Test Caption
It’s been a busy two months and I haven’t had time to write. I still don’t, but I have to post some photos from my shoot yesterday with Maggie and Moses.
I have had the privilege of photographing Maggie and Moses for the last three years. I started when Moses was about 18 months old (usually pretty low percentage shooting).
One of my favorite photos of all time came from the first time I shot Maggie and Moses together. Moses was a stout and hearty walker by then, but he was still just a toddler. Kids at that age are hard to photograph, but I got lucky. I’m also a sucker for a good looking dog, especially one with some beagle heritage.
My friendship with Maggie however goes back a bit farther.
In 2005 I shot her father’s wedding to her new step-mother. Maggie was pretty interested in my cameras, so I took out my extra-emergency back-up body, put a lens on it, and made her my assistant. She took to it right away and spent the rest of the day helping me.
Photographing anyone under three is always a challenge. In 2009 Moses was just so happy to be out playing with Maggie that he was hard to pin down. Maggie, one-time professional photographer’s assistant, was hip to the trouble I was having, so we took a break for her to give Moses some attention. She was giving him this piggyback ride which turned out to be my favorite photo of the day.
This year everything was different. It’s not clear if Moses remembered me, or just got the positive vibe from Maggie and was ready to have some fun. He’s still not quite four, and an active boy more interested in rocks and sticks than looking at the camera, but he was out for fun as long as we kept moving. Maggie was still the lovely, great subject she has always been, but now, although she’s only in 5th grade, you can clearly see the graceful young woman she will soon become. Enough talk, Time for pictures.
Maggie and Moses getting ready for their upcoming Abercrombie & Fitch shoot.
Maggie showing some Girl Power.
Every photography class I teach comes with unlimited, lifetime technical support. You might think I get questions about depth of field or how to use flash, but most of the questions are based on correcting the bad advice people get from camera sales staff. I’m reminded of this because of an email I got today:
In June I went to [unnamed camera store] with the intent to upgrade from my XTi to the 7D. After talking to the salesman and looking at lenses I was also interested in, he convinced me to get the T2i with the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 (I was looking for a zoom in that range but Canon brand). He swore I’d be just as happy for 1/2 the price w/ the Sigma and that the T2i was almost the exact same camera as the 7D, except for the 7D is quicker. In the end I’d spend the same money and get the new camera & lens, vs. just the body upgrade.
Yow. I hate to go too far into geek speak, but to say a T2i is like a 7D is like saying a Ford Fiesta is the same as a Ford Flex because they both have 4 wheels and both start with “F”. Surely a skilled photographer can make a great photo with either camera. You can get a family of five into either car and drive to Mackinaw City. The family in the Flex is going to be a lot happier when they get to the Sheppler Dock, and the Photographer using the 7D will have easier going when the chips are down.
Let us consider the camera salesman. How did he or she come to take that position at the counter? Once in a while you will find a smart, experienced person at a camera counter. You might find a retired photographer, or a serious hobbyist trying to earn some extra lens buying cash. When I worked in a camera store (while a college student) one of my colleagues was a great photographer who had a disabling, photo-related accident and ended up giving advice rather than making photos. He was something of a guru. But he was a rare jewel, and not the rule.
Who is the typical salesman? Well, they aren’t making their livings as photographers. And they aren’t people qualified to hold jobs that require a college degree. They are also people who work for just a bit more than minimum wage, which means in many cases they can’t afford and don’t personally own the equipment about which they are offering advice. They are people who make money by selling you more stuff. Some work on commission, and some don’t, but all will be evaluated by the amount they move.
It’s important to understand how camera sales work. Camera stores (bricks & mortar or on-line) don’t make a lot of money selling high-end cameras and lenses. If you buy a $1,000 camera and a $39 case the store will probably make more on the case. Canon, Nikon and others have created Minimum Advertised Prices (MAPs) for some things that keep a minimum amount of profit while a product is new, but once supplies are plentiful and demand levels off many retailers are willing to cut their profits to nothing on big ticket items in hope of making something on the go-withs.
At many camera stores sales staff don’t make a percentage commission. Rather they get premiums as a bonus per item sold. We called them “spiffs”. A Canon 7D body may have only a $5 spiff. As a kit with a lens that spiff might only be $2 more. On the other hand a Rebel T2i may have a $10 spiff, and that Sigma lens will have the most generous payout of all, maybe $20. So the salesman at Unnamed Camera could have sent my student home with the 7D and 17-55mm Canon lens she really wanted, but he’d only make $7. By talking her into spending less he put $30 in his pocket. It’s an easy sell because after all, he’s asking her to spend less, isn’t that the sign of an honest person? When I worked at a camera store, one of the other salesmen would find the best payout on the monthly list of premiums and say, “It looks like I have a new favorite camera.”
DIGRESSION ALERT: This is how the myth of the “protection filter” came about. Even back in my day as a salesman a $6 filter had a $1 spiff. Sell two filters with a lens and you can double the store’s profit and the salesman’s take. Listen. YOU DON’T NEED A PROTECTION FILTER. In most case they do more harm than good. They are big pieces of cheap glass that are crud magnets. I regularly see people shooting through filthy “protection” filters who can’t figure out why my images look so much sharper. My personal favorite is the person who buys a high quality $70 filter ($10 spiff) to “protect” a $100 kit lens. Bad investment. Buy a hood instead. DIGRESSION OVER.
Sadly, the price those sales people are extracting is bad photos. My student went on to write:
After a lot of consideration, I gave in and have been shooting since with that combo (t2i +sigma 24-70) I am finding that I hate the 24-70. I rarely get a sharp image, maybe 1 of every 50 are spot on. Do you think I have a faulty lens or did I get what I paid for? It was still $899-for that price I’m so disappointed. The Sigma lens is heavy too so I’m not sure if that plays a role in it or not. I’m also wishing I’d went with my original thought and bought the 7D and saved up for the lens later on. Any thoughts or advice?
What do I say to that? It’s not a faulty lens. Probably in a bench test it would be perfectly sharp. But we don’t take photos on a testing bench. The problem is even the most expensive Sigma lenses don’t focus as accurately or as quickly as even a decent Canon lens. The problem is a big heavy lens like a 24-70 is a bad match for a little camera like a T2i. The problem is the T2i is a very good entry-level camera but doesn’t focus as fast as the 7D she wanted in the first place. The problem is the salesman doesn’t have to answer these questions that his customers have, ever.
DIGRESSION ALERT #2: I have no specific ax to grind about Sigma lenses. Some of them are very good, I even own one. (Although I’ve never had a worse experience with service than the time an expensive Sigma lens of mine literally fell apart when it was 4 months old and Sigma refused to repair it under warranty.) The problem is, the best thing you can say about most third party lenses, Sigma included, is that they’re cheaper than the rest. Photography is either a very optional hobby or a living. If it’s your living, shame on your for taking a compromise to save a few pennies. If it’s your hobby you are spending your precious discretionary money. You will get more enjoyment out of a single great lens than you will from a one-does-it-all off-brand lens. Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others make budget lenses too, and they are the same waste of money. You don’t have to buy the exotic top-priced lenses to get something good, but if you are going to spend real money on an optic, don’t buy the most expensive knock-off. Buy a mid-priced lens from the best optical designers. You bought a Nikon to put Nikon lenses on it. The same goes for Canon. The market knows this. Used Sigma lens get 50-60% of their new price. Used Canon/Nikon lenses will often command 90% of their new price. When photographers sit around and talk about which brand they prefer it always comes down to who makes the lenses they want to shoot with. No one says, “I want to get the best body I can put my Sigma lenses on.” DIGRESSION OVER.
I don’t know if all sales people will mislead people as is routinely done in camera sales. I know my experience with cameras sales has made me suspect in general. I also know that the sales people themselves are probably not as mercenary in their approach as I may have made them sound. Perhaps the salesman at Unnamed Camera has a Rebel T2i (which he had to save more than a year to afford) and he tells himself it’s just as good as the 7D. Maybe he knows nothing about photography at all and is just saying what he’s been told, or read on the Internet. I can’t know what lies in the heart of anyone. But, as my student has confirmed, I can know the salesman was wrong.
I love photography. It’s a great job, and a great hobby. I want everyone to enjoy making photos. I love to teach photography because I truly enjoy helping people feel successful in their pursuit. In my experience the single greatest obstacle to people enjoying photography is bad advice, most of it coming from camera stores. Those same storeowners will complain when on-line retailers put them out of business. It has to change. If we are going to get bad advice we won’t bother with the bricks and mortar store. Why pay more for bad advice? The only hope for the storefront merchant is to change the model that focuses on a sale today over the customer’s satisfaction later. When the guidance is sound, and a year later the customer has had great success with his or her camera, that customer will come back again and again, even if it means paying a few dollars more.
I can hope, but I know the bad advice won’t change soon. So for now, feel free to use your lifetime technical support option.
(The photos in this posting were all taken with a Canon 7D and Canon lenses during a shoot I did for Family Fun magazine.)
It’s been a very busy month, a good thing. I’ve been shooting so much I have not only been short on time to write, I haven’t been thinking in words. My world has been pictures, so I thought I’d share some. I’ve had many weddings, but I wanted to post something other than brides and grooms. These first two are wedding related.
This is Rachel and Brandon in an engagement session at the State Hospital. Well they aren’t bride and groom, yet.
I’m sorry to admit I don’t remember this flower girl’s name, but I do remember her and hiding from me behind and running between the trees on the lawn at Bowers Harbor Inn. And that she and Angela (the Bride) were the only ones in their extended family to share hair color. I’m a sucker for a redhead.
I’ve been shooting weddings long enough now that I’m spending a fair amount of time photographing my former wedding couple’s children. Here’s a few from this week.
Left is Jack, and below is his brother Drew. You don’t have to know the family well to see how much, even as a baby, Drew looks just like his dad. 
Last night I had a great evening shoot with a couple whose wedding I shot ten years ago (back in the film days). Their children are Sophia and Grant. I’m pretty sure this is going to be my Image of the week next Monday.
Grant with the 1957 Pick-up.
Sophia with Libby, their mom. Sophia was a little reluctant at first, but VERY quickly warmed up. Libby tells me Sophia loves the camera, and my experience is that the camera likes her just fine too. When I packed up to go, as is my practice, I left out one camera with a lens on it just in case. The following photo of Sophia was the last exposure I made as I was leaving, just before she ran into the house.
More than 20 years ago my brother and I made a profound decision. We decided that we were going with button-down collars all the rest of the way. Since that life-changing moment he has strayed. He had a brief flirtation with tab collars, and even to this day he will buy a shirt with a plain old floppy collar and have his tailor make it into a button-down. Not me. I made my decision and I’ve been all button-down since.
I realized earlier this week I have been coasting since then. Sure I’ve gotten married, had children, even started my own business, but I’ve left the heavy lifting to others. I decided it was time once again to make a single bold move and not look back. I came to this realization at Gibbyville. Yesterday I found myself once again facing that age-old decision: Elephant Ear or Funnel Cake. It was time to commit to just one.
Once a year, like clockwork, the Gibby’s people drag their trailers full of hot fat to our fair city and offer what many believe to be the finest fried food available in the world. The National Cherry Festival has changed over the years. They’ve canceled events, moved the entertainment stage, and even considered shortening the whole thing to only 4 days. But no one, not one person, would suggest having a Cherry Festival without Gibby’s
A bit of background. Gibby’s is perhaps most famous for their “good” fries. Small, large or bucketful, every kid who grows up in Traverse City knows you are required to have an order of Gibby’s Good Fries at least once each July. The Cherry Festival isn’t about queens or parades, not even cherries—sometimes we have to bring in sweet cherries from Washington when the crop is late. No, Cherry Festival is about eating foods that are really bad for you.
Gibby’s Good Fries are not particularly light and crispy like the classic Golden Arches. The Gibby’s secret is closely guarded but I’m pretty sure it involves frying them twice to get the fat just a little deeper into the potato. If you could eat them every week they would quickly loose their charm. It would be gross to eat them everyday. But when you can have these limp greasy fries only one week a year they are oddly desirable.
Fries are where the Gibby experience starts, but the real gibficionado knows it’s all about dessert. You can’t eat both an elephant ear and a funnel cake in the same year, especially if in the same week you have even a small order of fries. It’s technically legal, but the scholarship is thin. It’s not known if anyone has tried eating both an elephant ear and funnel cake and lived long enough to write about it.
Most of us mere mortals have to pick one of the two. The choice is always followed by that nagging doubt, sometimes even before the last bit of fried dough is gone, “should I have gone for the batter?”
Just so you know, the Elephant Ear isn’t an ear at all. The people of Thailand will be happy to know it’s not even made from elephant. (Note to vegans, this is proof that “vegetarian” does mean “good for you”.) An elephant ear is a big piece of raw yeast bread, something about the size of a small pizza before the sauce and cheese. It’s fried and that’s it. It’s only becomes dessert when you sprinkle it with a generous flow of cinnamon sugar.
Not surprisingly, Funnel Cakes have nothing to do with funnels. Or for that matter, cake. A 10” diameter stainless steel ring is placed in hot oil. Batter is dripped into the oil in a thin wiggly dribble (this may be where the funnel was once used, but now it’s a metal pitcher with a thin spout). Once the ring is full of squiggles of frying batter it bubbles and hisses for a few minutes until the ring is lifted off and the “cake” is flipped to brown the other side. All by itself the funnel cake is a bit sweet, sort of like a waffle without syrup. But the real beauty of the funnel cake is its many crevices and wrinkles that will hold the cinnamon sugar.
I have to take this opportunity to talk about toppings. While I will recognize that powdered sugar is a legitimate, though misdirected, alternative to cinnamon sugar. I reject whole-heartedly any other topping. Cherries belong in a pie. Put custard in Napoleons. Chocolate sauce goes on ice cream. Both elephant ears and funnel cakes are only complete with cinnamon sugar and nothing else. Enough said.
So there I was on Union Street. The elephant ear trailer was on the east side of the street and the funnel cake booth on the west. Now this was is a tough left/right decision. I was hungry, so the doughy near-food value of the elephant ear seemed like the sensible choice. If they are cooked just right there will be a few places where the thin crust gets crispy and the cinnamon sugar mixes with the grease to make a sweet, gooey crunch. The funnel cake, on the other hand, is all about crispy. The irregular dribbled batter gives the 10” round funnel cake the surface area of donut the size of an extra-large pizza. And that’s when it hit me.
The funnel cake can hold nearly twice the cinnamon. On the elephant ear the sugar just falls off into your lap. Beyond the crusty exterior of the elephant ear there is a doughy interior, it’s almost good for you. The funnel cake on the other hand is nearly all crispy, fried surface. More crunch, more grease, plenty of sugar, no discernable food value at all. Isn’t that the point? The funnel cake is pure guilty pleasure, no pretense, my kind of treat.
It was time for a bold move, and the funnel cake is the bold, no apology desert for me. Right there on Union Street I said good-bye to the elephant ear. I won’t waste any more time wondering. If you are looking for me at Cherry Festivals from here on, I’ll be the guy with a button-down collar and a funnel cake. It feels good to have that settled.
There is nothing more fun for a photographer than working with sisters. Christy, Emily and Heidi; Sarah and Laura; Amy and Kristen; and Katie, Sarah, and Emily are all sisters who I have photographed.The photo right from is from Sarah’s 2006 wedding.
When I photographed Emily (left) and Preston’s wedding a few weeks ago it was, for me, the end of an era. I shot Emily’s older sister Katie’s wedding in 2003. I’ll always remember Katie and Jeff for many reasons. It was one of the first weddings I shot with digital cameras and Katie, being a skilled web designer, was excited about the idea. I’ll also remember the foggy morning in Frankfort (below).
More importantly, I’ll remember the whole family, and how they allowed me into their inner circle like I was one of them.
In 2006, Middle sister Sarah was married to Joe in Grand Rapids (right). They invited me down to be photographer for that wedding as well. To make it memorable, they happened to get married on my wedding anniversary. Once again, and perhaps more so this time, I felt I was a part of the family. The sisters were together again, only this time Katie had a daughter, and there was more family to enjoy.
Emily, the youngest, was the last of the three to tie the knot (right, with Preston). Katie, Jeff and their three children as well as Sarah and Joe and their daughter were all in attendance. Katie’s daughter, Caroline was the flower girl.
It’s always a treat for me to see my former brides and grooms as their families grow. But Emily was the last of Page and Brent’s children to get married, so I probably won’t see her and Preston start a family. Unless Preston’s sister (right) invites me to Idaho to photograph her wedding when the time comes.
Like snowflakes, no two brides are the same. With rare exception, all brides have a certain charm. As a photographer it’s my job to be taken in by that charm, experience it, and then capture it in still frames. Sometimes it’s easy; for example when a bride is breathtakingly beautiful and everyone just changes in her presence. Many years ago I photographed one young woman who was a tomboy in real life, but who when coiffed, made up, and in a wedding dress was so truly stunning that people were literally speechless when they first saw her. The groom, upon seeing her, looked afraid, like he didn’t realize that he was about to marry such an extraordinary beauty and wasn’t sure he was up to the job. Other brides are just so happy that their joy infects everyone around. I have a great job.
Once in a while, the job isn’t so cut and dried. Not that it’s ever difficult, but sometimes you get a curve ball and you have to pay attention where you’re swinging. Robin was one of those brides. As you can see from these photos she’s something wonderful 
to look at, but her charm wasn’t just her appearance. She was a happy bride too, when joy was appropriate. But it took me a few hours to really understand who Robin was and really get it in the camera. Robin is FUN. She’s the woman who, to use the cliché, can light up a room. She’s that girl in college all the guys loved and tried to figure out how to ask out. Pretty but not breakable, elegant but sometimes goofy, she can drink a beer from the bottle and make it look graceful.
Now us guys, back in college, wanted to think that a woman like Robin would end up with a loser and regret she didn’t run off into the sunset with us. It turns out she doesn’t. She ends up with a guy like Rob. It may be just me, but I think Rob looks more than a little like actor Josh Charles. And he’s just as fun as Robin. As the groomsmen tell it, Robin fell for him when she saw his three-point stance.
It looks in the photos like they are actors, or professional models posing, but this is just how they move together. Robin is naturally graceful. When I have captured her correctly the photos just flow. The State Hospital was Robin’s idea, as was jumping the “do not cross” fence to get the photos on the stairs. Not to get too technical, but I take lots of photos of people kissing (hey, it’s my job) but in this photo look at their hands. The way Robin has her hand on Rob’s neck is real. It’s personal and intimate. Other couples take note: This is a kiss.
So Robin and Rob’s wedding was an easy day for me, but it was also a challenging day. The challenge was not getting wrapped up in their good looks, and not having so much fun myself (and I did) that I forget to do the work of finding the images. It’s a nice challenge to have. Did I already say that I have a great job?
(This is the first piece I posted to my blog long before it was integrated into my website. When the blog stood alone it was called The Blue Sky Mine.)
Why a Blog? I guess the short answer is, why not? I’ve got so many photographic things going on that it seems like I should be writing about them. A bit over two years ago I started posting an image of the week. That’s been fun, but often I really want to add a story with the posting. Now I can.
The next question was what to call my blog. For years I have told my students at NMC that I belong to The Church of the Holy Tripod. It seemed like a witty title. But then it occurred to me that prospective wedding clients might not know I was speaking of my pedantic lecturing on tripod usage and take it as sacrilegious. Then I thought about calling it “Available Light” for it’s classic photographic meaning (I do hate using flash). I like the idea of light as knowledge. The problem is there’s like a thousand “Available Light” blogs.
I was stumped.
Way back when I was first doing my Sleeping Bear book I thought it would be cool to have a gallery called “The Blue Sky Mine” because I love the Midnight Oil song and it’s a clever play on the blue skies of Northern Michigan. I still like it. A mine is a place where you dig for things of value, and nothing says clarity like a blue sky. I also like the sort-of-metaphysical meaning: everyone can say, “The blue sky is mine.” So there it is. This is The Blue Sky Mine.
So what will I write about? Photography to be certain, with plenty about wedding photography specifically. I imagine I’ll be inspired to write about weddings in general now and again (when I tire of photography I’m going to become a wedding coordinator). I’m going to fight the urge to talk about cameras, lenses, software and other nerd stuff. I’m sure I’ll lose that battle once in while. I’ll talk about food: cooking it, eating it and photographing it. I might talk about boats, fishing and in February, how much I hate winter. The sky’s the limit, and not just blue skies.
