So, You Wanna Be a Rock & Roll Star (long post)...

[Asylum Steve]

Or in this case a commercial photographer...

I read a poll somewhere once of the most stressful jobs in America. Right behind police officer and fire fighter was freelance photographer. I kid you not...

Now of course, I personally don't believe that my job should really be that high on the list, but despite the flaws of a poll like that, it should come as no surprise to anyone that trying to make a living as a freelance commercial photographer is indeed stressful.

As proof, I submit to you two consecutive days in my sometimes roller coaster life. A single magazine story, part of which was totally botched the first day, then nailed on day two when given a second chance.

I accepted long ago that this is the life we lead...

The story was for Lake & Sumter Style Magazine about a low-budget feature film being shot in a small town in Central Florida. Titled Terror Inside, it features former child star Corey Feldman and A&E TV personality Tanya Memme.

The movie's being billed as a tension-filled horror story. Much like my first day of shooting...

Now obviously, the main focus of the feature would be Feldman. But as the photographer, I usually tell the story my own way, and it's fine as long as I stay close to the script.

So, being one who spends much of his time capturing beautiful women (in pictures, that is), I was very set from the start at getting good shots of the lovely Ms. Memme (host of A&E's Sell This House).

DAY ONE:

I arrive on set in the middle of filming, so I knew it will be a challenge getting shots of all the folks involved in the story. But I catch a break and the production wraps for lunch.

Before everyone scatters, film Director Jo Lenders helps me set up a shot with Tanya and actors Joe Abby and Susie Feldman. Perfect. They are all very nice and I pose them on one of the sets.

Unfortunately, the light is fairly dim, so I switch to ISO 3200 and manual focus. I squeeze off a group of a dozen shots or so, quickly check them on the LCD screen of my camera, and tell everyone I got it.

I spend the rest of the time there that day shooting a myriad of other people and things associated with the story.

When I got home, I loaded all the image files from my CF cards to my PC, and started my usual post-production. It included browsing the shots in Adobe Bridge and taking quick first look at everything.

Well, this is where my nightmare begins...

I pull up the shots of the Tanya group, and what do you know? They are all out of focus.

All of them...

Not just slightly, but badly. I know immediately that this cannot be salvaged with the PS Unsharp Mask.

Trying to hold off the sickening feeling in my stomach, I make a frantic call the the film's production manager. Luckily, I'm scheduled to head back to the set the next day for the movie's final day of shooting. Perhaps all is not lost...

But my worst fears are soon realized, as she tells me that Tanya is done and flying back to LA that evening.

And so the sickening feeling completely washes over me, and it feels like the worst kind of failure.

Is the story still on track? Sure. Will I have enough other shots to make everyone at the magazine happy? Yes.

Everyone, except me, of course. The person I most wanted to photograph in the best way (and the worst way) has slipped through my fingers, and it was all my fault. And for a stupid reason.

DAY TWO:

At this point, I have little enthusiasm left for the story. It takes all my energy just to pack up and make the 1/2 hour drive back to the set for what I know will only be a few final shots. But I'm a pro, and I have to do my job, so I go.

Just shows you what an emotional aspect there is to this work sometimes...

I get there, park, and take some of my gear to the production office. When I see Director of Photography Flip Minnot, I casually ask him what the schedule is for the afternoon. I know there is not much left for them, but I want to get it clear in my mind what exactly I'll be shooting.

This is when Flip hits me with the news that turns this story on its ear.

"We've got to shoot one more car scene with Corey, then a bunch of publicity shots with both Corey and Tanya".

Well, you'd have thought I got mainlined with some adrenalin-laced caffine... :yikes:

"Tanya?" My head jerked up. "I thought she left town last night..."

"Nope. She'll be here in about twenty minutes..."

It was like a voice from above:

"Your sins have been washed away, my child! You have been given a second chance. Now do us all a favor and DON'T BLOW it this time..."

Hey, at this point in my career, one second chance is all I need...:ihih:

So, to cut to the chase, it was all good. Much better than if the shots from the day before had actually turned out. Tanya did arrive, she was styled much better, with better hair, makeup and wardrobe.

Instead of a group shot, I was able to grab her and have her to myself for a few minutes. No boring generic poses, I gave her a bit of direction to get a nice variety in the short time I had.

It was all good...

So, before you wish upon a star that you could take pictures for a living, thinking it's all fun and games, remember the pressure and stress that is involved in this business, even with a laid back local style magazine, and even if it's pressure you put on yourself.

With all the learning and hard work that goes into taking good or hopefully great pictures, the "screw-up" is lurking at every turn, all the time. It is always there, and if you're not careful, it could easily cause a sudden blow to your assignment, or perhaps even your career.

Dodged a bullet, I did...

[Asylum Steve]

...just thought I should mention the folks at the magazine liked my "day two" shot of Tanya so much they decided to make it the cover of the June issue.

How's that for a complete 180?.. :thumbsup: :cornut:

[Asylum Steve]

A couple of quick things. The Susie Feldman I mention is indeed Corey's wife. She was also in the film, and can now be seen on The Two Corey's on A&E.

Also, I never quite explained why I screwed up in the first place. My eyesight is good, so I figured out it has to be a problem with the camera.

I ended up messing up at least three shots for seperate stories that were strangely out of focus. I quickly figured out they were all manually focused. So I went out, focused (manually) on a simple brick wall, went home, and found out the shot was out of focus. AUGH!!!!!!!!

So, maybe some other Canon DSLR users (this was the 5D) can help me here.

Oh, and yes, I know in a perfect world I should have had my laptop with me and evaluated the first shots on a larger screen, but on a working assignment like this it's simply not possible. They looked fine to me onthe LCD screen. Why on earth would I think they would be out of focus?

Finally, in case you got the impression that I have a "thing" for Tanya Memme, I categorically deny it... :nonod:

Unfortunately, my blog entry for May 4th is more than a little incriminating.

What can I say? A man's only a guy...

[Old Timer]

The photo gods were smiling on you Steve. So often there isn't a possibility of a second chance in your game. That was a wonderful story and I appreciate your willingness to share it with us. I think too many pros like to have us peons think that we're the only ones that don't always get things right the first time. That is truly a lovely photo of Tanya and very worthy of a cover, just one more jewel in your crown. Now if only Adina would loan you her tiara.

[schrackman]

Great story, Steve, but I have a couple questions on the final product.

Normally, cut off limbs are a no, no for portraits. But since I have no real experience in fashion or celebrity photography (excepting last year's shot of McKenzie Rozman from 7th Heaven) I'm interested to hear how or why this shot was chosen. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful portrait, but how did you get away with the cut off arm?

Secondly, the photo on the cover looks different from the original you posted. Did their art director do that intentionally? Personally, I prefer the original.

By the way, I have flubbed a couple times myself with unfocused images when doing a photoshoot. I hate it when that happens. It just takes the breath right out of you after you get home and see it on the screen!

[Asylum Steve]

I think too many pros like to have us peons think that we're the only ones that don't always get things right the first time...

Thanks, OT. I can't speak for other shooters, but I screw up all the time.

To me, the goal isn't not to screw up, because if you take chances at all, that's going to happen. The goal is to get the shot. And if that means one good shot out of one hundred, you did your job...

[adina]

Is the cover a scan? It really just looks more contrasty than the original.

Re the cut off limbs...I've found that if you give the impression that you know what you're doing, generally people agree with you. Not sure in Steve's case, but I've cut off limbs intentionally, it's all a matter of where you cut it.

And I would loan Steve my tiara anyday.....maybe Loren would come out and photograph the presention, we could have matching pics.

[Asylum Steve]

how did you get away with the cut off arm?...

Ray, with publications, especially style-based ones, you have to keep a few things in mind.

First, the vibe of the shot is most important. While yes, the cover shot of Tanya was posed, it is supposed to look completely casual, like she's just wandering aimlessly around the joint and suddenly stopped and smiled at you...

So, her face and expression will be much more important than a strict adherance to normal cropping rules. This shot was far and away the best as far as her eyes and smile, and the feeling we wanted to get across...

The format (dimensions) of the mag cover and where and how much type the AD wants to put in will ultimately determine the final crop.

Also, if you notice, in this case my AD ended up cropping the shot even tighter, most likely (we didn't discuss it) to keep Ms. Memme's, er, low-cut dress from becoming much more of a design element than it really should be. As pretty as her eyes are, those extra few inches at the bottom of the shot could very well, uh, be distracting. A'hem... :ihih:

Secondly, the photo on the cover looks different from the original you posted. Did their art director do that intentionally? Personally, I prefer the original...

No. I did. Remember these are web files which I kind of threw together quickly, so colors and such aren't entirely accurate.

I filtered the original shot to give it slightly more contrast and saturation, and added some gaussian noise to texturize it a bit. I usually give them several variations on a cover shot, and this was the one they liked best...

[Asylum Steve]

Is the cover a scan? It really just looks more contrasty than the original...

It's a jpeg that was made from a full size PDF file of the tear sheet, which in the digital age looks exactly like the printed page. Yes, it's more contrasty. The shot they used for the cover is not the same one I posted from day two.

Re the cut off limbs...I've found that if you give the impression that you know what you're doing, generally people agree with you. Not sure in Steve's case, but I've cut off limbs intentionally, it's all a matter of where you cut it.

The impression? Hey, I do know what I'm doing. Er, except when I focus sometimes, heh heh...

Folks argue about this all the time. There is a style or method of cropping that I simply refer to as window cropping and it means your shot appears as if you are looking out through a window.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the pic has to be severely cropped with things cut off, but it does mean there is nothing wrong if that's the case. It is usually intentional...

And I would loan Steve my tiara anyday.....maybe Loren would come out and photograph the presention, we could have matching pics.

It is really weird that you guys mention this. One bit of notariety about Tanya is that she was crowned Miss World Canada in 1994, but due to a scandal (not involving her), she made a really tough decision to give up the title, and of course return the tiara. It's true...

[mjs1973]

Great story Steve, and I'm happy to hear that it has a very happy ending. Having shot a couple weddings, I have gotten a taste of the stress and pressure that photographers put on themselves when it comes to making the shots that mean the most count. I must say, I like that pressure and I don't see myself shooting another wedding anytime soon because of it.

I never quite explained why I screwed up in the first place. My eyesight is good, so I figured out it has to be a problem with the camera.

I ended up messing up at least three shots for seperate stories that were strangely out of focus. I quickly figured out they were all manually focused. So I went out, focused (manually) on a simple brick wall, went home, and found out the shot was out of focus. AUGH!!!!!!!!

So, maybe some other Canon DSLR users (this was the 5D) can help me here.

Just a thought, but did the diopter adjustment on your 5D get moved? When the camera auto focuses on something, does it look focused in your viewfinder? That may not be the problem, but it would be easy enuf to check, and rule out.

[mn shutterbug]

Incredible and very interesting story. Even if I had the capabilities, I would not ever consider this for a living. The few weddings I shot many years ago were way too much stress. Although, I would jump at the chance to photograph beautiful women like this, under my terms. I agree, her hairdo is so much sexier on day 2. She is one gorgeous model. I used to dream about being a photographer for Playboy magazine. :yesnod:

[Asylum Steve]

Just a thought, but did the diopter adjustment on your 5D get moved?...

Good point about the diopter, Michael. It's possible...

I don't want to sound too old, but I never used auto focus with film, never wore my glasses when I shot, and could always tell when the shot was in focus manually. It was mostly due to the great Canon focusing screens with the F-1 and EOS film cameras.

I had the split prism center circle and the ground glass edges, and it was flawless. When the top and bottom halves matched up, it was in focus...

Now, I shoot all the time with my DSLRs in auto focus, and it works very well. I've even gotten good at quickly adjusting the focus point depending on what part of the frame my main subject is.

With the dim light, I couldn't get the auto focus to work. It kept focusing in and out, so I switched to manual.

With the manual focus on the 5D, you should still get a beep and see a focus point light up in the viewfinder when it focuses on a specific spot, but I don't remember it doing that.

Basically, I got sloppy. Had the damn lens wide open probably at too slow a shutter speed for the heavy camera with the zoom. I may have not held it tight enough. Anyway, my margin of error was tiny, and it obviously wasn't enough...

[Asylum Steve]

I agree, her hairdo is so much sexier on day 2. She is one gorgeous model...

No argument. Truth be told, this is actually my favorite shot from the day, uh, for obvious reasons. It was a little too sultry for the magazine...

[mjs1973]

With the manual focus on the 5D, you should still get a beep and see a focus point light up in the viewfinder when it focuses on a specific spot, but I don't remember it doing that.

It does on the EOS bodies I have, unless you're in AI Servo mode. With my Elan 7n on AI Servo mode, the light doesn't blink or peep when I focus.

[starriderrick]

Great thread...Great story. She is gorgeous.Congratulations.You nailed it on day two!!!
Thanks for sharing this Steve. Very inspiring!

[readingr]

It does on the EOS bodies I have, unless you're in AI Servo mode. With my Elan 7n on AI Servo mode, the light doesn't blink or peep when I focus.

Great photo's and the last one is terrific.

I have the 5D and often notice that some of the portraits of my daughter are soft when taken in low light. In manual mode the camera beeps at you and lights up the point for exposure but not for focus, so it doesn't help here. Makes no difference what mode the AF is in as its turned off.

I have yet to come up with a solid reason why it does this. I experimented with the diopter a while ago and this could be one explanation but I would notice this when checking the information on exposure (I hope I would) but I have knocked it when packing the camera into the rucsack a couple of times, but noticed before taking any pics.

One other reason is that because I normally take landscapes I have no sharpening done in camera and this could be a possible reason when taking portraits as the camera is at 100ISO and long exposures on tripod and you don't tend to notice whereas with protraits their hand held and sharpness is more noticeable. Another is that I'm getting old and can't hold the camera as steady as I used to:cryin:

My 2 pennyworth.

Still glad to see the great results from the second day.

Roger

[Asylum Steve]

Great photo's and the last one is terrific...

Thanks. You know, I've been thinking about that diopter thing, and it really doesn't make sense.

If the diopter was set wrong, it wouldn't affect the focus point in the shot, just make the viewfinder a bit more blurry. For me manually focusing, that wouldn't make any difference...

When I shot the pic of the brick wall straight on, I knew I was focusing on that precise spot, and yet the shot was slightly out of focus. Not good...

[I_Fly]

No argument. Truth be told, this is actually my favorite shot from the day, uh, for obvious reasons. It was a little too sultry for the magazine...

I can see why this is your favorite. She's gorgeous.

I can see how your job might (lol) lead to some stress. I'm interested to see if you figure out what caused the OOF problem.

[readingr]

If the diopter was set wrong, it wouldn't affect the focus point in the shot, just make the viewfinder a bit more blurry. For me manually focusing, that wouldn't make any difference...

When I shot the pic of the brick wall straight on, I knew I was focusing on that precise spot, and yet the shot was slightly out of focus. Not good...

I agree about the diopter - out of interest what lens were you using - I seem to get this on the 24-70mm more than the 100-400 perhaps because its on the body more.

Did I mention it only seems to happens in low light.

If you figure it out let me know.

Roger

[Sebastian]

Steve,

All I can recommend is to check and double check it in manual focus on a high contrast, flat surface. I am surprised you didn't notice this on the LCD. Do you zoom all the way in when you check the shot? This level of blur really should have been quite visible on the LCD. Unless the 5D does not allow you to zoom in very far.

Unfortunately, in low light the 5D AF appears to be universally considered quite unreliable, therefore any sort of AF confirmation (audio or visual) will be less than trustworthy. This makes it particularly important to identify what went wrong here since you might find yourself needing manual focus more often.

Good luck.

[readingr]

Steve

Well just carried out some experiments - I had the AF off and the camera on Av and thanks to the sun coming out as I took one of the shots I've narrowed my problem down to body shake at low speeds.

Before the sun I have a slight softnes to the pictures even though in the viewfinder it looks reasonably sharp but not right, When the sun came out the speed went up and the shot is razor sharp.

I used a map of the London Underground for the test.

All are soft when taken between 1/6th - 1/13th.
At 1/15th it was a hit and miss affair and
At 1/25th it was fine.

All shots taken at 1600ISO 70mm on the 24-70mm F2.8L lens. All on Av at F8.

Roger

[Asylum Steve]

I am surprised you didn't notice this on the LCD. Do you zoom all the way in when you check the shot?...

Thanks for the advice, Seb. No, I don't check focus on the LCD screen. As I mentioned, up to this point, I had no reason the think there would be a problem. Plus, if I checked each shot as I went along, I'd never get any kind of flow going in my shoots and would run out of time very quickly.

[Sebastian]

I never suggested checking each shot, for obvious reasons.

I brought it up because you mentioned you looked at the LCD before telling the group that you got the shot. Taking a few extra seconds at that point to zoom in probably would not have broken things up too dramatically.

Anyway, that's hindsight. 20/20 and all that. What's important now is figuring out what, if anything, went wrong with the manual focus.

[Greg McCary]

Wow Steve what a great story. I really enjoyed reading it. One of the differences between an amarteur and a pro is how they recover from a mistake. You make a nice recovery.
Greg

[another view]

I brought it up because you mentioned you looked at the LCD before telling the group that you got the shot. Taking a few extra seconds at that point to zoom in probably would not have broken things up too dramatically.

Steve, this mere amateur has to agree with this. I have seen just a little bit of what pro shooting is really like and know the two seconds that it takes to do this can seem like an eternity, but again it's all hindsight. You do have to get used to what blowing up an image on the little LCD looks like based on your in-camera sharpening settings. I left sharpening off so blown all the way up the images were still a little soft - but I knew what they should look like.

I wonder if the first shot could be sharp enough with some careful USM to make the guy on the left in focus, but if the lens was wide open I'm not surprised that she's out of the DOF. Of course if the subject is three people and only one is sharp, then you really haven't gained anything.

I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, and do appreciate you sharing your story. It's always interesting to hear how the "real world" is! And that's pretty amazing that things turned out as well as they did. Great shots, and I agree with the "feel" arguement. Congrats on another successful project - and another cover!