Should I change my shooting style?

[Gabe]

I've been working very hard this year to get my name out there, and no longer as a photojournalist. I'm decided on going back to fashion/glamour - but not high fashion. I'm much more interested in the girls than the clothing. I want to be in Maxim, but not shooting their cookie-cutter "perfect" (PS'ed) girlie shots. I'd aslo like to be in some of the fashion mags. So far I've been stringing at a newspaper for over a year, gotten published in the Miami Herald, just got a four-page spread in a motorcycle magazine, and am now submitting photos to American Photo for their annual contest.

But I'm thinking my style needs to be sexier and edgier. I've been experimenting a little and coming out with a slightly different stamp, which I like. (See the overexposed girl with the black jacket and sunglasses; and the front page girl, the blonde on the bench.) I thought I would deviate greatly from my former style but don't seem to be - and I'm not sure I mind that much.

I will be doing art school online now, see if that will open up my head a little. Maybe then I will change my shooting style....

But should I? I need to have commercial appeal ... do I? If anyone can glaze over my fashion gallery, give me some thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I'm not fishing for compliments (though those are welcome, of course ), but your thoughts on the sales appeal of my work. Any comments or suggestions welcome, too. What to change, what to keep? TIA

www.gabriel-diaz.com

[paulnj]

people imagery isn't my thing, but.....

your "bird on a reed" is a BOAT-TAILED GRACKLE(Quiscalus major)

HAHAHAHA

[natatbeach]

this comes with a bag of salt--- take a grain or two since I have no experience with this sorta thing...but that said...

these three shots seem to take the look you were developing before and take it to that next level. I think these are fun and funky, a little edgy and the first cover shot is just very pretty very relaxed and beautifully lit but not over the top like you tried to hard and I love the colors and mood set in all of them...the other shots you had before on your site (except for the red shirted cowboy girl)...

although pretty/well done didn't have that oomph(technical term ya know) that ****e of life, that these have...i think you are WELL on your way to that "style" your looking for and it fits you well...

[Gabe]

Paul, you rock, man! I always wanted to ID that bird but have always been more into reps and so didn't have the right reference tools. Besides, for someone like me it's very hard to ID a bird just from a silhouette. Thanks!

Natalie, you're right, I would say my new stuff is a lot more polished and knows what it want to be a little better than my old photos. About 80% of what's in that gallery is still about 5 years old - the process of building a new book has been slow because I just can't find the right models down here too often (I love Susan, though; she'll be my new muse). The cowboy-hat shot still remains one of my faves - funnily enough, unlike the new pics that were somewhat carefully worked out, that was a grab shot.

I'm still experimenting with different things - I'll be shooting some Juergen Teller-ish flash stuff soon - but I might have already found my style, I just need to keep working at it. It's hard for me to tell, hence this post... Thanks for your comments =)

I guess I'm pretty much semi-pro right now, so now's the right time for some introspection so I can really bring out my vision and get going.

Keep 'em coming...

[Asylum Steve]

Gabe,

I'll admit right off the bat that I can't be objective about critiqing your book, mainly because my photography passion IS high fashion (my priorities are indeed styling, the clothes, and a great face, and not so much the erotic aspects of a model's body).

I also have trouble because, much as it seems there are 10,00 fashion shooter wannabes in South Florida, it seems that there are 10,000 "glam/fashion" shooters wannabes up here in Central Florida, and their books are filled with much of the kind of imagery that you present on your site.

So, any lack of enthusiasm I show for your current work has nothing at all to do with what I think of your skill as a shooter (hopefully you know how I feel about that), but more that my market is flooded with an absolute sea of these shots.

What's interesting is that the two shots you specifically point out, the black coat and the "cover" shot, are indeed different than the rest of your work in that they feature indirect lighting, the coat shot backlit with a blast, the deck shot much more subtle. Either way, that style of lighting is very hot right now, not at all easy to do well, and in pretty high demand from publications and ad clients.

If this is your shooting style "change", it may well be a good thing and something you should continure to work on, as it will set you apart from the crowd.

That being said, I have to say my initial impression are that you beauty shots are your strongest. IOW, the closeups and headshots. These are extremely well done, so who knows? You strength may be glam/beauty, and there is certainly a good market out there for that.

As for the "Maxim" look, I can't help you there because I don't really care for much of what I see in those types of mags, but I would think it's a fine line to walk because they surely want something "different", but probably not TOO different,

In any event, the appeal of their artwork is not really because it is inovative, but rather that while it may be fomulaic, it involves fresh faces (and BODIES!) every month.

[Jeff82]

Your girl on the bench shot seems to me to be a totally different style than the over-exposed girl shot. The girl on the bench shot is a really stong image with the lighting accenting the model's skin tone. You also have a great blending of skin tone and background color. It's really a nice image. I'm guessing you used a silver reflector to get the effect.

The over-exposed girl is totally different. The models expression animates the image. The over-exposed backlighting (or something else) is needed to complete the image. I'm not sure that this really works for me. It's a great shot though.

My point is that these shots really represent to me two totally different approaches; one is softer and more natural, and the other is less subtle --more edgy. Both are great shots.

I don't do much stock photography anymore, except when I'm selling a complete magazine article along with photos, but from my experience working for magazines, here's my second thought.

Just as you're thinking about your photographic style, magazines usually try to cultivate a specific style. Some publications like American Photo really want to showcase a variety of unique styles. Some just want photos that are relevent to the publication. Most of the higher-end magazines hire their writers and photographers based on how well they can deliver a product that exactly fits the format of the magazine. In short, they don't really care about the writer/photographer's unique style, just how well he can produce their style. At least, that's always been my experience. Ever notice how the cover shots of Cosmopolitan and Voque always have the exact same technique, types of models, and types of shots?

So, if you want to do more in those markets, I'd target the magazines that have a style that appeals to you, try to adapt to it, then query the editors with some sample shots, and go from there.

Maybe you're already doing this. At any rate, you're very talented. I think it's it's more a marketing thing.

--Jeff

[paulnj]

WELL Gabe..... the "jizz" as it's called in the birding world screams GRACKLE/ BLACKBIRD

the long bulbous tail makes it a BOAT TAILED GRACKLE , NOT the common grackle(who's tail is also long, but not like that) that also resides on the east coast

FEEL FREE to send ANY bird image my way....... I THOROUGHLY ENJOY IDing them

[Gabe]

Steve, I love to look at books of high fashion photography so I can definitely appreciate that kind of work, I just don't think it's something I want to be doing as a career. I don't feel that haute couture really represents what a woman is about, only what some women can be. I guess becasue I grew up around girls, all kinds, I like to have more of a range of types and thus prefer glamour or the more commercial fashion. Sexiness is, of course, an inherent part of attraction for me so that gets thrown in the mix as well.

Photojournalism taught me a lot about lighting - I can't carry reflectors with me to most assignments. Through that I realized that part of what was missing from my old photos, that "oomph" Natalie refers to, was in the lighting. So yes, I am trying out new stuff that I learned a while back but never experimented with, and new stuff I've been learning. That's part of my new direction. The fact that the two shots that I pointed out are pretty different from each other makes sense when you consider my double-sided personality: hard and rough around the edges sometimes, and laid-back and pensive (a "mellow chill", as it's been described by some) other moments.

And thanks for the comments on the beauty shots ... I think I'm cheating when I shoot those, though .. sure I used reflectors, shallow depth of field, blah blah ... but how hard can it be to take a good shot of a pretty face? I could stare at some of these girls for hours (I found they don't like that too much, though j/k).

I'd like to be in Maxim, but like I mentioned before, not by shooting their typical babe stuff in which every girl has a bronze sheen to her perfect skin ... I prefer the stuff they use to illustrate their articles (or used to? I haven't picked up a copy in ages).

Jeff, I actually didn't use a reflector ... overcast day + a pop of fill-in flash, shot in the shade of a picnic pavillion, was the recipe here. And the difference in the two shots I mention, like I said, has to do with my personality but, thinking on it further, also has to do with my two "types" of women: the wild-child type, and the serious type. I guess it's somewhat natural for me to sometimes use my models to represent the kind of women that intrigue me.

I don't know that I'm shooting after a specific mag's style ... Most of the time I look at online portfolios, monographs, and a couple of photo mags. I see many different stlyes represented. Maybe I should, like you said, find me a fave magazine and work on capturing their style. You definitely have a point about mags shaping the photogs to their own style, not the other way around.

Paul, I may take you up on that offer sometime when the winter hits again, and I'm out shooting critters too. If you're ever down here, let me know - I know my way around the Everglades like nobody's business ;) We'll have to rent a 4WD truck and canoe for some spots, though ... lol.

[Asylum Steve]

"I don't feel that haute couture really represents what a woman is about, only what some women can be..."

I agree. It's just that I consider my photography like painting, and to me, the most exciting and dramatic fashion "strokes" are painted with designer wardrobe and the bodies and faces that match it. I'm not trying to capture an essence, but rather a fantasy...

"I guess becasue I grew up around girls, all kinds...Sexiness is, of course, an inherent part of attraction for me so that gets thrown in the mix as well..."

Well, me too. As far as my personal life is concerned, I prefer more down-to-earth and casual. It's just that I have little interst in photographing in this style...

"Photojournalism taught me a lot about lighting - I can't carry reflectors with me to most assignments..."

Of course. This is where I think we are very similar. My years with New Times taught me not only the basic craft of photography, but how to be prepared yet ready to make adjustments on the fly during a shoot. Priceless stuff for the world of commercial work...

"The fact that the two shots that I pointed out are pretty different from each other makes sense when you consider my double-sided personality: hard and rough around the edges sometimes, and laid-back and pensive (a "mellow chill", as it's been described by some) other moments..."

Actually, I feel they are more similar than different, because they share the indirect lighting. Still, the "dichotomy" you describe is really fairly common. The two facinating and most interesting extremes of fashion are soft and hard. In between is boring. Ha, and you though you were wierd...

"And thanks for the comments on the beauty shots ... I think I'm cheating when I shoot those, though .. sure I used reflectors, shallow depth of field, blah blah ... but how hard can it be to take a good shot of a pretty face?..."

Man, you're selling ALL of us short, now, heh heh. Trust me, you only THINK it's easy because you have a knack. I've seen LOTS of bad beauty shots of attractive women. If it was really that easy EVERYONE would be making lots of money doing it... ;)

[Gabe]

Steve, I think stringing for the newspaper is what really pushed me to the next level that I'm entering now. Having read that journalists need to "come back with photos, not excuses" many times, from many different sources, how could I tell my editor that I couldn't get the shot because I just couldn't get a good angle, or that the light wasn't "good enough"? ? I used to shun flash before, but now that 420EX is always on top of the camera. Next I'm trying mulitple flash slave setups on location (how will I ever fit a tripod on my sportbike?!?) and go back to playing with reflectors like I used to.

So I consider what I learned from the newspaper - originally just an internship - to be pretty invaluable. It's funny that I went full circle in my photography (started out wanting to be a fashion photographer) but the journey has been such a learning experience that I could hardly feel like I've been wasting time concentrating on other fields these past few years.

[Charles Hess]

Gabe, I looked at your site, and your beauty shots do to seem to be your strongest work. Your desire to succeed is great, and I do hope you get where you want to be, but I'll be a bit of a realist here. As Steve, said, there are thousands and thousands of talented photographers out in the world, many of them wanting the same things as you. I compare this to the music business... it's not always how good you are, but it's always who you know and being in the right place at the right time. I haven't had the desire to reach any pinnacles with my camera, but I played in a great band that never made it to the top ... small recording deal, lots of concerts with name acts, but never the headliner. It certainly wasn't because of a lack of talent, rather just the way the world revolved at the time.

Keep at it, keep your face and name out there, and just maybe....

[Jeff82]

That's almost poetic, and certainly true.

--Jeff

[Gabe]

Charles, thanks for your thoughts. I agree, I think most work in the arts can be compared to the music business (an art as well, of course). Too many people with above-average talent trying to get to the same spot. But I've noticed most career-oriented shooters will concentrate their efforts only locally (weddings, community newspapers, etc) or try too hard with only the really big magazines. I go for both.

Either way, I love photography and I love a challenge, and I'm known for getting what I want no matter how hard it is. Let's see if can't make a living out of this after all. ;) To all the photographers who want to compete with me, I say Bring it AWWN!

[Asylum Steve]

The music analogy is perfect, Charles...

I can really relate to Gabe's career position, because I'm at a very similar point in mine. After a long time off, I'm really making a push to have some success with my commercial work, and it's by no means a sure thing.

What's a little scary is that the technology has changed so much, so this old dog has been forced to learn many new tricks. Still, the perceived "ease" of digital in general has flooded the market with a lot more shooters who think they can do this (not like the good old days of 6x7 film cameras).

Throw in the fact that I'm now in a rather odd market with a much smaller talent pool than I'm used to, and I have to admit there are days when I have my doubts things will work out.

But I've always felt, in a sea of mediocrity the better talent will eventually get noticed, so in that sense I don't fear the large amount of shooters I'm competing with. I know if I keep pushing, and as you say, keeping my name and face out there, good things will happen...