My Humble Abode

I just installed "Chrome" from Google -- their attempt at making a browser.  I've never agreed with Google's naming of this browser.  "Chrome" has been a term related to browsers for a heckuva long time and calling their browser the same name as a part of the basis of all Mozilla-based (which includes Netscape) browser is an evil marketing ploy and something that I despise (especially coming from a company that says -- or said -- that their motto was to "do no evil").

First off, the install's import of my Firefox settings hung on me and I had to kill the process.  (Yes, I consider a process "hung" if it's sitting there hogging 50% of the CPU for 5-10 minutes w/o progressing.)

Secondly, the brower is about the most under feature filled browser that I've ever encountered.  Maybe that's because I'm so used to the way (and ability to do so) that I've extended Firefox.  Maybe it's because they've "hidden" everything in their "one box" idea.  I'm sorry.  Computers have mouses now.  I don't want to type to do something that I could simply click on in other programs.

Thirdly, the browser is not using native OS components, therefore it looks different than any other program running and is not following (or obeying) my color scheme that I've applied to the OS.  Sure, the way they've done things does give a tad bit more room for the actual browsing content, but still... that's something that was an option in Firefox (and I believe IE as well) -- ya know:  "full screen" mode.

Lastly, from the little bit that I've played with it today -- granted it was a very little bit -- I just can't see the point in Google creating yet another $#!#$!$ browser.  I'm sorry.  How I feel about browsers is a result of having to write extra code that doesn't follow the specs for many years just to support the two main browsers on the market and is best summed up by borrowing a line from the Highlander movie and tv series:  "There can be only one."  Personally I'm hoping and praying that that one will be Firefox.  Even if Microsoft buys Mozilla at some point.  The browser is just a better browser and there's just no point in trying to do better -- at least not from scratch, it'd take too bloody long and leave yourself open to far too many bugs and problems.

In summary, try Google's Chrome if ya like.  But I'd highly suggest that you not waste your time and just install Firefox, set it as your default browser, and be done with things.

I have decided to de-activate my Facebook account.  That site (in my humble opinion) sucks!  I struggled (and as such got frustrated) with the site's navigation and inability to actually find people.  I don't want to have to fish thru pages of search results to find someone.  Plus the whole concept of letting the world know when you do any little thing on the site (or being told when any of my "friends" do any little thing) is completely pointless and annoying that I have to go manually turn off those notifications for any new feature that they add.  I am on networking sites (like MySpace) to help network with people in an effort to start my photography career.  That's pretty much it.  Sure, getting in touch with friends from the past is cool, but it's not the reason that I'm on those sites -- that's a secondary benefit and as such I find any site (like Facebook) that insists that is the only reason why you'd want to be on a networking site completely useless and a waste of my time.

I had a shoot today that has gotten me rethinking a lot of things.  One of them is my rates.  If I am going to feel like this after a shoot in which I have absolutely no control -- in other words a shoot that a stylist, art director, etc has control over the final image -- then I'm definately going to have to increase my rates two or three times the current values.  Yep.  Maybe even four or five times.  To put it simply: I feel like crap.  I'm not supposed to feel this way after a shoot.  Especially when it's with someone that I've been wanting to work with for a while.  (No, it wasn't the person that I was shooting that's got me feeling this way, but the "stylist" that was way too bossy today -- more so than in the past.)

Anywho.

Another thing that I'm rethinking is whether or not I even want to list "fashion" as a genre of photography that I shoot.  To tell you the truth, I don't "get" fashion.  "Catalog" shots I fully comprehend, but this stuff that's "fashion" in which the models look like they have broken backs, shoulders, or other joints or that they look like crap (either thru makeup, hair, or sunken cheeks) just doesn't appeal to me whatsoever.  In fact, I seriously wonder about the sanity of anyone that does like that sort of s***.  Here's my dilemma.  Isn't "fashion" supposed to be selling apparel?  Isn't that the whole point?  If so, then why are all these weird ugly disgusting shots considered "fashion".  Perhaps true "fashion" is what I think it is and this other crap is "high fashion" which (like runways and concept cars at auto shows) has absolutely no real world purpose other than showing the extreme edge of what a designer can do.  I'm much too grounded in the real world (and not that piece of s*** MTV show) to understand why things of that nature exist.  Especially when someone that's telling me that that stuff is "great" is telling me that "glamour" (which is actually used in the real world to sell more products and magazines than high fashion ever will be) is crap and "pointless".  Whatever.  I don't need that sort of crap in my life right now (either the genre or the comments).

Looking Ahead.

I'm wanting, no needing, to get back to doing "pure" glamour and do some shots that are putting the emphasis on the sexiness that God gave the beautiful women that I'd be shooting.  Oh, and it's been way too long since I've done a lingerie or nude shoot.  So.  Going forward that's what I'm going to be trying to shoot.  If you want that fashion crap that is so prevalant in New York and L.A., then you're in the wrong f***ing town and should stop bitching about living here and actually pack up and move tomorrow.  Sorry.  Nashville is not Los Angeles.  Nashville is not New York City.  And thank God that it isn't.  Nashville should be Nashville and not try to be forced into some other town.  Likewise, people shouldn't try to be what they're not -- and shouldn't try to force others to be what they aren't.

Edit:  If you really want to see what type of stuff I'd like to shoot, then take a look at the lists on my ModelMayhem profile -- particularly the "Ideas" list.

Be Happy With What You Are Where You Are.

In closing -- and since I just spent several hours putting up with someone that is very much so unhappy with herself and everything else in her life -- people (myself included) need to work harder at being happy with what you are and where you are.  "The Grass Is Greener" syndrome, from which I suffered for several years, only serves to hurt yourself.  Trust me on this.  I could've been so much more than I am currently if I'd only realized that the grass is just as full of bugs and pesticides on the other side of that fence as it is on your own side.  Stop your bitching and start enjoying life.  It's over before you know it.  Stop bitching about your parents.  You'll miss them when they're gone.  We only have one chance at life, so make the most of what you have.

Well... after several months of using Lighrtoom 1.4, and a couple months of Lightroom 2 being out, I finally went and downloaded and installed the trial version of LR2.  I've been using it for a whole whopping couple days now and there's one or two things that I like and one or two things that I really am getting annoyed with.  My relief is that the majority of the application seems to be functioning the same -- well... at least the parts that I've been using thus far, which means that I've not even touched the new features for retouching.

Likes (vs 1.4):

• The "graying out" of images marked as "rejected" in the Filmstrip and Library.
• The Library Filter Bar -- once I figured out how to use it.
• The new location for the Crop & Straighten Tool's controls (in Develop) -- once I got used to them being up there on the side.
• (Update:  forgot this one earlier) The beta (separate download) camera profiles.  They help change the look of the image a ton and I'm not really sure that I'd be able to do the same without.
• (Update:  just found this one) The new options in the Export dialog such as the ability to export to the same folder as the original instead of having to change that for every single shoot's export operation, it can stay the same.  :-)  Oh, and the option to add the newly exported photos to the catalog should've been there from the beginning, but better late than never.

Dislikes (vs 1.4):

• Alt-Tab toggles the two side (left & right) panels.  Now I really don't know what Adobe was thinking here, since Alt-Tab has been a Windows-level reserved keystroke combination since (basically) the beginning of time.  That should have meant hands off but noooo... What this means to you -- the user -- is that if you use Alt-Tab to switch programs away from Lightroom, when you come back you'll be wondering what happened to your side panels.
  UPDATE: Adobe appears to have fixed this particular problem with the release of Lightroom 2.2.
• The change in the behavior of the "R" keystroke to bring up the Crop overlay (in Develop) to use an "unlocked" crop ratio.  The old "R" did what "S" does in the new version.  Sorta.  "S" doesn't allow you to toggle the crop mode off.  (Update:  OK.  I don't know what I did, but as soon as I posted this "R" has started to "behave".  lol)

Wished for changes:

• The ability to reduce the size of the side panels from the current minimum.  I (still) have good eyes, so I'd like to "shrink" the size of those things beyond the current minimum sizes when I still want to see that info but don't want to fuss with the finicky auto-hide feature -- which is really only good when you only occasionally want to see that info.
• The ability to show "badges" in the navigator -- or somewhere other than the filmstrip -- while in the Develop module.  Oh wait.  This does exist... it's just not enabled by default.  Grrr.
• Customizable UI settings (e.g., default sort order, ordering of the modules shown in the side panels).

On a whole, LR2 is a good tool -- and I'll probably wind up getting a full copy of it when the trial period expires next month.  Could they have simply called this Lightroom 1.5?  Mmmmmm.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  They did add a few new features, but were those enough to justify bumping the version number a full increment and thus charging an upgrade fee?  Dunno.  My gut is saying "NO," but at the same time my gut is also saying that it's too much to just give away.  I guess I'm wishing that they'd added a few more features before bumping up the version.

Would you prefer having an outdated spec that has had several design changes made to the project (but not reflected in the spec) or having no spec at all?

We all have 'em... they're the little things that we say but don't really want them to be taken litterally -- or seriously.

Here's some that I've encountered (or uttered) while maintaining software code -- sometimes in reference to myself.

• Whoever wrote this should be dragged out into the street and shot.
• Bad programmer!  No cookie!
• Whoever wrote this needs to have their programming license revoked.
• Walk into this. (said while making a slapping motion with one hand)
• If you butcher the code then you should be butchered.
• If you mangle the code then you should be mangled.
• Treat the code the way you want to be treated.

Disclaimer (for the completely obvlivious that needs this spelled out): Do not go out and do these things.

What are some that you've encountered?

And once again the very wide-spread documented occurrances of Microsoft's ineptness when it comes to implementing a browser that follows published standards has bitten me in the ass and pissed me off.  If I only had a dollar for every time that's happend...

This time I'd taken a look at the HTML Entities and decided to use the "upwards double arrow" character to indicate that a menu item was going to go to another site (the entity is ⇑ and should basically look like ↑ "↑" but have two "tails").  Works just fine in Firefox.  Well.  I'm at work and was wanting to use a similar character only pointing left or right for a particular need.  Work's standard is to use IE.  Yep.  You guessed it.  It didn't show up.  It's in the font that I'm using.  WTF!

Sigh.  I'll just have to settle -- something that I shouldn't have to do -- with the "upwards arrow" (the one with the single "tail").

Hey!  You!  Data Entry person!  Yeah, I'm talking to you!  You're making me look bad.  Fix the data you've entered.  Stop making typos.  LOL

Ohhhhhh..... I just gotta love getting questions about "my" code (when I'm only maintaining other people's code) when it's a data issue.  I don't -- most programmers don't -- have the time or energy to put in code that says "if it's this specific type of data then don't show this or change the spelling of that or repeat this part but not that part".  We just don't do it.  Well.  That is we don't unless that's what the requirements are.

But.  Still.  Since we're the ones that everyone blames for anything -- and never the person that actually typed in the data or made changes to the data in the database -- I've decided to put a feeble plea out to all of you data entry people (and you database admins as well) to please stop making me look bad.   lol

I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Your humble programmer

Ok.  So it's like this.  I just finished typing up this post and decided that the silence in my room was too overwhelming and deafening so I turned on some music.  Something made me select only one album -- the last one I bought (Michelle Hotaling's Chained By Dreams) -- instead of allowing Winamp to randomly choose from the few thousand tracks of varing genres of music.  Something about her voice or the lyrics made me visit her site -- on which I realized that it's been a while that I'd read her blog.  One of her posts (American Sexuality) got me wondering about what I'd just written.  (go read it, then continue on here).

Am I, by wanting to change to focus more on glamour photography than fashion, heading down a path that would lead me to inadvertently assist in the continuation of the problems that this society has with personal communication between two real people -- in person?  Does glamour and porn -- in the context of her post -- fit into the same mold in that both sell women (and to a [much] lesser degree, men) as sexual "objects" and not "real" humans with whom we can actually relate and communicate with?  I'm not sure.  But it's got me second guessing myself and my photographic direction.  Yep.  Just that quickly and easily can I be knocked down to the ground and forced to reevaluate everything.

"He's having an affair with you. It's just the image of you instead of the real you."

Images can be extremely powerful -- none more so than those that we form in our own mind.  I should know.  There's been times in my past that I've fallen for someone only to realize that I wasn't in love with the person, but who I thought she was -- photos of her did (probably) figure prominently into that, but mostly it was input from other sources.

We all read more into situations than really exist.  When we have a photograph in front of us -- especially one that's showing the object of our lust in a provocative pose -- then our minds take over and we create whole worlds complete with situations and conversations that include that person ultimately leading up to (or starting from) that pose.  What can we do to prevent the fantasy world from being "better" than the real world?  I'm not totally sure if there is something that can be done to totally prevent this, but I am sure that having more direct personal connections with each other can lead to reality being better than fantasy.

I must chuckle a little at myself saying that.  I'm probably the worst person to comment on the differences between real vs ficticious relationships.  I deal with one more than the other -- see my above comments regarding the type of photography that I'm (or at least that I was 30-minutes ago) ultimately wanting to delve into.  Fantasy is easy.  Americans like easy.  We've become soft.  Real relationships are hard.  They take work.  Americans don't really like work.  Just look at the large numbers of people that get divorced, bicker about their jobs, or switch jobs from one job to another that has just as many problems.

"I have a level of impatience with myself and with the time line of my life that is just unfair. I want everything yesterday."

I've often found myself fitting into -- or uttering a similar quote (from another of her posts) -- fairly often.  Our society has created a rash of people that suffer from "entitlement syndrome" -- defined as an overwhelming feeling of being entitled to things.  In other words, people are wanting things handed to them on a silver platter instead of working for them.  I know.  I feel that way at times too -- before my reasoning side takes over and I realize that it's a self-defeating position.  This "entitlement syndrome" creates people that want the easy way out -- that leads to people that would rather have an "easy" relationship than one that's real and has rough spots.  Therefore people turn to photos, videos, and other non-real outlets for their sexual releases than actually working on creating a real relationship.

Like I said: Images can be extremely powerful.  So.  That brings me back to the question that I raised in the title of this post:  Does glamour photography ultimately hurt society?  Does it lead to people having unreal expectations of each other?  This in turn causing problems in actual real "in-person" relationships.

If the answer is "yes", then how can I (as a photographer) help change this?  How can I still continue to create my craft without the side effect of someone preferring the photo to the person?  Can it still be called glamour then?

I don't have the answer to any of those questions.  At least not at this moment in time.  Maybe -- just maybe -- I'll come across the answer somewhere or something will provoke a response that leads to me realizing that I've had the answer all along.

"Reasons I am Losing My Damn Mind: 1) Lack of a level of professional success I desire."

Whatever the answer is, one thing is certain: I'll never get to the level of professional success that I desire until I find models to photograph -- thus allowing me to better understand lighting and photography (be that photography glamour or fashion).

My mind keeps telling me that I'm living in the "wrong" city.  That the "right" city is either Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or New York.  My mind keeps telling me that, because that's what it's been told by societal influences.  I look at it this way: If I'm wanting to get into fashion, then I need to be in either N.Y.C. or L.A.  If I'm wanting to get into glamour, then I need to be in either L.V. or L.A.  If I'm wanting to get back to focusing on the music industry, then I need to be in either N.Y.C. or L.A. -- even though I currently live in Music City (strange, no?).  Are those societal influences wrong?  Probably.  Can I make a success here?  Sure.  The operative word is "make".  It'll not wind up landing in my lap, no matter how much I hope for that to happen.

Here's my take on the whole "what is fashion and what is glamour" bit.  Glamour Magazine is not glamour -- at least not the couple of issues that I've seen nor according to the classification given on the Wikipedia article.  Maxim Magazine, on the other hand, is glamour -- although the Wikipedia article doesn't list it as a glamour magazine... hmmm.

That should pretty much sum it up.  If not, then you've not seen the same issues that I've seen so here's a bit more verbose of a description.

Glamour photography is the photographing of a model with the emphasis on the subject. Photographers use a combination of cosmetics, lighting and airbrushing techniques to produce the most physically and sexually appealing image of the model possible.

Source: Glamour photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion photography is a genre of photography devoted to displaying clothing and other fashion items. Fashion photography is most often conducted for advertisements or fashion magazines such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, or Allure. Over time, fashion photography has developed its own aesthetic in which the clothes and fashions are enhanced by exotic locations and story lines.

Source: Fashion photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on those definitions -- italics added for emphasis -- you should see why I feel that Glamour Magazine is Fashion and Maxim Magazine is Glamour.  The whole purpose behind glamour photography is to sell one thing:  sex.  Plain and simply, that's it.  You're "selling" the model, but how do you "sell" a human being in today's society?  By enhancing their sex appeal.  If you think that's "disgusting", sorry.  It's just a fact of the society in which we live dictating what sells.  Remove your emotions for a minute and look at things from a purely analytical perspective and you'll see that I'm right (or at least I hope you do).

Fashion photography is not selling the model.  The model is (basically) irrelevant in the fashion world -- nothing more than a more interesting clothes hanger.  (Not my term for runway models, one I picked up from somewhere over the years.)  The model is never what is being sold in fashion photography, it's always the product -- be that a new line of make-up, hair spray, sunglasses, shoes, or clothes.

I've shot more -- a lot more -- photos that border on fashion than I have glamour even though I've never been selling a product (that would require a company hiring me for some shots).  It's just that very few of my shots that I've made have had the necessary sex appeal to be called "glamour" (in my book).  I'm beginning to grow tired of doing that type of shots -- I guess it's not what I'm wanting (deep down inside).  But it's been -- and will continue to be -- a good place for me to begin so I can get comfortable with my lights, dealing with models, and figuring out how to ask someone to do the type of shots that I'm after.  After all, one does need to start somewhere, right?  And when you're the quiet shy respectible type of person that's sometimes (often) more comfortable discussing some computer issue than hair, make-up, and poses -- it's quite difficult to start out asking someone to come shoot the type of stuff that you find in FHM, Maxim, or Playboy -- any one of which I'd love to eventually become published in.

But that'll have to wait.  I'll have to be patient.  I'm nowhere near ready to start asking for the type of shots that I keep thinking of.

Heck.  It's only through my doing these random ramblings that I feel that I'm even beginning to understand what it is that I'm really wanting.

But first and foremost, in order for me to do any type of photography -- be that glamour or fashion -- I need to find models that will show up.  But that'll have to wait for another post.