED BY SMUGMUG, NOT ME I don't make the prints myself, and I never see any credit card information from your order. I've gotten this question before, at least the part about whether I make the prints myself. That's all handled by smugmug; they process the order from one of their printers and mail them directly to you. I just get notified when a print order is made.

6) Copyright info Just like a musician retains copyright ownership of their songs even when someone buys their CDs or downloads mp3s from iTunes, so I retain copyright ownership of my photos. When you order a print or hire me (or any other photographer) to shoot for you, you're basically paying for usage. Hence I can continue to field orders for prints or use those photos in my portfolio.

• 6b) Typically usage rights for the buyer includes a CD of high-res jpgs to make as many prints as you want for personal use (framing to hang up on the wall of your home, scrapbooking, giving as a gift) and as promotional material if you're a band (posters, flyers, press kit, myspace and facebook pages, website, etc). Other uses must be vetted through me.

7) Typically I charge by the hour, but am considering alternative methods for being paid based off what I provide at a given rate On the face of it being paid by the hour is simplest, but I typically find I end up shooting longer anyway (because it's fun, usually). One alternative I'm considering is that I would provide a limited number of high-res, printable pics depending on our agreed rate. As in, five photos for $50, 20 photos for $100, 40 photos for $150, 80 photos for $200, and all of the photos, unaltered and altered, for $250. You'll notice it's a scaled system, where you'd get more for your money at the higher rates. Contact me if you are interested or have other questions about it. THIS IS A BAND/EVENT RULE; portrait shoots and weddings are priced differently.

That's it for now. I'm sure that leaves out a lot of details and other relevant issues, so in that sense it's still a system that's a work in progress. Any questions with these rules please ask me for clarification.

Annoying Watermarks vs Locking Galleries

Well, having locked all of my galleries that I shot for free last month, I've reconsidered (for now, anyway) and created a new watermark that I'm laying across the center of the pics in those galleries and have unlocked them, making them viewable again. I'll be honest, I can't make up my mind as to how to the right way to address this concern. I want to place some value on having them posted, but I don't want to hide away the photos and prevent them from seeing the light of day (and, um, well, some of my best work happened while shooting for free; go figure).

So I decided to created a new watermark, specially designed to be placed directly over the center of each pic. Now, surveys of photo websites have shown that people really dislike watermarks being placed like this (but they don't mind them along the edges, where I place my regular watermark); in fact, I tested out a different (albeit even more annoying logo) with a friend and he called it "obnoxious"...but hey, again, there's got to be some kind of value to these photos. I guess the fine line is protecting my work while at the same time not driving away people.

Below is an example of the new watermark:

For now, this will be the watermark I place over all galleries and future shoots for which I don't get paid up front. I kinda like it, but I'm not sure of the reaction it will get from people used to the more subtle lower right watermark I've been using for the past couple of years. The bottom line is that I'm trying to find a happy medium between displaying my work for everyone to enjoy while protecting it and encouraging print sales. (Some have suggested not shooting at all if I'm not getting paid, but there are times when I just feel like shooting and I enjoy doing it, so if I'm not booked with another band that night, why shouldn't I?)

Pocket Wizards, Radio Poppers...or just Canon's native wireless...

For the past couple of months I've been trying to get the hang of Pocket Wizard's new Flex TT5/Mini TT1 radio triggers. If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, it's basically a wireless system to operate flashes off camera. There are several different products available using different approaches to operating said flashes, and some are more reliable than others, some are more expensive than others, and each have their pros and cons and unique limitations. What's amazing is that I've finally just come back to Canon's native wireless system that's already built in to their flashes.

So why did I get away from it in the first place to spend (a lot) of money on gadgets that turned out to be worthless to me? Simple. Line of sight. Canon's system, while the easiest to use in my experience (high speed sync, remote control of off-camera flashes so that you don't have to walk over and adjust manually), requires the sensors on the off-camera flashes to "see" the master flash (or ST-E2 controller) that's on-camera. Meaning if the line of site is blocked, by furniture, people, a wall or whatever, it won't go off. And outside it's alleged to be even worse in sunlight because the sun overpowers the ability of the off-camera flashes to see the master (although, as I'll explain below, it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be). The Pocket Wizards circumvent the line of site issue by using radio signals. At least, they're supposed to.

(There are two sets of Pocket Wizards: the old system that's more reliable and the new Flex/Mini system. The problem with the old system is that you can't get high speed sync, nor can you control the output from on camera, in addition to no TTL control. So you're limited. For me the lack of high-speed sync is a deal breaker as I demand to be able to open up my aperture for good depth of field in daylight while keeping the sky dark by setting the shutter speed to a 4000th of a second or whatever, and still lighting the subject with flash. The old PWs don't allow this. The new Flex/Mini's, however, do allow it, and that is why I bought them. However they've turned out to be horribly susceptible to the RF noise most Canon flashes emit and are terribly unreliable.)

So having the Mini/Flex set up and trying to figure them out for the past few months, I've decided to ditch them in favor of going back to Canon's native wireless with an eye towards eventually getting the Radio Poppers (after I sell the PWs). I just got tired of the seemingly endless troubleshooting the PWs required and their frustrating unreliability. I want something to work consistently and not have to wonder what's wrong THIS time. The Radio Poppers have gotten near universal praise for their reliability; they just work. I guess the reason I didn't go that route instead of the PWs is that the RPs are a start up company while PW are established and have (or used to have) a solid reputation.

Yesterday I decided to test Canon's native system in direct sunlight (albeit at 6:30 in the evening, so maybe it's not as prone to interfering with the Canon system as, say, noon) and I discovered--with the 580 as the master on camera and a 430 both alone and through a white umbrella--that, as long as I made sure the sensor was pointed in my direction (therefore having to tilt the flash head where I wanted it to light), I could get the 430 to shoot from 45 feet away. On second thought that was through some shady areas. If the sensor was in direct sunlight it wouldn't go off more than 10 feet away...until I shifted the sensor just a wee bit, and then I regained the longer distance.

That may seem inconvenient on it's face, having to account for the sensor's direction visa vi the master flash -- and I used to think so too, which is why I tried the Flex/Mini set up -- but it's far less inconvenient than the flash suddenly not going off at all less than fifteen feet away, and wondering what the h*ll is wrong this time.

Having said all that, I did purchase a 430EX II and I can verify the lack of RF noise that particular model emits does make a difference in reliability. I tried both my 580EX II and then my regular 430EX across the room 30 feet away on a Flex right next to the 430EX II on its own Flex, and while both of those were inconsistent in their firing, sometimes shooting for several clicks but suddenly not going off for several more, the 430EX II shot every time with no worries.

So it seems to me that if you want consistency, you'll have to switch over to the 430EX II (and therefore lose the power of the 580s, not to mention the money and time spent in buying however many 430s you need, but also the hassle of selling the 580s if you wanted to make up the money), or go out and buy the $70 cord to separate the Flex from the RF noisy flashes, not to mention a ferrote (sp?) choke (and maybe more than one $70 cord depending on how many off-camera flashes you use), or get the VeilShield to wrap around the flash, or get the forthcoming shield (or two) that PW is developing, or...

Starting to seem like more trouble than it's worth, to me. Especially when Canon's native system will work just fine if you can work within its limitations and the not-so-inconvenient-after-all effort of making sure the sensor is turned toward the master flash (and even if the off camera flash is behind or to the side of the master, I've found that simply turning the master head backwards or towards the offcamera works, although that means sacrificing the master flash as a fill, which is generally fine with me). And eventually getting the RPs will eliminate the line of site issue, but for now I can happily live with it. I also agree with other photogs assertions that PW rushed it's new Flex/Mini system onto the market too fast, without proper product testing, primarily to compete with the Radio Poppers.

Now I realize that method won't work for a lot of shooters depending on their needs. And maybe the old PW Plus IIs are the more reliable option, although I have a set of those, too, and had my own issues with inconsistency and at any rate I demand the high speed sync and the old PWs simply don't allow it, not to mention the ease of being able to remotely control the power output without having to walk over and change it.

Gallery Posting Policy Changes

I've been meaning to implement some posting changes regarding my photo galleries for some time now. I've been shooting bands (as well as other events) for three years now, and so there are some galleries currently viewable that are pretty old, and I've always liked keeping them posted and for public viewing. However, as I continue to steer my photography into more of a business-oriented endeavor, it's becoming apparent that I need to treat the availability of my work as a commodity. I do get paid often to shoot, but at the same time I also shoot a lot without getting paid, but for fun. The challenge now is to find a balance that's fair to both me as a photographer and the clients who pay me.

It's a hard choice because I love leaving all the photos up for everyone to see indefinitely. And I also know not everybody can afford to pay, not to mention I'm a little too easy and enjoy it when I see people use my work as their facebook or myspace profile pics. So I'm trying to figure out what to do about it. I don't want to just not shoot if somebody can't pay me, especially if it looks like it's going to be fun. But at some point I have to be compensated.

So what I'm going to be doing is figuring out some kind of new pricing structure that will enable people to perhaps pay a cheaper price for web-res only pics and a higher price for the hi-res printable pics. And maybe introduce a shooting fee that's lower than what I've been asking. ie, show up and shoot for $50 or $70...but then the client will have to pay for either web-res files for like another $75 or hi-res files for $125 or something. (None of these are set in stone; just examples.) But ultimately I prefer just one set fee that's all-inclusive; easier that way, if higher overall.

What it all boils down to is that, for all the galleries I've shot that I did not get paid for, I will probably be removing from public view in the very near future. Recent ones within 30 days will stay up until it's been 30 days since posting, then they will be removed. Well, not really removed; just password protected, and somebody wanting to view them again I can give the password to and let them view it for a week to decide if they want to order before I change the password.

This is tough thing to figure out and it's completely a business decision. So I'm hoping that nobody takes it personally or is offended. I mean, I provide a service, and I'm pretty good at what I do, and I think that should be worth something.

Ordering Prints

Recently, I took some prints that I had ordered from my site to a some of the bands that I shoot. For KC/DC it was part of my rate/offer/whatever to go down to Ft. Scott to shoot their performance last month; six 8" x 10" copies (they were actually 8x12). And then later I ran into the singer for 90 Minutes and showed him some other prints of his band that I had also ordered with the intent of promoting prints from my site. A week earlier I gave a 12" x 18" print to Zach from Shots Fired.

They were thrilled with the prints, which is great. It basically confirmed my feeling that to see a photo in print -- and a great quality print at that -- has a more profound impact than seeing the same photo on a computer screen. Something makes it more "real". Especially when it's printed at a larger size, like the 8x12s and especially the 12x18 print of KC/DC that I made (I think they're all arm wrestling over it to see who gets that one).

But I also realized people aren't fully aware -- or are only aware of it in the abstract -- that they can order prints and that I myself don't actually print them on my inkjet. When the order is placed a professional print shop in Georgia processes the order and mails them directly to the customer. I myself never see the credit card numbers or whatever. It's a totally secure billing system. In other words, they can order as many prints as they want.

And like I said, the quality is great. I have to option of featuring matte prints and glossy prints, but I don't use them because lustre prints are the best and that's the only type I feature.

I've pretty much decided on including an 8x10 or 8x12 print (one per band member if it's a band; probably five or so if it's a individual/couple portrait) as part of my rate/services, in addition to a CD of the pics. And they can order copies of extra prints from my site, although they could (kinda/sorta) save the money and make the prints at home with the CD or take it to Walgreens. On the face of it those are cheaper options, I guess, but the cost of ink and paper (and even Walgreens) means it's not exactly free...and the prints from my site are far far better.

But essentially this is a shout at that you can order prints from my site. So do it! :)