Sometimes it Takes a Dog Story

Sometimes it's really difficult to tell a story in pictures. The story is there, but if the scene, the visual side of things, just doesn't convey the message, what do you do?

Sometimes you look for the "dog story." Everybody can relate to the image of a dog. No matter what the situation, include a dog in the scene and you transcend all language and a message, what ever it may be, gets through.

In the 1992 film, "The Public Eye," Joe Pesci's character, Leon Bernstein (loosely based on photographer Arthur Fellig , better known as Weegee) is about to photograph the corpse of gangster and tells one of the attending cops, "Put the hat in there. His hat, stick it in there! People like to see the dead guy's hat."

It makes sense.

Photo: ©2011 David W. Sumner

Contrasts

The other day while shooting downtown during lunch hour I noticed a considerable variety of behavior among all the office workers taking advantage of the warm, sunny weather during their noon break.

Many congregated in popular places to talk and socialize over a brown bag lunch.

Others sought quiet solitude to make phone calls.

Still others chose to stroll along the sidewalks with their partner or close friends.

These varied situations, all in the context of the lunch hour, brings a certain element of contrast to the photographing of this common phenomena. It's a contrast of subject and intent as opposed to a contrast of highlight and shadow. It becomes an important aspect in the telling of the story and helps shape the photographic narrative.

Photos: ©2011 David W. Sumner

It's About Style

I've always been fascinated with fashion photography. At one point early in my pursuit of a career in photography I seriously thought I'd like to be a fashion photographer. I just liked the style and beauty of fashion images.

I was drawn to the work of Norman Parkinson, Louise Dahl-Wolfe and Gordon Parks. There was a simple elegance to their images that so appealed to me. Totally different from the fashion work being done in the 1980s and 90s.

A few photographers like Helmut Newton, maintained a similar elegance, but made provocative images higher in contrast with a certain in your face quality.

I think there is a bit of that "style" of the first half of the twentieth century creeping back into fashion, in part thanks to photographers like Scott Schuman and Bill Cunningham.

It will be interesting to see if fashion in the twenty-first century moves beyond retro-trends and toward a more original style of simple elegance.

©Norman Parkinson

©Norman Parkinson

©Louise Dahl-Wolfe

©Louise Dahl-Wolfe

©Gordon Parks

©Gordon Parks

The Best Light is the Light You Have...

Union Station, Los Angeles, California.

In the headlights, San Francisco, California.

Through the window of a wedding shop, San Francisco, California.

Reflection in a puddle on the sidewalk, San Francisco, California.

Portrait on Water Street, San Francisco, California.

Lily and fireplace, San Francisco, California.

All photos: © David W. Sumner

3 Essential Elements

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk."
- Edward Weston

There are three basic elements I consider essential to a good photograph. Having said that I must point out there are thousands of good, even great photographs that lack one or more of these elements.

I don't like to think in terms of the "rules" of photography or composition. I think more in terms of guidelines. It's good to know and understand the "rules," but adhering to them can be stifling. Rules and guidelines should not restrict you. They should free you to experiment. Use them creatively. Explore their limits and push and break through this boundaries.

So here are the three basic elements to a good photograph that I keep in mind and use to guide me in making my photographs.

1. Good Light


Light doesn't have to be dramatic, bright, diffused or anything else but present. I must, however, define your subject. Light will convey your interpretation of the subject to the viewer.

Usually you have to make the most of the light available, so it's important to keep in mind how best to use the light you have to define your subject.

2. Tension


Tension attracts the viewer and draws attention to the subject and its context. You can create tension many ways: use of negative space, off center placement of the subject in the frame, motion, selective focus, uneven ratio of context to subject are all ways to achieve tension in a still image.

Tension is also a major factor in achieving the third basic element.

3. Visual Harmony


From the Greek Harmonia and Harmozo meaning agreement, to fit together, to join.

Visual harmony is a complementary balance of visual elements. The balance of elements does not necessarily have to be even or symmetrical. An uneven balance of elements can achieve visual harmony and the necessary tension to hold the viewer's attention.

Define your subject with good light, compose your image with a visual harmony that achieves the necessary visual tension and you'll have a better than good chance of consistently making good photographs.

All photos: © David W. Sumner

The Bad Old Days of Shooting Stock Revisited...Again.

Based on what I witnessed here's my take on the business of shooting stock

There is certainly nothing truly "bad" about shooting images for stock.

Back in the days when we (we being me and the small group of photographers I hung out with) were trying to build up editorial clients shooting for our stock files was often a distraction or at the least additional work, of a different mind set than the focus of the job.

We were scrambling in a dramatically changing industry. In the late 1980s - 90s editors and art directors were having their budgets slashed, many photo editors were having to work on multiple publications at a time. Publishers were consolidating their staffs so individual magazines no longer had dedicated editors and directors, as a result the demand for stock images greatly increased.

Some editorial photographers saw this as a bad thing because assignments paid more and stock was cutting into assignment work. Some photographers jumped right in and started building their stock files by actually shooting stock images while on assignment. Others invested in a strategy of self-assignments to generate large numbers of stock images that anticipated the trends and needs of editorial and advertising clients. Shooting stock became a business in itself. Other photographers maintained the mindset that stock was nothing more that the seconds left over from their assignments and that if anyone wanted a look they could call.

As soon as stock became an accepted business practice, ie: as ADs and PEs began relying on it, the few stock agencies that existed at the time started aggressive campaigns to expand their representation of photographers. Agencies started getting the majority of the calls making it tougher for the independent photographer to market his/her own work.

At this point we saw the rise of the broker. Brokers served as the "middle man" between ADs and the stock agencies and independent photographers. As a result photographers would have little or no contact with the "client," the company or publication actually using the images. The broker was the new client.

Then agencies started buying up each other, anticipating a tremendous growth in the demand for stock imagery. They supported the shooters who were making a business out of shooting stock images and created teams to analyze markets, anticipate trends and tell the photographers what to shoot.

And then...a couple of billionaires took notice. Getty and Corbis gobbled up the stock business like a couple of great white sharks at an all-you-can-eat sea lion buffet. They totally gutted the business. They climbed into their own coffin when they introduced the royalty free model. When photographers aren't paid they don't shoot. Many went out of business. Amateurs love seeing their images in print and will give away images and be totally thrilled when they are offered $30 for a magazine cover. Kodak figured there were so many Kodak Moments floating around out there they would suck them all in and sell them for $0.10 each. But they lacked infrastructure so they bought The Image Bank, and in typical fashion totally ran it into the ground.

Enter the Web and the .com boom. The big boys watch as their six figure MBAs try to figure out what an FTP is and how to charge for it, the whole while publishers and Web designers were grabbing images off the internet. Lawyers were hired, they were stumped, they were fired. Sonny Bono started hacking away at the Copyright laws and poof...the stock business goes up in smoke.

It was an exciting time, full of potential and a great many creative people were working hard to create a viable industry. But ultimately those efforts were totally undermined by the short sighted greedmisters of " big business."

So when I say "The Bad Old Days of Shooting Stock," I don't mean that creating stock images, or making a business out of shooting stock is at all bad. I simply mean there was a time when it was like the "Wild West" all over again. We even had a real life Billy the Kid.

Photo: ©1990 David W. Sumner

Putting Lyrics to Pictures

Seeing only dark shapes
Waving in the rain
The streetcar pulls away
I'm alone
The street lamp has burned out

Poem: ©2011 David W. Sumner
Photo: ©2010 David W. Sumner