FOUR BY FIVE SKIES

The project I shot in Jersey was pretty much the first time I’ve used 4×5 film.

Now, I don’t want to get into a digital vs film debate here, I don’t care what
you use. To me cameras are just tools. I’m not (too much) of a geek about
them…..mine are dirty, chipped, used. (I’ve noticed that people who really
like to take pictures usually have pretty used looking gear, those who are
into the geek/fetish bits of photography keep their shit clean. But that’s
another post.) I love and use digital for it’s ease and speed and a bunch
of other reasons.

But…..

I’ve been working on the Jersey pix (285 meg files from scanned 4×5 color negs.)
and I’ve been working on digital files I’ve shot for editorial and commercial gigs.
Let me tell you…..there’s a BIG difference.

The amount of information in the 4×5’s is kinda mind-blowing. You can work
those scans, bring up details and tones, forever. In comparison, the files from
my digital camera (35 megs) look positively thin. Not that you can’t make swell
final files from them, it’s just that there’s not a ton of information there to work
with.

Now I know that there are some out there who just go craaaazy when this subject
is brought up. They’ll say that you can use HDR (high dynamic range) imaging
with your digital. But, if you ask me that HDR stuff almost always looks fake.
I like my photographs to look like photographs and not like some electronically
produced Frankensteins.

By way of example here’s 2 images from the same scan….. The Pulaski Skyway
(a 3.5 mile long bridge over the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers). The top image
is pretty much straight out of the scanner (with some color, contrast and density
corrections). In the bottom one I brought down the sky. Typically, if this was shot
using a digital camera and I’d darkened the sky in post production, it (the sky)
would become darker and gain a bit of detail. Yes. But the whites would have
been blown, which means you’d get tone but no detail. As well, a digital file just
wouldn’t have the subtlety and buttery feel that film yields.

In the end you can use/do/shoot whatever you want. I’ll continue to shoot
digital for projects where it’s called for. But I’m sold on the working methods,
the look and the feel of film for my personal work. I also continue to use it
for some commercial/editorial gigs. (I just wish more art directors would ask
for film.)

By the way…..in the bottom image I didn’t do any local dodging, burning or any other
fiddly stuff in Photoshop. All I did was lasso the sky and darken it. Those tones and
all that detail were right there in the film/scan.

SOME EUROPEAN BUILDINGS

Now, typically I like photos of people. Specifically portraits. But I must admit
to becoming more and more interested in views of the landscape with buildings
these days. Not “scenics” per se, but formal yet tough views of where and how
we (humans, developers, architects) plunk down structures in nature.

There seems to be a lot of this kind of documentation going on in Europe. I
recently bumped into the work of European photographers Peter Wildanger
and Benoit Vollmer (via: Conscientious).

Peter Wildanger

Benoit Vollmer

Both of these photographers shoot buildings in landscape, but that’s not
all that they do. If you visit their sites you’ll see that they are interested
in details, quirks and slightly offbeat takes on structures and the landscape
as well. If you ask me there’s some intelligence (not to mention diligence
and work ethic) involved with these guys work. All too often, in my opinion,
photographers just key in on one specific approach to their subject matter or
theme and shoot it to death. Both Vollmer and Wildanger shoot around their
points of view enough to allow them to sequence their work into strings of bits
and pieces that, in the end, add up to more than just a bunch of photos.

I started this week’s post by uploading and talking a bit about some of
the commercial work I’d recently done. Work that is now published and
available for posting here on drool. But then I decided that that approach
was just too hype.

This is what this week’s post was gonna look like:

THE OTTAWA HOSPITAL ANNUAL REPORT:

Cover and some spreads……

A few out takes…..

Then this week’s post was going to segue from a shot of ex-assistant Ben
in the operating room to a shot of my new assistant Lindsey that I pieced
together from two test shots because I didn’t like the look on her face in
the wide shot:

BEN

LINDSEY

And I was going to close with this fortune I got in a cookie:

But then I got to thinking about how that was all just shameless self
promotion. (Who could possibly be interested? Even if I fleshed it out
with stories about shooting in the hospitals.)

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am, in fact, pretty
much a shameless self promoter. But I do have my moods, and today,
as I sit and write this, I’m not too sure about all the HYPE aspects of
the good-old photoblog. Not just drool, any photoblog.

I reckon the seed of my discontent was planted by this post over at
A Photo Editor that made me get to thinking about what drool is and
what I’d like it to be. (Although, on re-reading that APE post I see that
drool is satisfying 3 1/2 of his 4 reasons for a photographer to blog.)

Of course, it’s just a blog. It can be any fucken thing I want it to be. And
maybe what I’ve been doing here with drool is “working” fine. After all,
the last time I looked it was getting about 400 visitors a day. (There, you
see? More hype.)

Anyway, today I’m going to have my cake and eat it too. I managed to
squeeze in most of the images I wanted you to see to by using the
transparent “here’s-what-I-would-have-done-but-it’s-too-lame” approach.

Now what? Where do I go from here?

Let me tell you, based on what I know about myself:

drool will continue to be what’s on my mind and what’s on my desktop
from week to week. Plus, I’m going to try to talk about more, different
aspects of photography. (Modern European photography is really turning
my crank these days, so look for some references and discussion of that
in the coming weeks and months.)

In the meantime, here’s a thing shot by SPAO graduate Greg Zenha that
blows my mind…….

It’s titled: Greg Zenha by Julia Dickens.

I know Greg but I don’t know much about this piece…..but what I do know
is what makes it so interesting to me. You see, that’s Greg kneeling on the
bed. I assume (but am not totally sure) that the photo on the right is the
picture he’s taking in the picture on the left. (See, it’s getting interesting
and convoluted already.) I think, but am not sure, that the woman on the
right is Julia Dickens. I also think that, whoever she is, she’s dressed in
Greg’s clothes, in fact is outfitted to look vaguely like Greg.

The way this thing turns in on itself is genius. The concepts, the secrets,
the look of the final product seem pretty original to me. Of course, I’ve
always liked art that is about the creative process, that’s self referential.

Kinda like this post.

I’ve been busy shooting annual reports, some advertising and a whole
bunch of editorial but can’t post any of those shots because they haven’t
been released yet into the wild. My clients would kill me.

And, even though I’m still working on post production from the Jersey
trip I figure you must be sick to death of those shots and stories.

So I was wondering what the subject matter would be for drool this
week. Then it struck me……subject matter. Funny how things can
be right under your nose sometimes.

Now, I’m not too sure what I really have to say about this matter,
subject matter. Except that, as usual, I’m pretty much going to
make it up as I go along.

And perhaps that’s the point. Many photographers make it up as
they go along. But there are certain bits of life that always seem
to attract idividuals:

friends and family
architecture
the way light strikes things
street life
details
overviews/landscapes
and so on.

And, in amongst these bits that interest them, there are all kinds of
subsets that they gravitate towards; certain ways they frame the
time and space that they are interested in.

For instance…..a photographer may be interested in portraiture, but
only of people that they don’t know. And these people must be in a
specific kind of location and light. Once those parameters are met
the photographer likes to kind of arrange the subjects on the spot
to create a certain (but not pinned down) kind of feeling. (Hey,
I’ve just described me, or at least a bit of me.)

Another photographer may like to wander the streets, shooting humanity.
He really likes it when his photographs are moments of peak action, the
decisive moment. (Henri Cartier-Bresson)

Or…..well, you get the point.

I find it interesting that (in most cases, I assume) a photographers’
subject matter is just a natural attraction to certain aspects of life.
But I believe that it’s the thought, perseverance, aesthetic, talent
and just plain understanding and awareness that the photographer
brings to his/her subject matter (no matter what that matter is)
that informs the resulting photographs.

Of course, some photographers put a lot of time and energy into
analysis of what and how they are shooting. Their subject matter
might be what interests them but the whole process becomes rarefied
and honed to the point of, almost, narcissism. And there are other
photographers who make a life from studying what’s in and kool
right now. Then copy it.

And so on. And so forth.

There are also, amongst what I’ll call (for lack of a better word) serious
photographers, photographers who spend their life shooting one thing.
Think Bernd and Hilla Becher or Lynne Cohen.

Then there are the types who flit from thing to thing, subject to subject,
who’s interests change and evolve as they change and evolve. Think Araki
(NSFW) or, maybe, Robert Frank (known for The Americans but I love his
later Polaroids. He made movies, too).

The best of these photographers, the ones that move from one subject
to another, always bring a lot of themselves to what they do. You can
see Araki in his flowers, just as you can see him in his bound women.

Anyway. All this to say that the camera is unique in that it allows you
to just push a button and you get a record of what interests you.

And that’s subject matter.

Pay attention.

For what it’s worth, and in order to get some images up here on drool:

My subject matter (discounting my commercial work) loosely falls
into 2 categories:

Pre 1990 I worked at home and on the street with miniature (35 mm)
cameras recording just about everything. The subject matter being my
life.

By way of example:

There are hundreds more where these came from:

Then I took a break from personal projects until 1995 when I became
interested in portraiture, uniform and the individuals’ place in the
environment.

Of course there have been lots of side trips, wrong paths and so
on throughout. Just to keep things interesting.

________________________________________________________________________

This post was thrown together just after a Saturday afternoon nap.
My head’s damn foggy….just the way I like it sometimes. I hardly
even re-read the thing. (What did I say?) Anyway…..since this was
pretty off-the-cuff I’m sure that there are lots of oversights and just
plain wrong assumptions here. Get back at me in the comment section
with your thoughts. Lets see if we can work this out. (Or not.)

Here’s the final edit from my Passaic trip.

Just press the arrow (bottom left) for the next shot……..

Well, I made my final edit from the Jersey trip.

110 sheets of film exposed. 75 fast scans for editing. 18 shots
made the final edit. Brutal.

I decided to leave out all the “scenics” , in fact I left out everything
I shot the first day…..when we were in the countryside, the exurbs
and the suburbs. Even though leaving those out seems to down-play
(in a way) one of the points of the trip, which was to follow the Passaic
from it’s source to it’s mouth.

So be it.

I never said I knew what I was doing. I did say I’d follow the river
and see what happened. Now I know.

I have no regrets about this trip even though we spent some time
barking up the wrong tree. The feeling I got from seeing the source
of the Passaic and following it through to it’s end was like nothing
I’ve felt before. And it’s not as though I’m unfamiliar with barking
up the wrong tree. I believe in process. Live and learn.

Anyway……I hope to exhibit some of these new Passaic photos,
the ones that made the final edit, during this year’s Festival X (the
ill-named Ottawa Photography Festival). And I’m sure I’ll post some
of them here on drool next week.

In the meantime, some out takes from the trip……not that I don’t
feel tender about some of these shots. In fact a few of them might
be better than some that made the final cut. It’s just that, when
editing, you’ve got to take the feel and flow into consideration.
Some of these ones here might feel kinda right but just didn’t flow
in the final sequence. They added confusion instead if clarity. A
few of them are the “B” shots from when I shot 2 or 3 frames of
a person.

Here you go:

L’UNIVERS LACROIX

There’s a show up at The Red Wall Gallery, at SPAO: L’Univers Lacroix.
Student’s take on fashion fotography. Kind of a mixed bag but there are
enough interesting shots on the wall that make a trip to see it worthwhile.
Go see for yourself.

100

This is the 100th drool post.

I followed the Passaic River as it wound it’s way 80-odd miles
from the swamps of New Jersey through to where it drains into
Newark Bay. I was shooting with a 4×5 camera, which is large
format, requires a tripod, makes you work slowly. I’d never done
either thing before…..follow a river/shoot large format.

What was I thinking? In fact, that’s what I said to Ben more than a
few times during the trip: “Next time I get an idea like this will you
please tell me to forget it, to just stay home and watch the Stanley
Cup playoffs.” “I fucking hate the Passaic River.” “What am I doing
here?”

Of course I remember that I always say these types of things during
my foto-trips. They’re so intense and fraught with difficulties. It takes
2 hours of driving and screwing around to find one moment of grace,
one encounter that makes me grin. Ben reminded me that that’s just
like life. True that. Double true. Will I ever learn?

Anyway……I was in over my head, what with the big camera and the
task/limitation of following the river. Stubborn me, even though I saw
a ton of stuff beyond the shores of the Passaic, I wouldn’t shoot it. I
was determined to work within the strict confines I’d set out. I wanted
to see what would happen. I wanted to shoot a project I could title:
BESIDE THE PASSAIC.

So, what did I shoot? The shots seem to fall into 4 broad categories,
all shot right beside the Passaic…..

Portraits:

Industrial overviews:

Scenics:

Urban scenes with small people:

So far I’ve got 74 of these suckers scanned and placed in an Aperture
light table, where I can move ‘em around, put ‘em in different sequences,
try to make sense of what I did. I’m having a whale of a time playing with
what I’ve done, trying to find the thread, the look, the feel. This process is
a lot like following the Passaic…..you know it’s there, you just have to find it.

Okay, all for now. I’m sorting this whole process out in my head as I go along
here. Next week there will be more, different, takes on this trip. Tune in.

Finally……my blog was hacked last week. Some criminal Belorussians with what
my web guy and Primus tell me is a diabolical piece of code. Totally fucked up
my Google rankings and took hours and dollars to sort out. As a result I’m using
new software. I’m a total dork when it comes to software learning curves. Please
let me know if this post looks weird on your monitor. Thanks.

Well, I just got back from my trip to New Jersey. Following the Passaic River.

Shot about 110 sheets of 4×5 film. I can hardly wait to see how they turn out.
If they don’t suck too much I’ll be posting some of them here over the next few
weeks, with accompanying stories. In the meantime here’s a rundown on the nuts
and bolts of the trip:

Left Ottawa and got into the States no problem, except for a border guard who
couldn’t believe I was taking so much gear in for “non-commercial purposes”.
He let us in anyway.

We drove for 8 hours to Bernardsville, New Jersey. Walked into the library and the
librarian asked : “Can I help you?” I replied: “Yes, I’m looking for the source of the
Passaic River”. She didn’t bat an eye, just took us back to the reference section
and spent the next while making sure we had all the information we needed. Even
with all that info, let me tell you that finding the source of a river is no easy matter.
This whole trip couldn’t have been done without Ben’s expert navigation and diligence.

So, miracle of miracles, after more driving (this time down twisty country lanes)
we come to the point that all our maps and research tells us is the actual source
of the river. It just so happens that the Passaic springs from the ground, from an
underground spring. There is one actual spot where this river begins. Here, bottom
left (where the rock is) in the top picture. At the intersection of Corey Lane and
Hardscrabble Rd in the bottom shot.

The next 4 days were spent following the Passaic as closely as we could. Trying to find
points where we could get close. Points that were visually interesting. Points that were
sort of scenic but kinda modern too.

I was also photographing people. Here’s a link to a video Ben shot of me working and
conversing with some of the folks we met. It’s only 1:50 long and, if you ask me, there
are some pretty funny bits. VIDEO

Like on all trips, there was a whole bunch of time spent finding food and shelter.

At the end of the last day we managed to find the point where the Passaic drains into
Newark Bay. Again, no easy matter. After a few failed efforts we finally ended up
driving down a god forsaken bit of rutted road in an industrial backwater that ended
at a chainlink fence. But there, off to the left, was a path. We shouldered the gear
and set off, not knowing if there would be any access at the end of the path. But,
just like the very beginning, we ended up in the perfect spot. The feeling I got from
following the Passaic from beginning to end was something else. I’m not sure I can
describe it. I’m not sure I’ve ever felt like that before. The end:

And, just in case you need to see more (other) pictures, here’s a link to the latest issue
of Guerilla magazine. I shot a bunch of portraits for the mag at The Ottawa Art Gallery
art auction. Here, under Random Shooting.

ROAD TRIP

I’m leaving Monday on a road trip/personal project.

I’m going to follow the Passaic River as it runs 80-odd miles from it’s
source in the swamps of New Jersey, through industrial zones, suburbia
and on past Harrison and Newark where it drains into Newark Bay.

Now, I’m not going to be in a boat or anything…..I’ll be following it in
my car. On streets, highways and in parking lots that edge the river.
Other than that…..I don’t have a clue. No idea what I’ll find or how
I’ll feel about it. Who I’ll meet, what they’ll be like, what I’ll do with
them and my camera.

This is what I’m taking.

Plus a flash and a tripod. One pair of jeans, some shorts and t-shirts.
Shoes and socks. Ben (the assistant) and my car. Money. What else
do you need for this type of endeavor? Oh yeah…..underwear.

I just hope that the pictures I take don’t suck too much. But who really
knows? That’s part of the charm (if that’s the right word) of this kind of
trip……the great unknown. Jersey, baby!

The pressure’s on and I’m okay with that. The deal is that I’ve got 5 days
to travel the 80 miles the Passaic flows, 5 days to make something happen.
Not only make it happen but also make some kind of sense of it, impress
my eye and brain and heart onto film.

I’ll bet that drool will be full of this trip over the next few weeks….

GOSSIP GUY

I recently shot Macleans magazine’s political gossip columnist, Mitchel Raphael.
Thanks to the folks at The Chateau Laurier for the loan of a room.

Here’s a sequence of Mitchel ironing his shirt (none of these ran). I probably
never would have thought of getting him to do this for the shoot. It just so
happened that he needed to iron his shirt. I recognized the photo-potential
and talked him into ironing for the camera. I think that a lot of photography
is just recognizing things , being aware of the moment and it’s potential and
then, after a bit of shuffling and visual organization, pressing the button.

Anyway, after Mitchel ironed we sat him down…….

ME

Here’s me in Ottawa Magazine. Top right, in case you don’t know what
I look like.

They put words in my mouth, man. I’d NEVER say that self-indulgence
is a sin.

.

HOSPITALS

Been shooting 2 separate projects in hospitals this week (and next)
with 2 separate agencies. Shooting the Ottawa Hospital annual report
with Donna Darby (Utopia) and a nurses recruitment campaign with
Vernon Lai (ACART).

Let me tell you…..the folks that work in our health care system are
some busy. Scheduling can get all screwed up in the bat of an eye.
I’ve got no problem with that seeing as how the scheduling issues
kind of revolve around life or death, care versus neglect. I’ll take
a back seat any old day when the person I’m supposed to be photo-
graphing is called away to provide comfort.

For instance, we had just finished the first set up of a shot in the
Trauma Room, were just about to start the second option, when a
face peeks around the corner and says: “We just got a call. We need
this room in three minutes”.

So much for our second option. We cleared out and the staff sprung
into action (as if they ever stop).

It’s a pleasure (if that’s the right word) to be around the people who
work in the hospitals. Their humanity and patience are something else.
It’s also kool to be around folks who’s jobs are based on flux, on never
really knowing what’s next. Kind of reminds me of my job. Except I don’t
save lives.

EYES OR BRAIN?

Okay, I’m going to write in broad strokes. Let me dig myself a hole here……

I believe that there are pictures you take with your eyes and there are pictures
you take with your brain.

Of course it’s way more complicated and subtle than that. Both types of imagery
have their time and place. Some eye photos are more interesting than some brain
photos. And vise versa. Plus, how can you separate the eye from the brain? Who’s
brains am I talking about? Who’s eyes? Neither of these categories can exist in a
pure state…..there’s always seepage from one to the other. Eyes to brain. Brain
to eyes.

As well, there are a gazillion different uses for photographs. You’ve got your snapshots
(see the three above), you’ve got your forensic shots, you’ve got your real estate
pictures, ID shots, news photography and so on and so forth. They all have their
place. Some of them, these by-the-way photos, are amazing to look at and to study.

What I’m talking about here, though, are the photographs made by people trying.
Your Flickr types, your JPGmag types. Artists, serious hobbyists, professionals,
students. People who go out with a camera to practice and record.

So, broadly speaking…..

Eye pictures are (for example) raking light striking a weathered stump. Or the
way a bright red safety cone contrasts the gray of pavement. Sunsets. Stuff like
that. Below are some pix I shot last night on my way to rent a video. These are
eye pictures.

Brain pictures, on the other hand, are more about the photographer’s
complicated relationship to the world. The’re an attempt to uncover
something more than the way light strikes an object, the colors of nature,
puppies, etc. They’re an attempt to understand as well as record.

Here’s a shot of my friend’s mother. She has Alzheimer’s.

If you’ll excuse my immodesty, I think that this is a brain picture.

Now, I’m not going to attempt to define these two categories in further
detail. There are way too many vagaries, overlaps, exceptions-to-the-rules,
etc., to go into here. And I’m not picking sides or trying to dictate who should
do what. Each person who wants to practice as a photographer will be drawn to
some particular point on this continuum. That’s the way it is.

But for me, when I study photographs, it’s the brain as well as the eye that
I’m looking for.

(or HEART)

One of the reasons (amongst many) that I write this blog is to find out what I think.
Just after I finished this post I started to wonder about what I’d written. Surely
there must be more, I must be overlooking some other aspect of what photos are.
They can’t just be about eyes and/or the brain. Then it hit me…..a category I’d
forgotten up until now: the heart.

Perhaps one of the best reasons to take pictures.

Here’s a heart photo. Taken by my dad in 1945 after he’d been liberated from a
WW ll POW camp. Back in England. The woman he would marry. My mother.

OTTAWA ART GALLERY Auction

Did some shooting this past Thursday at the Ottawa Art Gallery auction.
A gala affair it was.

They put us in the Chocolate Room which, as you may guess, had tables
stacked with chocolate to keep the bidders happy. The room also seemed
to be a major thoroughfare from somewhere to somewhere else. After some
attempts at crowd wrangling (no easy task when there’s a table covered with
free chocolate) I packed up the digi kit and shot some 4×5 BIGHEADS. Lets
see anyone get between the camera and the subject then…..seeing as how
the lens was about a foot and a half from the subject’s face. Yeah baby!

Guerilla Magazine’s gonna run some (or something) and put a whole bunch
of other ones on their web site so this is really all I can show you for now.

PALAHNIUK

I’m reading the new Chuck Palahniuk paperback: Rant. Here’s a couple
of sentences I came across:

If you look at old pictures, she is so pretty. Not just young,
but pretty the way you look when your face goes smooth,
the skin around your eyes and lips relaxed, the pretty you
only look when you love the person taking the picture.

MOTHER’S DAY

Guy, who owns the gallery where I sometimes show my personal work, told
me that he sold one of my photos to a fellow who was going to give it to his
mom for Mother’s Day. This is the print he bought. The perfect Mother’s
Day present if you ask me.

MICHELLE WILSON

Went to Michelle’s one nite stand at La Petite Mort Gallery. People singing. As
usual for this star graduate of SPAO, the look and feel were a sight to behold.

The show was only up for one night so you either saw it or you didn’t. Michelle’s
off to Paris to show some work at the big Arles foto fest, as the winner of the
Concours L’univers de Christian Lacroix. She tells me she’s gonna be packing a
4×5. I can hardly wait to see what she brings back. All I can say is, baby get a
web site or at least a blog and keep us all abreast.

ADVISE

Sometimes I get asked for advice, you know……how do I become a
better photographer.

My answer is just about always the same. I say take a lot of pictures;
don’t be afraid to make mistakes, nothing’ perfect; shoot personal
projects; think about what you’ve done and what you want to do;
study the history of photography and don’t be afraid.

Take lots of pictures.

I believe that you learn more by shooting, say, 200 photos in a week than
by shooting 200 in a month. When you shoot lots there’s a certain frame
of mind that develops, a juju and a work ethic. These lead you places.

Making mistakes/seeking perfection:

You learn more from your mistakes than you do from your successes. Too
often people want the first thing they do to be perfect. That’s just plain
stupid…..where’s the fun in that?

Personal projects:

I know that I learn way more doing an intense personal project for one
week than I do shooting paid assignments for a year. If you’re a pro
photog the great thing about these projects is that you can apply
what you learn to your commercial gigs.

Thinking about what you’ve done:

Once you’ve shot some film (or some files) do an edit, i’ts one of the
most interesting parts of photography. Shooting is about soul and
emotion and instinct, editing is a bit more about your intellect. Rooting
through what you’ve done allows you to see mistakes (see above) and
possibilities . It shows you threads that run through what you’ve done
and allows you to move forward with knowledge.

History:

View from the window by Nicaphore Niepce (the first photograph)

I believe that knowing the history of anything you’re interested in is totally
important. Knowing what has come before sheds light on that may come
next. At the very least it’l show you images and approaches you’ve never
seen or considered. You’l see things that might just blow your mind.

Sisley advert by Terry Richardson

Fear:

Fear just keeps you in your box. Which sucks.

A personal note about criticism/advice:

Seven or eight years ago I met with a photo editor in Toronto. That was back
when I was doing a classical kind of shooting. Looked good, was timeless in
a way but mired in the past. Well, she pointed all of this out to me. I remember
being totally steamed……what the fuck does she know? I thought to myself.

On the drive back to Ottawa I decided to set my pride, stubbornness and ego aside
and just consider what she told me. I decided that she was right. Over the next
year I drove myself craaaaaazy trying to make my work more modern while also
keeping it true to me. I didn’ want to (could’t) just copy what was in at the
moment. That’s just being a stylist and I knew that that wouldn’t satisfy me. So
I wracked my brain and soul, went down many dead-end paths, shot a whole bunch
of personal work and ended up (I think) figuring it out, coming to a conclusion that
worked for me. And I try to remember, always, that there’s really no such thing as
a conclusion, the target keeps shifting. Stasis = death.

Now, I’m not saying here that I’m the most original shooter around, I know that a certain
percentage of my paying gigs aren’t about me or whatever style I may have. (That’s not
the way it’s done in Ottawa). What I’m trying to say is that my conversation with that photo
editor and my decision to consider and act on what she told me have made me a much better
(and, I believe, more successful) photographer than I would have been if I had just dismissed
her observations because they rubbed me the wrong way.