The Grain Principle

“Today I want a grainy picture,” I demanded Rich in true prima-donna style, this morning over breakfast.

He shot me an alarmed “Oh God, Lin’s acting psycho” look.

“I don’t do grain,” he said. “You know that. I don’t shoot film anyway.”

“Well, can’t you add it afterwards?” I retorted.

He looked both horrified and rather offended. The very same look which he gave me yesterday when I asked him to scrape up something smelly and unsavoury from the carpet.

I should perhaps now explain that we’re rather opposed on The Grain Principle.

Rich really dislikes grain. Many moons ago, I remember he used a very low grain film and still used to complain bitterly about the lack of detail in the print. When digital came along he was over the moon. He likes pictures to look incredibly smooth and ultra-sharp. He doesn't like noise and grain, and he's passionate about pixels, the more the merrier. He wants the captured image to look the way he sees it with his eyes and he prefers complete control over the photograph. I can understand this. After all, he’s a scientist so naturally he likes exactness, precision and perfection. He says that if you need grain to make the photograph work, then it’s a waste of time. “Grain is not a mood-enhancer. It is an artefact of the chemical process.”

In complete contrast, over time I’ve learned to love grain, and I disagree with Rich in that I really do think it adds mood. A certain look, a certain style. It has a sexy, arty flavour which is unique and rather cool. Rich understands this, but he says it’s just not to his personal taste. He also thinks that the reason the general public like grainy or noisy photos nowadays is because they think the images were shot on film, and somehow this is perceived as being more professional and artistic. With the growth of digital, he believes grain is being marginalized, which is why it is doubly trendy for art and fashion photography (UK Vogue often has so much grain that you can hardly see the clothes, but the images sure look uber-cool.)

With the cessation of Polaroid, Rich now reckons that in five years time, film will only be used by hobbyists and those that have a dedicated interest in shooting film. He tells me that nowadays nearly all the high-end professional photographers shoot digitally. Digital photography is the future. Film and grain are ancient history. You can fight it all you want, but that’s the truth. So why cling to the past?

All this makes for a very persuasive argument over morning coffee of course, but it doesn’t solve my desire for a grainy portrait, no matter how prehistoric the concept may be.

So I look a leaf out of my four year old daughter’s book, and decided to be a diva. “I don't care. I wanna look grainy. I want a photograph, as is, no photoshop at all, just the real me, but grainy.

He gave me a slightly despairing look. “You won’t like it, you know. You’re feeling tired, radiated, really ill. It’s not going to make you look as sexy as you'd like, and then you'll blame me.”

“I don’t care. I don’t want to look sexy, I just want a portrait of me as I really am. A snapshot in time, a record of this point in my life. I know it’s going to be un-pretty. And I don’t care if I don’t like it. I’ve just got to do it.”

l-von-b-08 906

So here it is.

He was wrong. I love it.

Yes I know it’s not real grain. It’s post-processed digitally added noise, and it will make all you purist film photographers out there shudder. Nevertheless, I don’t think it came out too badly at all. No fancy studio posing, no sexiness, no Photoshop. Just me on my favourite sofa. It’s who I am. And it’s probably the only photograph you’re ever going to see of my floppy old boobs, so make the most of it.

Photoshop and Fantasies

Excruciatingly long post. Get yourself some decent coffee and draw up a comfy chair. We can’t rush this one.

About four months ago, Richard suddenly became allergic to Photoshop. Overnight he just stopped using it. Now this is the dude that is crazy about anything to do with computers, the dude who studies CGI, the dude that teaches Photoshop courses to local camera clubs, this is Mr Fluffy, skilled Photoshopper extraordinaire.

Once upon a time he used to idolise Roge who is a gifted photographic artist who spends hundreds of hours basically re-creating every molecule of skin of each of his models. Rich used to believe in the power of Digital Gem skin smoothing, he thought nothing of spending 15-20 hours after a shoot devotedly Photoshopping the images, so that each model could look perfect, better than her best, she could look at those pictures and think “Wow, I never knew I could look that good!” Indeed, without Rich’s fantastic Photoshop skills, I can guarantee I would not be a model today.

At one point, towards the latter part of 2007, his reputation actually reached the level of “respected photographer” to the extent that models would seek him out, ask him to do their portfolios, and not charge for images. We had (shock, horror) real genuine clients, who wanted the Mr Fluffy treatment. Ordinary women, middle-aged, imperfect just like me, who wanted to look good, feel sexy, and be empowered by the modelling experience. And Rich loved it. He loved the look on their faces, the widening of their eyes when they saw the images, the exclamation of “Damn, I’m hot, and I never knew it.” He really loves making women happy (it’s his biggest weakness, truth be told.)

So what the hell happened to our intrepid hero? Why did he lose his faith? Why did he cancel all the clients, back out of the professional side of things, and cancel all shoots?

Well, as I said before, the disillusionment set in towards the end of last year. He was under huge amounts of day-job pressure, and he simply didn’t have the time to spend 20+ hours post-processing per shoot. Not every shoot would take that much time, of course, but hey, we’re talking Mr Perfectionist here, aspiring to smooth-skin a-la-Roge, every wart and wrinkle removed until the client was happy and felt and looked 20 years younger. He was spending so much time in Photoshop that he had no time left for the family. It stopped being fun, and started feeling like work.

And so he cut back on post-processing. He realised that photography was not about creating an illusion, not about lying to the subject that she really DID look that good at 50, that her spotty skin was really flawless and that those several spare tyres and wrinkles didn’t actually exist. “Photoshop is not a cure for pigging out on chocolate,” he said.

He used Photoshop to smooth out the back-drop, and that was about it. The photos were still stunning of course, the lighting was beautiful, and he is a good enough photographer to position the model so that her less-than-optimal physical attributes were in shadow, or at an angle. And heck, I saw the results. They were really GOOD. The models didn’t look like marble statues - they looked REAL women. Their inner beauty showed. No they didn’t look as young, nor like they came out of a celeb-magazine, but their skin had texture, their wrinkles increased the character and beauty of the shot, not detracted from it. They still looked hot, and best of all, this was REALLY THEM (O.K. and a significant amount of photographic skill I grant you!) I was really much prouder of his new images than the previous heavily post-processed ones. Simply put, he was developing into a better photographer.



But some of the models did not like this. No, they did not like it at all. Some models who came for TFCD shoots were upset. They felt cheated. “Why haven’t you digitally smoothed my skin?” exclaimed one. “Why have I still got rolls of fat on my belly?” complained another. “This isn’t good enough. It’s not what I signed up for. I want 50 perfect photos. Do it again!” Another model even tried to post-process the images herself, by Photoshopping the skin. Of course this not only violated the model agreement, but it made Rich incandescent with rage. “What’s wrong with the images?” he fumed. “She looks gorgeous. Why can’t she see that this is really her, and that she’s beautiful as she is?” But this was not enough. Models wanted the Mr Fluffy treatment. They wanted to look like a T.V. celeb. They wanted to be other than they really were. They wanted the illusion.

And that was the turning point for Rich. He went through a phase where he cancelled everything, all shoots, he stopped looking at nude photographs, he even thought about giving up nude photography. And for a horrible moment, I really thought he was going to. But thank the Gods for this blog, and for you lot. I refused to let him quit, and I talked incessantly about photography and the bloggie community, so that he had no choice but to join in. And he came out of his shell, and started to chat to some of you again. And of course, I’ve been able to shove under his nose some stunning art produced by so many of you, which has re-encouraged him to start shooting again.

He began the same way as he did last time - by shooting me. And now I’m tentatively booking models again! He’s on the road to recovery. And he’s doing it his way. Minimal post-processing, unless HE wants to spend the time modifying the images, unless HE thinks it is necessary to produce better art. He’s not going to use Photoshop to “fix” the less-than perfect, just to make the women happy. He’s not going to lie. He going to do what the hell he wants. It’s his art, after all.

I guess this means that he’s going to produce significantly fewer publishable photos per shoot, and it probably makes him more of a purist. But I reckon it makes him a better photographer too. Certainly he’s a happier one.

Women need to accept themselves as real people, not expect the photographer to transform them into someone they would like to be. This is the difference between feeling empowered by your own real beauty, and not just living in a celebrity-fuelled fantasy.

You are beautiful because of who you are, warts and all.

Trust the photographer to capture that.



Pirate Maiden. Beautiful for both her looks and personality. No Photoshop required.

The Commonality of the Digital Age

One of the most common criticisms of Model Mayhem is its reflection of the rapid growth in digital photography. Half a million members, and growing, and all thanks to the digital age. Millions of people can now buy a camera for under $100 and call themselves “photographer.” This is the new world of photography, a new freedom of expression. Anyone can do it now.

Long standing photographers who were trained before the digital age, the die-hard-dedicated film buffs, often argue that this is a bad thing. That there’s no talent any more, or if there is, it’s swallowed up in such a massive amount of dross, that it’s very difficult to find any new and exceptional photographic talent any more. They argue that it cheapens the art of photography, that the quality of the profession is gone.

To some extent, this is true. It is certainly a lot harder nowadays to make a decent living as a photographer. With major fashion magazines paying less and less for decent fashion spreads, with the ongoing death of photojournalism because the news web sites invite anyone to upload pictures from their mobiles, photography has become free, just another casualty of the insidious growth of the internet age where “free” is expected, taken for granted. Photography is now fast, instant, just another microwave ready-meal. There is no photographic learning process, no years of training, no growth of skill, no learning of exposure or lighting because the cheap automatic camera does it all for you. Where’s the real photography gone?

The sad thing is that this growth has resulted in many a photographer quitting the profession, or going bust. They still love photography with a burning passion, but they simply have been chased away by the digital age, by the growth of “free.”

There is still money to be made for the exceptional photographer, of course, but it is certainly much more difficult nowadays. Most “good-but-not-quite-Avedon” grade photographers, who used to make a perfectly decent living out of all sorts of photography (landscapes, glamour, art, portraits and so forth), have given up long ago and gone to find another day-job that will pay the mortgage. You only have to look in our local town and see how many photographers have gone bust in the last five years. It’s heartbreaking to see. A graveyard of broken dreams and broken livelihoods, because the public don’t use professional photographers any more. They have a cheap camera and a copy of Photoshop at home. What do they need a professional for? And anyone can call themselves a pro nowadays. It’s all too easy.



But there’s the flip side too.

Firstly there’s the feel-good factor.
O.K. so photography done by your average Joe Bloggs isn’t outstanding art. It’s instant rough-and-ready photography, but this is part of its charm. And I’m very sure it has given Joe immense satisfaction. And yes, he may consider himself an amateur photographer and list photography as one of his hobbies. But if it makes him happy, and gives him even a smidgen of appreciation of life behind the lens, who are we to look down on that, or belittle him for trying?

From time spent playing with a cheap instant camera, Joe might decide to study photography in depth a bit more, buy a few photography magazines. He might “get bitten by the photography bug,” scour the internet, study lighting and form, buy every book he can get his hands on, save up for a home studio, hire some nudes, and before you know it, a few years have passed and Joe is photographing private nude portfolios and earning a very tidy second income from it, thank-you very much.

In this way, digital photography has shifted the balance of power from the elite professionally trained photographers over to the common man, and now we are all in control of our own art.

Secondly, the internet presents billions of photographs to people who would otherwise not have seen them. It is an art gallery for the world. Millions of people’s lives are enriched by viewing fantastic images on an instant basis. And this virtual cyber-art gallery is free for all.

I’m going on my own experience here, so bear with me. Before a couple of years ago, I had a very limited understanding of fine-art. It meant nothing to me. I didn’t see it as art. And I want to emphasise that point. I did not really “SEE.”

Rich’s photography has changed the way I see. With just a couple of years of studying images from thousands of different photographers, I don’t just recognise and see a good photograph now, I feel it too. Photography has re-educated me. I see the world in a different light nowadays, and that’s all because of my new digital education. And if digital technology can teach that to the average non-artistic person like me, then surely this new commonality of art can change the world?

The growth of digital photography and the internet presents a new democracy of seeing. And I, for one, have been immeasurably enriched by this freely available art form.



Syd, looking as amazing as always.

"A photograph only has value if it is printed in a darkroom!”

This is a view held by many photographers.

I disagree. A photograph is worth more than the paper it is printed on!

If that’s not the case, then all art is seriously overvalued.

However, there are some photographic elitists who don’t seem to agree with me. They claim that only a photograph which is printed using the wet process in a darkroom has any real value, and those who do not use this process are not “real photographers.”

So if you are one of those photographers who judges other photographers based on whether or not they print in a darkroom, then may I suggest you look at your portfolio and ask yourself, “Is my best photograph only worth the small cost of the paper that it is printed on?”

Do you look at an image on a website and say “Those images are worthless because they are electronic?” or look at an Avedon print book and say “Those are worthless because they are printed using a printers press?” Do you look at an acrylic painting and say “This is worthless because it’s not in oil?”, or look at a pencil drawing and say “This is worthless because it’s not in paint?”

In the realm of the fine arts it would be unthinkable to criticise an artist or to claim that something was worthless because of their chosen medium. So it logically follows that an image should be valued on its extrinsic value and the response it generates in the viewer, rather than the paper it is printed on.

Now I can hear the shout that the value in a darkroom print is in the time and skill of the photographer that created the print in the darkroom. But if this were true then your worst ever print would have the same value as your best ever print, simply because you spent the same time on them. Also it would mean that anyone skilled in chemistry but terrible at photography should receive the same adoration as you.

Clearly, it’s the image that counts. We should all forget about photographic elitism because its just another round of Canon vs Nikon, SLR vs Medium format, and my lens is bigger than yours bravado.

I print digital images on an Epson Pro 4880. It’s an A2+ printer. My prints are bigger than yours,

Nah-Nah Nee-Nah-Nah!

This is Syd, looking to give some attitude to anyone who disagrees with me...

Photoshopping is evil. Discuss.

Our dear friend Iksodas has written a very stimulating post on his blog, about the digital enhancement of photographic images using Photoshop. Please read it here (his 6th June post)

Iksodas is one of those rare breeds of photographers who is so incredibly talented, that he doesn’t actually need Photoshop. He can make my old Aunty Aggie look good naked, without any Photoshopping whatsoever (and that’s a pretty tall order I can tell you), through talented use of lighting, shadow and posing her in a subtle and seductive manner, so as to show off her genuine beauty, whilst hiding her less flattering features, such as her big hairy moustache (Note: not that Iksodas has not actually photographed my Aunty Aggie, but I’m sure he’d rise to the challenge magnificently, if I asked him).

He argues that extensive photoshopping an image of a model “creates a fiction far divorced from reality” and “Enhancement, and misrepresentation of the female form is a bit of an evil in our culture. One, that affects many women in this world, and not in a good way”.

Good points of course, but I respectively disagree (which is rare for me, because we usually agree on everything).

My view ?

Photoshop can be the modern form of paint. It is as much an art-form, as photography in its own way.

Richard shoots models “as is”, and won’t photoshop them, other than removal of a few wrinkles and the odd bit of cellulite. Like Iksodas, he treats it as a betrayal of learning photographic principles, and believes Photoshop is uneccessary, and can be an an example of poor photographic technique.

Richard, is however, extremely good at Photoshop. He has run classes on the subject. He is, actually (in my opinion) as gifted a Photoshopper as he is a photographer. I have seen him morph multiple images of several landscapes together to make a new landscape together, which is extremely beautiful, but a work of total fiction. There was no such landscape in reality. Does this make it any less "art"?

Way before digital computing was invented, even Ansel Adams modified his images during the printing process to make the image what he wanted it to be, other than what it actually was. The result of this process was fantastic art.

The modern method of doing this technique would be through use of Photoshop. Not that most people who use Photoshop are as good at art as Ansel Adams, but my point is that modification of photographs can be beautiful, even if they are not real. Modification of images of people should not be treated any less as an art-form than modification of landscapes or backgrounds.

I would also argue that good use of subtle lighting (without Photoshop), can make a model look beautiful, but this is just as much a misrepresentation as a photoshopped image. You are still portraying the woman (through the clever use of lighting) as other than she really is, by not displaying her most unflattering bits, or placing certain parts of the body in shadow.

ALL photos displayed over the web are processed to some degree.
There is no such thing as a completely undoctored digital photograph.
All nude photography can be argued to be fiction to a greater or lesser extent.

As to whether or not these images are misrepresentation, all modelling photos portray a fantasy - it’s what they are supposed to do, to stimulate the imagination of the viewer.

Fiction ? Yes, certainly. But is misrepresentation like this a bad thing ?

Like any art form, when done badly, digital enhancement sucks. You can get crappy photoshoppers as well as crappy photographers (and usually both together). But when it’s done well, it can make the woman look like a million dollars, boost her ego and make her feel like the sexiest woman on the planet.

So do I feel bad about my images being enhanced? No.
If my images are photoshopped, it makes me feel better about myself. I’m 40 years old for chrissake. I’m no spring chicken, and the majority of photographers I know are not talented enough (unlike Iksodas) to make me look good naked, without either some form of photoshopping, or shooting me in total darkness. Unless I shoot with an absolutely amazing photographer, I NEED digital modification, otherwise I look like some sort of ancient she-hag. My poor fragile little ego couldn’t take it if there were “real raw” pictures of me all over the internet….part of the reason I shoot so little and post so few images. I’m just not that attractive a model, and I’m extremely insecure about my looks. I model because the images convince me that I am actually beautiful, no matter that I think I look like in reality.

Iksodas observes “So, the next time you open Pshop, are you correcting your Photographic mistakes, or feeding the monster?”

I like my monster, it’s part of who I am.

And if the images of me are part fantasy, part reality, I can live with that.



Sirensong. She loved this image.
I know we have posted this before (sorry folks) but it goes with the post.