I was reading a Scott Kelby description of his photo book's approach and it was along the lines of: if you were my friend I would just tell you what settings to shoot at and not bore you with the ins and outs of aperture and shutter speed. It's an approach. Not mine; but boy it would have appealed to me back when I was getting started.

But, it got me thinking - why I don't give a glimpse into our work process on a given cover shot. I would have been curious to know how it works. This month I was lucky enough to shoot the cover of SO Rhode Island. Here's how it worked (every shoot is different!):

To see the actual quality you'll have to snag the mag - this is a low quality screen cap.

We receive the assignment and learn the broad stokes of the cover story. The location of the shoot has been determined and the people are lined up for the shoot. Deadlines are looming for print so there's no time to scout but we get a detailed verbal description of the shoot and what the goals are.

The amount of time we have and the complexity of the shoot determine the crew for the day. Amie and I are the core but if we need more help we get backup. This time the shoot is fairly static - not a lot of setups - life is good. We keep it simple. It keeps our costs down and our backs happy. We pack to get in and out efficiently.

On a typical shoot we plan for one lighting scenario and bring a full backup. In this case we anticipated that we would use a number of lightweight flash guns for lighting. We pack the large lights and bring them along too. The obligation on our part is that if our equipment fails us that we have the ability to move forward efficiently. There is generally no time for reshoots especially when we are coordinating a number of subjects (and food).

Oh, what I would give to shoot with a 50mm lens and one camera! The dream. *sigh* But, I guess I am putting money into Japan's economy by buying backups so why not right? I think most photographers probably have a 3rd, 4th, and maybe even 5th backup. The 5th would be the iPhone (read here for that one). But, as I have an Android (I know I know...) it doesn't cut the mustard. So, Amie's micro 4/3rds may be the line of last resort.

Now, in all seriousness if we had to shoot the cover with Amie's travel camera (an olympus digital pen) we could do it. It wouldn't be my first (or 3rd) choice. But, the reality is that almost all modern digital interchangeable lens cameras can shoot magazine quality files. Some just make it a lot easier than others.

But, about the camera:

ISO 320, f6.3, 1/100th, 60mm.

That is what we shot the cover with. A truly middle of the road set of settings on all fronts. We want enough shutter to stop small actions (but keep it within sync speed!). We want an aperture small enough to get enough depth (and most lenses are sharper a stop or two down). We want an ISO that is less than 400 because otherwise we start to see noise (an extreme generalization.. yet true?). It's all a ratio. A bit of a balancing act. A dash of this - a nudge of that - and we end up in the happy middle. 60mm allows us to avoid wide angle distortions but is still a reasonably intimate portrait length. But, this is truly the chicken and the egg. I didn't come up with the ratio first and say I will make it so! No, I stood in a few places, put the camera where it needed to be. Used my flash meter (if you don't know what it is don't worry about it... you don't want to have to own one). Dialed in the numbers until the picture looked good.

Magazine photography can be a bit funky. You have to leave space for text and logos. It doesn't necessarily look pretty in person (the big voids). It is a collaborative process. Thankfully I had Alli (Art Director Extraordinaire) in my ear to remind me to leave her space. Alli is very open to ideas and she lets me set things up before fine tuning the work.

So, Amie and I tweak this and that - adjust lighting, people, props. The camera is the last step. If the other components aren't there you'll have a sharp photo of a fuzzy idea and it will look like poop.

I am not a master photographer. I have plenty to learn and my mistakes keep me on my toes. I am lucky to shoot work that other people enjoy. I try to confine my mistakes to when I play in my own time. Keep playing! Just because it isn't for money doesn't mean it shouldn't be the absolute best you can deliver. Even when it is for money, and the money is small, I think the same mantra should stand. Do the best you can.

Thanks for letting me share this little bit with you.

When I was a teen playing guitar I thought that I needed a Fender American Standard and the right digitech box to give me the monster sound I was looking for. But, I couldn't afford an American standard so I went through a series of knockoffs before stopping entirely. I did eventually get a Les Paul Custom but I have to recognize that it didn't make me a better guitarist. I wanted to be a better guitarist without working at it.

I am astonished by the number of DSLRs I see at tourist spots these days. It is truly amazing. I think I should write a book on how to shoot better with the kit lens and retire. I fear that the people with DSLRs are getting images very similar to their friends with the point and shoots because they think the cameras makes the image better or worse. Now, because they are often shooting in crappy light there is some truth to this - but it is more accident than intention. I'm not poo-pooing DSLR owners. I love having a camera - they do too. As long as they like their pictures who cares what anyone else (including me) thinks. But, if they want more....

I wonder how many D300s owners use 3D focus tracking? What an amazing tool! Using the color meter matrix to augment the autofocus system - just put it on the white dress and it does the rest - amazing. But, you have to dig around the menus to find that option. Does 14bit matter? What about sRaw vs. mRaw?

I've spent so much time lately looking at lighting gear I am ready to go back to film and use the sun. I am tired of profoto, broncolor, SB-999, speedotron, dynalite, einstein, bowens, chimera, westcott, elinchrom, etc. We shot with 5 strobes today. We shot with monolights last week. At the end of the day all we are doing is converting energy to light, reflecting it off a subject, and capturing it in the camera. The tools are just variations on the theme.

We are paying for convenience. It may be weight or speed; accuracy or consistency. But knowing that the Eneloop batteries in my strobe have a chemistry that allows them to hold charge longer than traditional NiMH batteries won't make my pictures better. Just like using a 60D won't make you better photos than a Rebel T2i.

The camera system that I use that will produce the highest quality images (IMHO) is the Hasselblad V series film camera. But, lacking autofocus, digital recording, and a shutter speed above 1/1000th of sec. means that it stays home. I would rather use my canon digitals. The trade off is speed. Faster to use, faster to deliver to the client. But, if I'm shooting for me... that is a different story.

Don't buy what you think will make you better. It won't. Get better then buy what matches your skills. Borrow it, rent it, try it out first. Salgado was turning out images on Tri-X that I still couldn't see if I had him pointing out the scenes next to me long before digital. Now he uses DXO plugins to get his Tri-X look. But, for about $50 you can get a film camera with a 50mm lens and go put yourself up against the best that ever lived (not saying Salgado per se, just everyone who cut their teeth on 35mm film). You don't need a new toy. Just a $4 roll of film. Just look at every image made before 2000. They were shot with film. Any modern DSLR can produce a "magazine quality" image. It's not the camera that is holding you back. Or the lens. Heck it could be the lens that is holding you back. Stop zooming.

Right now I want to buy all new lights, a new Canon (the rumored one), new fast lenses. I really do. I also want a Cintiq, new bags, and a haircut. One of these things may happen. Maybe more than one. Sadly none of them will make me a better photographer. So, I am left asking the question - have I maximized what I already have? I'm not saying to be cheap. "The poor man pays twice" is the saying. Do I need a new lens or do I want to spend that money on a new portfolio? What about both?

Life is good. But, you can waste a lot of time dreaming about buying things rather than out working to make great pictures.

This was a fun one. This is a special edition of the magazine so they contacted me about doing a cover and 4 full height photos in the issue. So RI is an oversized magazine so getting some full sized images (4 of them) was going to be a treat. You'll have to read the magazine to see the other photos.

The location was the Ocean House in southern RI. Ocean house is a recently completed luxury hotel that is built in the style of a classic seaside inn. We had to work around the guests and time was limited so we were fast and furious. Not a lot of time to scout and setup - Amie and Chris were key in helping me move lights and equipment quickly and efficiently.

This was the first annual fashion issue and the 50th issue of the magazine - so, I'm looking forward to next year.

Many thanks to the team (Amie, Chris, Julie, & Alli) and the boutique owners/models.