This makes me want to cry:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=85064

The guy who hired me to do this is a smart man, and not just because he hired me.

I have some really good friends in Denmark who own a sign and print shop called Idé-Sign. I used them to print the prints, like this one (called "Love Letters for the Fire"), I had had up in the last art show I was in. Normally I would use my lab, Backprint, attached to my website to sell prints, but I was in Denmark at the time, and I liked being able to talk face to face, photographer to printer. It turned out well. Idé-Sign has this really fantastic paper- that is not actually paper at all, but a very thin plastic material- that has a satin, slightly metallic finish. I think it made my work look great.

I sent the files via email directly to the printer in Denmark. If I had requested, they could have then printed the images and then mailed them to me at home, but why wait?

Aside from having a few minor color issues at first because I forgot to send the prints worked on in ProPhoto RGB, this ended up working great for the show... but what about now?

I have this certain emotional attachment to my artwork. That is why photography works for me. If I sell a print, I can still keep the original file and make more prints. This particular piece I enjoyed creating because it was a throw back to my intense "Fiona Apple days" (I still love Fiona Apple by the way, I just am not as depressed and driven in that direction as I once was).

I'm thinking about selling prints of these images on my website (once I can figure out how to price them). This is where Backprint comes in really handy.

This shoot was more or less spontanious. I heard that there would be a Middle Eastern dance recital at Kéan Coffee in Newport Beach, the students and friends of Lilla Varese- a local celebrity of sorts, and I just happened to be in the area at that time. When I arrived at the coffeehouse I realized I was not well-enough prepared for this shoot.

This is my favorite piece from the show. In fact, I liked it so much, I kept it and it hangs in my living room, which is just as well. Janelle, the dancer in the piece, I was never able to contact for a model release (yes, I know, its even questionable that I should post it on the internet without a model release, but I feel that blogs should be considered media similiar to magazines, which don't need model releases, but that is another debate all together...), also, some of the Photoshop brushes I used in this piece are from Obsidian Dawn. Stephanie/Obsidian Dawn is pretty good about the usage of her brushes though. She has a creative commons license on them and requests that she simply be credited somehow and that if it is a commercial piece and it is impossible to credit her that you contact her and purchase the rights from her instead. I think that is pretty reasonable. On the other hand, though, I also have a love-hate relationship with that idea.

See, for those of you who don't know (and I was one of those people until pretty recently, its only due to my friend and fellow photographer Josh Durr who introduced me to this), these flourishes and designs all over this image are Photoshop brushes. They can be found all over the internet, particularly at deviantart.com. I found these Obisidian Dawn brushes there. The way they work is you can download the already created brush files (they are .abr files) and load them into your Photoshop brush palette. From there you can manipulate and use them the way you would any other Photoshop brush. And see, this is where I get all "I don't know about that".

In photography and art there are rights to protect creators from people stealing their creations. We've all heard of it, its called copyright. Now, if you take a photograph, you own the copyright. Most of the people who make Photoshop brushes take their own photographs from which they make their brushes. That's all fair and good. However, the copyright law says that if you take something and manipulate it extensively that you no longer would be violating copyright if you called it your own or did not give the original author credit for their work because it falls under "fair use". In a different type of artwork under the same subject there is a battle going on between Shepard Fairey (who created the Obama "Hope" poster) and Associated Press (click here for article). So, the thing for me is, do I really have to credit people who make Photoshop brushes?

In this case I chose to because I like Obisdian Dawn brushes and I think that other people should find her stuff. Also, and more importantly to me, I did not manipulate her brushes very extensively. The only thing I did was maybe change their size and flip them. But, even still, does that mean I have to give her credit?

To put this into context: I also am a painter. This is more of a hobby of mine than a money making thing, but anyway. If I buy a Winsor & Newton series 7 Red Sable (fox tail is *kiss* magnifique for painting, especially oil) (yes, I am a snob) brush, one of the finest brushes you can buy, am I then obligated to credit them on my paintings? That just seems silly. And the thing is, aside from that, I automatically am manipulating the Photoshop brush from its original state everytime I use it. So, how is this a copyright violation if I don't credit them?

I am very interested in hearing what anyone has to say about this. I don't know all there is to know about this subject and would like to find out if there is another side to this story.

A few weeks ago (or maybe almost 2 months now, gosh, how time flies!) I participated in a Sabrina Ramos Event, a photography show, at the Sarah Bain Gallery in Pomona. It was really a fun experience, even though I only found out a couple of weeks before the show what exactly the theme of the show was. But, actually, that kind of insanity before a show is quite common...

Originally I had thought that this was a painting show, which I also do paintings, and so I started to gather some work and think about canvases and frames. I had only about 2 months warning, but I thought I might be able to swing it, even though the month just before the show I was going to be in Denmark, and the month just ahead of me was one of my busiest work months of the year.

So, I gathered my work together and left for Denmark and wouldn't you know it, it was then that I got the flyer for the show- it was a photography show. So, while I was in Denmark, thanks to Flickr, I made up something from a recent shoot just before I left the country. It turned out ok. This is the first piece I did. I will also post the others in the coming days. I am thinking about selling these on my website as prints, as well.

At the art show I had this printed on satin finish and mounted on wood. The frame was red velvet. I built the frames myself. The person who ended up buying this piece absolutely loves it, which makes me feel pretty good actually. You know, you put so much work into a show, so much blood, sweat, and caffeine. Its nice to see someone really appreciate what you did.

So, what do you think? Would anyone buy this if I went through the trouble of making it available as an art print? I'm thinking about selling it just as a print, no frame, no matting. It keeps the cost down and particularly of the shipping costs, because I deliver my prints all over the world.

Yesterday I started a One A Day set with the official group on Flickr. I've been meaning to do this for quite some time, but have been putting it off because I keep worrying that I'm committing myself to something I don't know if I'll be able to finish.

Well, today I wasn't really feeling it, but since I started it yesterday I felt I really should not skip one now. I also think that it is good for me creatively to make myself try to find a way to fight through my particular block for the day and be creative anyway. So, I looked around for inspiration, found my sketchbook and got all excited about this sketch I did a couple of days ago. I took it into Photoshop and thought about combining it with some photographs I had already taken and/or applying brushes to it etc. I started to play around with it and this came to me and I was all happy because I had gotten some experiementing done and had come up with a piece for my One A Day, yay! And then just before I posted it I looked at the group rules- The only acceptable material is photos.

You've gotta be kidding me! After all that?!

So, in the end I posted this photo that I had in my archive. I didn't make it today, but it is a photo (and I've never posted it before):

Originally I was completely intending to talk to you only about a personal irk of mine as of late, that is the absolute somberness there is out there in photography these days and how ridiculous it is to me that it is "cool" to be sad, but then while exporting this image I found something new to rant about. But first things first, smiles...

 What is the deal these days with portrait photography? Now I'm not saying its not ok to be depressed, because I was depressed, severly. I even have been to therapy for my depression and "unfinished business" as my therapist put it. One of my favorite books, even, is Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel because I think it perfectly describes what depression feels like (I'm also thoroughly amazed she found energy to write the book because depression, if nothing else, is completely energy consuming), but, really, when you feel awful, even though finding an expression for your feelings is totally valid and worthwhile, wouldn't it be good to focus as well on what makes life worth living? I had to do that too. I'm just sayin'...

 Ok, color spaces. Just a really quick note (because I'm on my way out the door); we all know that sRGB is best for computer screens and then Adobe1998 is good for printing and that ProPhoto RGB is best, but what you may not know is what the difference actually looks like when you are sitting at your computer trying to export something from Lightroom. Long story short (because, I'm now late, but I had to tell you this), sRGB makes the colors you are working with in Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom that you see in the program come out like you saw them in the program when you save it or export it and then look at it in another program like IrfanView or in Flickr on your browser. Adobe1998 makes the reds and orange turn to yellows and greens, while ProPhoto RGB also does this but pushes them even farther in this direction. I always knew what each of these color spaces did, I just never saw it in action before like this. So, if you are ever planning to export or save something to be posted on a website or viewed on the computer be sure to use sRGB. You can always change the color space later for printing.

That's all for today! Now I'm off to a going-away party! 

I have a friend who is moving from Southern California to Utah, all of the sudden, in the middle of winter. I have to find out why.

As promised I would like to say a little bit about flash-blur...

The photograph above was taken during a photo shoot with the band called Bullet Daze. Before the photo shoot, I spoke with the lead musician in the band (I say lead musician because he basically orchestrates the whole thing and is not married to any particular instrument, although on stage he is often found behind the guitar or keyboard) who told me about some of his influences and explained to me what he thinks his music sounds like to him. He mentioned the term "fade" a lot and reverb and when thinking about what that meant to me visually I instantly thought of flash-blur. Flash-blur is something that people usually do on accident when taking pictures at night or in other low-light with their point and shoot. Its when the shutter is open on the camera long enough to pick up the ambient light and the image created by that, but also the flash fires and freezes the subject in the light it produces. For instance, in the image above the ambient light is what created some of the faded feet that are falling into the background, but you can see where the flash froze the image when the feet were closer to the camera (well, at least the feet on the left, the ones on the right were a little bit behind). The give away for when the flash fired is where on the woman's leg you can see the white of the strobe.

I'm a big fan of this technique for certain things. I use it a lot when I'm taking pictures of people dancing at weddings. I do this because, I don't know if you've noticed, but people can look really cool while they are dancing in front of you, but then when you take a picture of them that freezes their movement, they suddenly end up looking like a orangatang in mid-scream. With professional dancers who are so aware of their bodies this usually isn't a problem, but with a room full of normal people, it can get really ugly.