My first post of new work in a while. This is a 3B28 half-wave gas rectifier. Most interesting for me, is the screw near the bottom inside the glass. When I had it outside, alot of light reflected around the bottom of the tube, and getting detail of the screw while preserving the reflections was an interesting challenge. This is also the first scan with my new scanner, and could be better. Think of it as the test drive. (The scanner is great by the way. I just have to learn to use it well.)

I look at alot of portfolios, and have met models with poor portfolios, and models with highly professional portfolios, and everyone in between.  While I am in no position to speak for the industry at large, I can certainly offer some ideas on what I look for when looking at portfolio.

It's an overworked topic, but one that still comes up on model and photography forums.  There's always someone starting out, and wondering what should a portfolio contain?  One of the reasons I make a point to always meet a model before scheduling work is to review not only experience, but portfolio.  A great many models, surprisingly, arrive with no portfolio at all.  I don't know how proper or improper that is, or if I should be more specific, but it is nice to see a few shots.  When I do get the chance, I look first and foremost for a professional presentation.  I'm not averse to working with new models, and a sparse portfolio should be no reason to avoid a good presentation.

As far as what should be in the portfolio, well, it really depends on past work.  For models with significant experience, the ones I probably can't afford to hire, I look for samples that are similar to the work I'm hiring for.  Looking at my portfolio online, or reading my project description, hopefully, is enough to assemble some shots appropriate for artistic work.

For models with little experience, anything professionally shot is good.  And it doesn't need to be alot.  We all start somewhere, and the best place to start is with a serious dedication to your craft.  Which, for a model I guess, means building a portfolio TFP, on his own dime, or in school.  One of my favorite models, who I invite every time I shoot, had, if I remember, only two shots in her book when we met.  But they were two appropriate and well done examples, and it worked out well.

Specifically, if I could have a wish list of what I might find in a portfolio, in every one I would see a professional headshot.  To me, the headshot is the navy blazer of the portfolio.  The little black dress of the book.  No wardrobe is complete without the blazer or dress, and no portfolio is complete without a headshot.  While it's a given for actors to have one, it's nice to see a model who has invested in a professional headshot. (Disclaimer: My girlfriend is a professional photographer, has shot headshots, and I admit my partiality here to her influence.)

Another thing I'd hope to see is a full body shot.  Unclothed or clothed is fine.  Not all figurative work is nude, and as I work less and less with nudes I like to see how fabric will fall across a model's body.  Either way, I'll be drawing the figure, photographing it first, so I like to see the figure on film.  Give me a chance to imagine working with your shots, let me see an interesting form, or show me how you present yourself.  I could just look at the model and see for myself, but I wonder if what I see in life is what I would see on film?

Finally, I like to see a sense of pride.  I like to see a model with work she is proud of, work she considers well done.   I like having the sense that a model will bring alot of positive energy to the shoot, which always results in better finished pieces.

It's not a scientific approach, and I'm certainly no expert on the modeling industry itself, but I have my particular approach, which may be individual, but not terribly unique.  Hopefully, though, knowing a bit about how I work is a little more helpful information for those wondering "how do I start?"

I'm in the planning stage of a new project.  I shoot alot of photographs in my work, but always for drawing.  It's been quite some time since I did any purely photographic work, and have begun a series of artistic figurative photos I hope to share here.

As I start to build content, I plan to dedicate a website to photography.  This is an ongoing project, and assuming I can work steadily on it, will have ongoing updates.

Currently I'm scheduling models for late July/early August.  I shoot in various places, sometimes in a professional studio if I have enough work to warrant the expense, or in my own studio in my home.  I prefer to shoot in my home for this type of work because I can create a more realistic setting, and have the studio space to review images with the model when the shoot is done.  Collaboration is important to me, and when I work with a model I encourage her to participate creatively in the shoot.

If you'd like to know more about this project, please feel free to contact me.  If you are interested in how I work,  this models wanted post will provide some details.  There is alot of detail about modeling for a drawing, but some information applies to art projects in general.

It's official.  The Philadelphia Phillies are the worst team of any sport, having reached a new low in losing their 10,000th game.  No other team is close to such a magic number, even the few baseball teams as old as or older than the Phillies.  Since 1888, the Phillies have succeeded in defining athletic failure for generation after generation of beleaguered fans.

I, sadly, am one of those fans.  I find it especially bitter since I grew up knowing the Phillies in their too brief period of winning.  In the 1970s the Phillies had a pretty good team, with some pretty good players.  Who can forget Carlton's fast ball or Schmidt's bat?  Or Bowa's temper, and Luzinski lumbering around left?  When they signed Pete Rose, they had the final piece to their World Series puzzle, scoring their one and only Series victory in 1980.  These were the Phillies I knew.  I had been spared the monumental collapse of 1964 (the real benchmark of sports failure), but I had been suckered into thinking mine was a team of winners.

To be sure, the 1980 Phillies were winners.  But by 1983 it was over, and reality began to set in.  The '64 Whiz Kids began to make sense.  The real destiny of this team, one cursed with poor ownership since day one, playing in the shadow of the Philadelphia A's, accomplishing 100 losses a season throughout the 1930's, was one of endless failure.  The really amazing part, however, is, with all the losses and miserable seasons, they still exist.  Even during their darkest seasons, so many of them, they hung around.  They never folded when they should have, even as their owner was selling the furniture to make payroll, and they kept on losing.  The lesson of futility also obviously lost.

I don't delude myself anymore, no longer expecting a respectable showing, an occasional playoff berth, or a remarkable late season run.  I look forward only to a mediocre start and a post All-Star game trip to the bottom of the standings.  It's an annual pattern in Philly, a bad team slowly gets worse as the season goes on, and in case you need any proof the Phillies are a bad team, they now have 10,000 losses to prove it.  Way to go, Whiz Kids.

Idaho's incredibly fun to shoot, and she has a wonderful attitude about her work. It's always my pleasure to work with great models, and she is one of the best.  We shot 2 sets in the corner by the front door, and one by the picture window.  We used an old radio for a prop and some of  the shots have a vintage feel to them,which I like.

We set up the lights, and I wanted to shoot a few tests to get a feel for shooting in my home.  I shot both digital, and 120 film and I must admit enjoying the film more.  It was the first chance to use my Roleiflex with strobes, but the film is still in the lab, so I'll share those later.  The digital shots came out much better than I thought they would,although the shots in the corner of the room are underexposed. I know to open up a bit next time, but by the window the exposure worked well. 

I tried using both cameras, switching between them, and I think I won't do that again.   We seemed to loose something pausing so often to switch gear.  Next time, I'll  know to use only one camera at a time, and compose each set accordingly.  I look forward to working with Idaho again.  In the meantime, there's lots of material to draw from!  Look for a drawing or 2 soon.