March 26th: Blogging D-Day

Sincerest thanks to everyone for leaving me in peace for a while. I'm feeling much better now - enough to get back to a normal routine anyway.

However yesterday we received a less-than-welcome notification from Blogger that they will no longer support FTP publishing in Blogger after March 26th of this year. They blamed the decision on "too many engineering resources" required to support FTP sites and said "We realize that this will not necessarily be welcome news for some users."

No kidding!

Word has it that the reason Google are doing this is nothing to do with cost and more about censorship. As you all know, we host our own blog on our own server, but we use the freely-available Blogger code for the blog publishing part, which allows all you lovely folks to use your Blogger accounts to leave comments etc. So not only can we remain part of the thriving Blogger community, but by publishing the blog via FTP this means that all our precious photographs are kept on our own servers, not Google's. We can therefore design our own groovy blog graphics (instead of Blogger's grotty standard templates) plus of course, we don't have to have a "content warning" header slapped in front of our blog (like most of you do.)

Basically Google doesn't have any control over what we can publish or how we publish it. We really like it that way. And I quote our resident photographer: "Hell will freeze over before I host our blog on Google servers. They have enough control over us as it is...this is just to increase their control and censorship of the internet. No bloody way! I'd rather close our blog first!"

(And before I get tons of comments from happy photographic bloggers who tell me that they host their blogs on Google servers and they don't mind one little bit, I must warn you in advance that we have absolutely no intention of going down this route. We deal with internet security as part of our day job. Bearing in mind what we know, please trust me when I say that letting Google host all our intellectual property is NOT an option.)

So we have until 26th March to decide what to do.

Perhaps it's time to put our resident computer geek to work on designing our own blogging code?

(Poor lad! As if he doesn't have enough to do already!)

LouLou2 667

Lou Lou

Help me. My Finger Is Getting Sore.

LouLou 647

You’ll all be pleased to hear that I’ve been merrily snapping away on my camera during my week off (sorry I can’t bring myself to call it “photography” – I’m really bad.) In fact I’m snapping so much that I’m filling up the memory card at a frightening speed. However I’m beginning to suspect that this clicking-diarrhoea is just plain wrong. It’s so fundamentally different from the way Rich shoots that I just know it’s not the right way to photograph. Quantity seems to be inversely proportional to quality.

As I’ve blogged before, Rich shoots very carefully and precisely. He never ever uses burst mode and sets each shot up in excruciating detail, Westonesque-style, making sure everything is correct down to the last detail before he presses the shutter. He’ll shoot precious few images in a three hour shoot, but practically every one is pretty darn good, in my opinion. This is largely helped by the fact that when the model moves, he makes sure she moves very slowly, so he captures minute changes and subtle nuances in her expression.

Unfortunately ordinary mortals like me simply can’t work that way. Over-excited four year old kids don’t exactly respond to “please can you kindly lift your head, sit up straight, point your toes, and put your right hand on your leg, now hold it, hold it…” Instead they hurl themselves around yelling “I’m a pretty pink flying angel-cat-lady!” and unless you’re heavy on the continuous shooting, there's no way that you'll ever get that split-second melt-in-your-mouth expression that you’re looking for.

I think part of the problem is style. Studio nudes are more stage managed (I won’t call them contrived otherwise I’ll be heading for a marital rift rather sharpish) whereas the “stuff of life” is more of a recording of an event that is already happening, a sort of photographic reportage. To my mind, when you’re shooting a moving subject, you’re trying to capture a story that is unfolding, and most of all you’re trying to capture an expression, a single moment that is the high point of the scene and will sum up the entire story in a single frame, what Cartier-Bresson called “the decisive moment.”

But how can you be sure you’re not going to miss it? What happens if you get distracted for an instant? Surely you have to keep compulsively pressing that shutter as quickly as you can, because how else are you going to be sure you’re not going to overlook that moment? After all, it’s not as if you’re going to be able to wind the scene backwards and photograph it all over again. Once it’s gone, it’s too late. How can you be sure you’re not going to hesitate at the wrong moment, blink or simply think you’re recorded everything you need, only to stop shooting and seconds later miss the very picture you were looking for?

Of all the art-forms, it is only the photographer who has to capture his entire message in a split second. As Cartier-Bresson observed, photographers are dealing with things that are constantly vanishing. They have to intuitively perceive and record an exact moment in time, and only if the shutter is released at the decisive moment, will they get that indefinable “something” that they were instinctively looking for.

I’m not sure if this decisive moment is discovered through skill, judgement, chance or sheer bloody-minded perseverance. Is it better to shoot slowly and carefully like Rich, or err on the side of caution and shoot thousands of shots, microseconds apart, in the hope that one of them will turn out the way I want it?

If anyone has any guidance, please do let me know, before I turn into a compulsive, trigger-happy shooter with an aching finger permanently welded to the shutter button.

LouLou 653

Images are of Lou-Lou searching for her own decisive moment (and if you think I'm showing my truly terrible snapshots here, "you've got another think coming" as my mother used to say.)

It's Friday, go get (moderately) plastered!

Long, torturous wine post. Not bad considering I know nothing about wine. Anyhoo, if you’re not a wine drinker, you’d best Skip to my Lou, my darlin'

Regular readers will know that I’m rather obsessed with health and living longer (of course I am. Death is a wonderful motivator.) Like all the long lived populations in the world, I’m a very healthy eater (lots of veggies and lean protein), plus I’m also rather fond of the odd tipple or three (I said tipple not nipple - do they have tipples in the States?) In fact it appears that most centenarian populations of the world do include a glass or two of a quality alcoholic beverage as part of their daily diet (Life extensionists look away now, I’m about to indulge in dodgy anecdotal evidence.)

Simply put, moderate amounts of alcohol can be good for you, wine in particular. The long-lived Hunzas of the Afghanistan border are rather partial to Hunza Water, which is a potent wine made from the area’s local grapes, mulberries and apricots. The old people of Sunchang in South Korea swear by their soju, which is a fiery rice spirit. Okinawans (some of the longest lived people on the planet) are devoted to awamori, another potent spirit again made from rice.

LouLou 639

Of course I am unable to get regular supplies of these potentially life-extending beverages, although I do feel it is my duty to sample them whenever possible (I recommend you avoid awamori - it smells a bit like kerosene and tastes like it too.) But I can purchase bottles of healthy red wine which will imbibe me with life-extending nutrients and make me feel warm and fuzzy too.

The bad news is that not all red wine is good for you. In fact, only a very small number of wines will do anything positive for your health. New York Pinot Noir is one of the best because it is high in resveratrol and is supposed to prevent cancer and heart attacks. However, the trouble is you’d have to drink a heck of a lot of it for the resveratrol to do any good, by which time your liver would almost certainly be pickled.

However the latest red wine I’m into is Madiran, which may well prove to be the healthiest wine in the world because it is made with tannat grapes which are high in procyanadins, which improve the lining of your blood vessels and stop your arteries furring up. Real Madiran is made in the Gers region of south-west France, close to the Pyrénées, which has one of the highest proportions of centenarians in Europe, courtesy of a good Mediterranean diet and loadsa wine. Happily, Madiran is fairly inexpensive and tastes pretty yummy, although occasionally (depending on the year) it does have a kick like a mule! Warning: It is also really important to pick a Madiran which is traditionally made. In most wines, modern processing methods remove all health benefits from the grapes and you’re left with cheap plonk which will hasten your heart attack, not prevent it. So choose wisely.

And if you want to know more about the world’s best wines, seek detailed advice from the nude blogging world’s resident wine connoisseur (plus you’ll find a gorgeous nude at the bottom of each and every bottle.)

LouLou 660

Talking of tipples and nipples, here's Lou-Lou.

The Biggest Show in the World

O.K. So it’s 4 a.m. and once again I’m racked with insomnia, courtesy of my head. Seven days straight with practically no sleep. Bleh. So you’re gonna get my sleep-deprived incoherent ramblings on…American Politics. Zzz…

Now, I know diddly-squat about American politics, although the BBC tells me, quite unobjectively, that it’s very important. The Race for the White House. The most powerful man in the world. Or woman, apparently.

I thought it might be interesting for you folks to see how your little goldfish bowl is seen from the outside. The world’s media is NOT objective. Quelle surprise.

According to the newspapers and the t.v. news here, the next president is going to be Democrat. Either Mrs Clinton , or Barack Obama. A white woman or a black man. That’s it. Gender, race and personalities are what hit the headlines over here. I have no idea who the Republican candidates are, or even if they exist. The UK media is predicting that the backlash against Bush will be so strong, that the Democrat candidate will win by a landslide. Who are the Republican candidates? Do they stand a snowball’s chance in hell? Personally, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run. I can picture him saying “Asta La Vista Baby” to our Prime Minster (who SO deserves to be nuked by Arnie for turning this green and pleasant land into a totalitarian state.)

The U.K. media is concentrating on American personalities and celeb-backings. The U.S. policies (if they even exist) are glossed over, forgotten. Would Barack Obama actually stand a prayer without the mighty Oprah? Should Oprah be running the world instead? Maybe she does already. Now there’s a scary thought. Why do American politics appear to be run by the celebrity factor? What happened to …gasp…real policies? How do the candidates feel about global politics, green issues, energy, religion, security, science, space, healthcare? It’s all very well promising to save the planet (a sure-fire vote winner) but how will the changes in energy infrastructure be paid for? Does anyone running for president actually credit the American public with intelligent thought or do they assume Americans are soap-loving sheep who just like a bit of drama?

Is this concentrating on personality-before-policy a feature of global media-misreporting, or is this really what it’s all about? A contest between a black man who is not actually black (but pimped by a chat-show-queen), or a woman who is so dry, brittle and power-hungry that she’ll stoop to nothing to rule the world? And if it’s personality that counts, do you really want to give the global domination of the world to a woman who can’t even keep her husband in check?

From an accountant-like-me’s point of view, I'll side with the economists who say the elections should be all about the economy. If the global economy is ever going to grow, then whoever wins must find a way to reverse the catastrophic failures of the Bush presidency, notably the screwed up and overly aggressive attempts to use hard military power, and the bovine attempts at diplomacy. The world needs free trade. As far as I can tell, none of the candidates so far have given a hoot about free trade, whether it be Republicans mooting blocking immigration, or Democrats waffling on about the need to prevent jobs going offshore. Frighteningly, Mrs Clinton has even talked about re-writing the North American Free Trade agreement, which was one of Bill’s main achievements in the first place. Why is it that she appears to be forgetting her husband’s mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid?”

The only remotely objective source of information for me is, you guessed it, the blogosphere. I am following the varying political threads (with accompanying gorgeous naked laydeez) with great interest. Maybe someone out there could please do a tutorial for the non-Americans? You know, a basic idiot’s who’s who. Their policies, the world implications, and so forth. And subjective opinions too please. Who do you think should win and why?

After all, the whole world has a stake in the US elections in November. And it all depends on your vote. You’re not voting for yourselves. You’re voting for the entire planet.

So, if the world goes to hell-in-a-hand basket in 2009, I’m blaming you lot.




Lou-Lou.

The Christmas Fluffies

The Challenge?

1. Take five beautiful models, and one ultra-cheesy Santa hat.

2. Very politely request reluctant models to wear said hat for a few minutes at the end of each shoot.

3. When aforementioned models refuse (on grounds of good taste), apply the super-patented-ultra-smoooooth-Mr-Fluffy-Charm.

Voila!

Result = The 2007 Christmas Fluffy Series.

The amazingly brave yet totally futile attempt to produce tasteful nude art, whilst simultaneously inducing that garish and tacky feeling of Yule.

Enjoy…

(Several times a week until Christmas, I’m afraid…)



Are we all feeling Christmassy yet?

Cyber-modelling

After a rather exhausting but satisfactory discussion session with at least six oncologists on Friday, followed by mother-in-law yesterday, I’m a bit of a basket case this morning. However I do have a shoot today where I am modelling for Rich’s first CGI virtual model.

Alas I’m not going to be the main virtual model, at least not yet, but negotiations re my alter-ego are ongoing. I want the virtual-me to have humongous big bazookas…whereas Rich is thinking of something a little more representative of the real me. I never thought I’d see the day where I spend an entire afternoon arguing about the size and pertness of my virtual breasts.

Plus I want my own virtual model to be…how shall I put it …anatomically accurate in other areas. She’s going to be a higher model. She’s going to be young, hot and juicy. Heck…she’s gonna be porn-personified. Basically everything I’m not. I mean, what’s the point of having a "virtual-you" if it doesn’t fulfill your completely unrealistic fantasy of the model you’d like to be? Plus, for the first time, a cyber-me wouldn’t make me nervous about modelling. I could show my resulting images with pride and confidence, rather than constantly worrying about viewers potentially blowing chunks (yes I do, you know.)

So, as Cyber-L-von-B isn’t ready yet, Rich’s first virtual model is going to be called Zuki.

Currently Zuki has a really naff hairstyle, a shiny Amazonian body, truly gorgeous breasts (selected by yours truly and based on the most stunning boobs I have ever seen - I’ll be roasted if I say who), and an ass with too many polygons. Sheesh. That ass needs to be smaller. And without the angles. And the horns.

Also Zuki currently lacks permanent toes. Every time Rich tries to move her, he keeps leaving her toes behind. This is really gross. Virtual toenails are a real problem in our studio this week. Ick!



Anyhoo, the reason I am modelling today is that Zuki lacks skin and nether regions. O.K. so I’m ancient, but my skin is bloody marvelous (all that veggie porn pays off), so Rich will be able to overlay and wrap my skin onto Zuki, as well as my …Oh boy, I really do need a LOT of alcohol before this shoot.

So what is Rich actually learning at the moment?

Well, basically he is creating a 3-D model that matches the physical body of the model. He then wraps it in a high resolution photograph of the same model.

Voila! Zuki is born, albeit with no toenails.

Sounds simple, huh? But this process will probably take weeks and it looks horrendously difficult, believe me, and I have NO CLUE AT ALL what he is doing.

But is it photography? This is the acid question.

Is a heavily photoshopped image classified as photography?
And if such a photo- montage is in fact photography, is a three dimensional image created from photographs then also considered photography?

Where does photography stop and CGI begin?



As Zuki will not be ready for a considerable time yet, here’s an image from Rich’s latest shoot with the lovely Lou-Lou. No Photoshop. Perfect toes.

(And, as an aside, if you want to see some really pretty veggie porn, may I recommend you feast your starving eyes on Iksodas’s latest. Now that’s what I call seriously naked vegetables.)

Lost In Translation

I screwed up. Again.
Profuse apologies to Gary, who got the wrong end of the stick about my off-blog ranting.

Often I find writing on cyberspace can be SO easily misinterpreted, and things are usually made worse because of the language/culture differences between the British and the U.S. This probably just means I don't express myself very well, or it may be a inter-continental culture thing. I often appear overly sharp to Americans in my writing, when I'm a pussy-cat in real life (honest, guv!) I also have a very dry British sense of humour, and were you to meet me face to face, you’d know that most of my language is peppered with sarcasm. However, the trouble with sarcasm is that it’s often hard to translate it properly to writing, and especially across continents and cultures. Trying to translate British dry wit to American photographers is the hardest writing challenge I have EVER encountered.

I’ve tried to do the love-love MM politically correct type writing, where I say everyone is wonderful all of the time. The trouble is that I deeply suck at it. It sounds false, and unlike me. So I stick to just letting the words flood out as they appear in my head. Not the best writing technique ever, and the casualties of war have been high. People I care about very much but have nevertheless offended this year include Don (twice I think), Melvin (who is alas no longer speaking to me), Jimmy, Stephen and Dan (who all forgave me), and now Gary (as above)…and those are just the ones I know about!

Nowadays when I write a potentially contentious post, I’ve actually taken to emailing photographers or models in advance and emphasising the post is not about them, in case they misconstrue it. Does this make them overly sensitive, or me a bad writer? The latter I think.

Writing is a difficult art form, and IMO a more powerful one than visual art. The keyboard is mightier than the camera. Certainly it is much easier to offend via writing, than via a photograph.

Despite my constant emphasis that my writing is usually not about any individual, readers continue to personalise the blog posts or comments because it is human nature to relate to observations about relationships, emotions or personalities (my favourite topics.) Rich says this is a good thing, and a sign that I am getting better at writing. I’m not so sure.

Good writing personalises the message to the reader. The better the writing, the more readers are moved by the message. The trouble is, when the message that appears in the writers head, goes onto computer, across cyberspace, and is interpreted by someone else’s head on the other side of the planet, the original intention of the writer, the mood, the (attempted) humour, the nuance, often gets lost in translation. Kind of like most art really – it’s a subjective interpretation.

Let me emphasise I’m a beginner at this art form.

Maybe I should take up photography instead? It’s gotta be easier, and that way I wouldn’t upset those I care about.



Pretty Lou-Lou, from a shoot earlier this week.