OK, I haven't finished scanning the pictures of Cynn and Angela from two weeks back, haven't developed the film of Erin from last weekend, will be doing a short shoot with London Andrews this evening and have shoots on Saturday (Desiree) in Long Beach and Sunday (Rebecca) in my studio. I'm over my head again, shooting faster than I can keep up.

That's the way it seems to go though, with nothing for months, then a flurry of shooting that seems to bury me. I expect to be apologizing a lot for late delivery for the next two months or so.

Cynnamon, playing with Angela in Newfoundland last March. This wasn't exactly what Angela wanted, but I really liked it.

Cynnamon, next to "Soul in the Machine" next door. Ilford Delta 3200 in 120, exposed at ASA 1600, developed for 9 minutes at 24C in XTol. Lit with a single hot light with barndoors to prevent spill onto the polished stainless in the background. Nice detail throughout and no noticeable grain, even enlarged.

I've finally gotten to the medium format, with Cynn coming first, as I'd shown more color of Angela. Quite a bit of both left to scan, though I won't be done before tomorrow's shoot in West Hollywood.

Got the Honda VFR800 Interceptor off the trickle-charger and ready for the trip up. Should be a lot faster than the pickup I drove up in last week. Erin tells me she loves bikes and wants to see some of the tourist sites, so we'll ride a bit before we shoot. Gotta remember the helmet, jacket and gloves for her...

Back to scanning.

So...instead of using 4x5 for everything, I reverted to 35mm. It figures I'd lay out a course of action then do exactly the opposite. I haven't used 35mm in a couple of years and it's amazing how easy and quick it is to use. The camera used in the last two posts was a Pentax LX of '80s vintage with a 50mm f1.2 from the same period. Got two of those lenses and this is the one with a little internal dust. Still usable and all, it's the one I don't mind exposing to risk. Not that there was any risk last week or anything.

This picture was also made with an LX. OK, that doesn't make the post particularly smooth, but if I hadn't mentioned it there would be no tie-in at all between the picture and the text. Take it for what it's worth.

There was yet another party next door last night and I eventually resorted to earplugs so I could get some sleep. I didn't get much. That means I'm not very smart right now. That means this post is gonna be sorta marginal no matter what I do.

Sorry about that.

With the girls gone, I spent last night resizing scans from their last two shoots to 300 dpi for 8x10 printing, then burning those onto CDs. I'm about half done. The printable scans I deliver (as well as the ones you see here) are resized from the original maximum-sized TIFFs that I consider the digital masters. Those have been spotted and adjusted for brightness and contrast, but nothing else. For the small ones like this, they get sharpened a bit and might get a little burning or dodging to look good at this size. Files for printing are sharpened less or not at all and are usually saved as best-quality JPGs so they're compressed enough to fit on CDs or upload easily.

So when the girls get back, they'll have CDs of their shoot in March and Angela will finally get her printable files from the shoot in June of last year.

I've also finished scanning the shoot with Pamela, but haven't made up the printable files yet.

This is Cynnamon, as regular readers certainly know by now, what with me obsessing on her and Angela for weeks now. This one was made in St. John's, Newfoundland in March.

I'm still teetering between continuing with the large format or returning to medium format for most of my work. I don't feel like I've got large format even nearly mastered yet, but I am convinced that it's not the right process for the people photographs I want to make. When Rollei invented the roll film camera, they really did photographers a favor.

Large format is for me more of a discipline thing than a quality-of-image thing. I started doing it to slow down my work, but the major result is that those pictures I would "find" before aren't available using a view camera. And I'm not sure I want to give them up.

The photoshoot with Pamela was a compromise. I'd intended to expose 14 sheets of 4x5 film and call it a shoot, but found after 6 sheets that I was missing too much. The Pentax 6x7 was along as backup, so I exposed four rolls of 6x7 (40 frames) with it.

Carrying both cameras everywhere isn't practical either. The 6x7 will produce better pictures; the 4x5 will change my process and make it more deliberate. And maybe eventually make me a better photographer.

Do I keep doing something that isn't a challenge or change formats and effectively learn everything all over again from the beginning?

Another of Pamela from a month back ... on rollfilm.

I bought two nice Matthews C-Stands from a friend on Sunday. I never figured I'd buy heavy studio equipment again, but there's this idea that I've got that needs two of them to pull off. It needs a few other things, too, so I'll be shopping for some bits and pieces. Once I have it all figured out I'll make some pictures and show you. It doesn't involve nudity though. At least not in the sense of boobies and such. Yes, once again I'm feeling like I'm done with that genre and ready for something else. How many times have I said that, but kept on with beautiful naked chix?

Speaking of which, here is another of Ashley from our first shoot in Winnipeg.

There's a story here. This Texas girl contacted me after seeing some pictures I'd done of girls slicked up with baby oil. I was coming out that way on business, so we arranged a shoot.

She showed up at my very nice business hotel downtown with another girl, her escort/chaperon and (church-sponsored university) roommate. We first went driving around in my very nice business rental car and made some pictures. Pretty girl. Then we went back to the hotel to do some nudes.

This isn't a great scan, but it's the only one with baby oil that worked at all. You see, the nudes became a small problem. First my model insisted her (female) roommate face the wall and put her coat over her head so she couldn't see her naked. Despite that some old stranger was going to photograph her that way.

I prefer putting the baby oil on, because I can control how thick or thin it will be and the evenness. And because it's a really great semi-legitimate way to feel up a beautiful young Christian girl. But the model wanted to put it on herself. In the bathroom where I wouldn't see her do it. Sigh.

All the while, the poor roommate is under a heavy coat, facing the wall.

I really should rescan this one. And I wish I'd lit her better.

Next time.

Under the last post, "Photo- graphie Works" asked about my relationship with models. I've talked a little about this before, but will try to talk a bit more this time.

I meet my models lots of ways. Some, maybe most, write me asking if I'll photograph them. Some are referred by other photographers. Some I message asking if they'd care to model for me. Some I've known so long I can't remember how we first met. However it works, the first thing that always comes up in conversation is the nature of my photography. It is nude, mostly erotic, and mostly looks authentic.

That's a filter. That's a big filter with small holes. Girls who would even consider modeling for me already have some special quality of openness to their own sexuality...or something like that. I really haven't pinned it down exactly or defined it well.

On my side, I've done this for a long time, am a fairly good guy with a good reputation, do pretty good work, and am open and honest. I don't think that honesty can be over-emphasized. I am certainly a dirty old man and absolutely enjoy hanging with beautiful naked women, but I try not to drool too much in the process.

The thing is that women are perceptive. Especially in this kind of relationship. I mean, if they're out looking for a life partner, they can certainly pick some losers, but photographers - old guys with cameras - they see right through us every time. It's best that what they see is exactly what we acknowledge is true.

Remember now, you're only hearing this from one side. Better descriptions of my relationships with models would include their sides as well. Fortunately, several have commented here on the blog and one has made a guest post, too. But of those who have not commented or posted, I really can't say how the relationship appeared from their sides.

Some models I meet, photograph, and never hear from again. Some check back with me once in awhile and some remain close friends. Ashley here recently wrote me to say she's getting married. It's nice to be on the list of people she would tell about that. It means I was important enough to her because of our photoshoots to share that with. I hope she made a good choice, because whoever he is is getting a fine woman. Not to mention an absolute freakin' knockout.

In a half-joking way I characterize myself as many models' "Uncle Don." Or "Dirty Uncle Don." I speak truth, they speak truth and we do get to know each other - it's not one-way. Some are curious about who I am and I tell them and answer questions. Some want to know about how men think, and I answer as best I can. I'm always curious about women, and many are very open about who they are. As you can see, it's often more than a simple photoshoot - sometimes it's more like a conversation, with pictures.

Now on to the tricky part. I get asked a lot if I have sex with my models. The answer: not many, not often, not recently. I am never the initiator. The visuals I see of myself (see the picture in the corner) with a gorgeous girl are simply not believable. Sometimes a model comes on to me and I completely miss it. Then I kick myself black-and-blue later, once I figure it out. Mostly the relationship stays in that "Uncle Don" area where it doesn't come up. And that's actually my comfort zone, too. At this point I'm not sure what I'd do if I recognized a come-on while shooting. First, it would be difficult to separate a come-on from the sexual behavior of the shoot, and second, it might be unethical to take advantage of a situation of sexual tension that I encouraged for the shoot. Anyway, when I'm shooting, I'm too busy to notice, should that rare occurance actually occur.

So PW, I don't know how much of this is helpful for you. I guess the one thing you should take away is that absolute honesty is not only the basis of a good marriage, but also the basis of the trust that's necessary in intimate photography, if it's to be truly intimate.

Ashley in a fairly formal graphical photograph made in my hotel room in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada almost three years ago.

I don't think I've shown any tear sheets here yet. I'm not making photographs to sell nor specifically to show them in magazines and such, but every once in awhile a publication will ask to use my pictures, so every once in awhile I get tear sheets like this one from Photo magazine of Hong Kong. Usually they want my older color work, which, as much as I like it, I sort of resent because it's not what I'm doing right now. I think Peter Max probably felt the same way when he quit doing Yellow Submarines and changed his emphasis to more abstract and less flat paintings, and everyone ignored him.

This is a tear from one of Secret magazine's hardcover anthology books. I've probably posted both of these pictures on the blog somewhere, but these are scanned from the publications.

I like having my work featured. It's an ego boost and gets me some attention from my peers, and of course, from hot chix that want nothing more than to get naked and photographed.

And that's certainly part of what it's all about, init?

P.S. Please note that neither of these got my name the way I want it.

Should be a pretty good summer. Angela and Cynnamon are visiting next month and Erin is coming down the week after. I'm pretty sure I'll abandon the large format camera for the speed and flexibility of the medium format I've been using. I'll keep the big cameras though, as whenever I get rid of camera gear I end up regretting it.

The last shoot, with Pamela, started with the 4x5, but after six or so frames I found it was just too cumbersome and slow to use in a tiny hotel room. So I shot four rolls of 120 instead. I'll be getting to that film in the next couple of days and will have pictures to show sometime next week.

I'm not sure exactly what Angela was doing here during our first shoot, but she's pretty and happy and naked and what else could anyone want?

P.S. I changed the picture because Angela complained (in the nicest way) about the last one.

Do you like the girl in the picture? Do some pictures compel you to like the subject, while others make you actively dislike the person or maybe just leave you cold?

I think the photographs tell a lot about the photographer. I think they can show whether the photographer really likes his subjects or is simply trying to impress the viewer or maybe even dislikes people in general. The May/June View Camera magazine has examples of two portrait photographers. One makes 8x20 view camera portraits of people I'd like to meet. The other makes portraits of people I'd walk across the street to avoid. Which one really likes people? Seems obvious to me.

I really don't know if this picture makes anyone really like who Ashley is. I like the photograph as it's homey and friendly. It was made between takes when she pulled on her sweatpants and was rummaging around for shoes or something. Some folks have told me the picture reminds them of old girlfriends they miss. That's sort of what it does for me too.

This is the view camera I've started using. It's a Toyo 45A 4x5 field view camera and mounts a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar-N lens in this picture. Of course, it's not the thing that made this picture. The picture was made with the loathsome Leica Digilux II I paid far too much for awhile back. That is a 5MP quasi-rangefinder that has serious artifact problems at ASA400, the minimum speed I ever use for anything (except sometimes snapshots of my motorcycles).

I did photograph Masha (shown here modeling one way to use a view camera) with the Toyo, but haven't developed the film yet. In that camera I use Ilford HP5 B&W film, as I've grown to distrust Kodak. (The story behind that has to do with two distinct films both called "Tri-X," their decision to package some developers {XTol comes to mind} in packages to make 5 liters {how useless is that?} and their decision to overall put less emphasis on film photography {even though that is necessary for them to survive}.)

As time goes on you'll see more 4x5 images, though I have decided that I have to keep shooting 6x7 as well while I'm still spooling up on the big camera.

Feast and famine. My schedule is getting booked up again. I think it's a seasonal thing. I've had to start a google calendar to keep track of scheduled photoshoots now. This is good as it means new pictures. And it's got a downside as well - it's a lot of work. Keeping up with film limits other free time activities. In all it's certainly worth it.

The next shoot should be on June 9th, with a tall, skinny, gorgeous fashion model in Los Angeles. I will use medium and large format cameras, all in B&W. And this will be a whole new genre for her of course. There are the models I'm flying in over the summer, and a girl who has cancelled a few times (local) is now saying she's serious. We'll see; because she's local and it will be a studio shoot there's no risk of losing any money anyway. And there are others who have contacted me, and we just haven't set up a time and date yet.I figure it's all about karma.

Cynnamon and Angela, photographed in my hotel room in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada a couple of months ago. They'll be here in July.

Motorcycle Daily is one of my daily reads. A few days back Dirck published a lament about the loss of the good old days of motorcycling, when bikes were kick-started, bankers didn't look like outlaws, and rain was just part of the environment. He also said something about it being a man's world back then, and that got him some hate mail from women who rode. When I read the article I generally agreed with his views, but knew he'd at least get some complaints. I remember back when women did not ride their own bikes too. In part that was because a rider had to be able to pick the beast up after a fall and few women could do that. And in part it was because there were things men did that women didn't, and vice versa. Bikes were, with very few exceptions, a manly thing.

Anyway, if any of that is of interest, click the link and go see the responses.

Of course this whole thing got me thinking about the changes in photography in the last twenty years. While I've been riding motorcycles for forty years, I've only been making photographs for twenty, so that's as far back as I can honestly consider.

When I first entered photo school the basic course was about half women. Many of the top photographers were women. Photography has never been a man thing. But back then it was a technical craft involving math and chemistry and metal machinery and lenses and tongs and hours standing up in a dark, damp room. It took the confidence to walk away after a shoot with undeveloped film in the bag, knowing that hours or days later when the film was developed you'd have exactly what you saw through the viewfinder. Some folks used polaroids to confirm strobe lighting (relatively) instantly, but those were confined to studios as continuous lighting didn't need confirmation - photographers knew what the combinations of film, meter, camera, lens and settings were going to produce.

Retouching wasn't an option unless you had a huge budget, so it had to be right on the take unless one was willing to use bleach on a print or to spot medium format or larger negatives. It was much easier just to get it right on the film.

That dire and dismal scenario of twenty years ago would have been heaven to photographers of seventy years ago of course, and a ninety-year-old photographer who has been shooting since the thirties would probably bemoan how easy we had it when I started shooting, what with in-camera meters and the rude beginnings autofocus, and all the various films available (including color!).

Things do get easier. And there are always more people who get involved once the hard parts are gone. And there are always more people, period. So motorcycling, once the domain of the rugged male, is now full of the nicest people who couldn't change or patch their own tires or ride home with a broken rib. Anyone can do it. And photography, once a craft involving materials and chemicals and machinery, is now available to most anybody as well.

Does that devalue motorcycling or photography? Yes, actually. It devalues both of them because the qualifications and level of commitment required for entry are no longer very high. Anyone can do it. If the reason for doing one or the other is exclusivity and that's gone away, then one certainly would feel cheated.

But if the reason for doing these things is about the pleasure of the ride or the beauty of the photograph, then why would someone care if others are jumping in once the barriers have been lowered? Wanna be macho - go ride a bull. Yes, women do that too, but not many. Want a technical challenge, go build a radio. Or keep using film like I do.

Here Nathaniel - Lisa.

It came to me last night in a dream. The next thing. Oh man is it going to be tough. And moving. And I don't think anyone's done it before. But I can't tell you what it is until I have some exposed film and can show it. No more talking about it.

Filled the flash green bike with gas yesterday and the guy that works there commented on how clean it was. I looked and there was chain lube on the back wheel, brake dust on the front, mud splattered under the fender and the mirrors were dusty, so I went home and spent a couple of hours cleaning and waxing the wheels and under the fender. It's still not clean, but it is less vile than before.

This is the lovely Angela, nude, examining herself in a mirror. Last week Google moved this site from the #4 slot down to the third page on searches for "nudes." I finally figured out why. I had written several posts without the word "nudes" or "nude" in them and the spiders therefore decided the blog wasn't very relevant for that particular search. Well, it's climbed back up to the #5 spot now, but I'm going to make sure I use the right words in my posts, even if they are about naked motorcycles. "Naked." Gonna have to use that word more too and see what happens. Mebbe even "naked chicks."

I've gotta get shooting again. It's been another dry spell and I need some practice with the 4x5. My resolution to take the camera out and photograph inanimate objects crumbles every time. It just seems a waste of film and time to photograph anything but beautiful nude women. Yes, yes...I'm spoiled.

Anyway, I've still got film from Newfoundland to develop and scan and a few potential shoots coming up. One model wants to "talk about the shoot" ahead of time. I don't want to "talk about the shoot." I want the model to show up, do whatever feels good (or barring that, whatever I tell her to do), and with some luck we'll have good pictures to show. "Talking about it," as in discussing a concept or planning something specific is too much like the wife nudging me at 2AM saying, "Honey, we need to talk." I really don't plan photoshoots. I don't want to plan shoots. I want to record something that's happening. This makes me think I really don't want to photograph this model or any model that wants to "talk about the shoot."

OK, that's a pretty hard line to take, I know. But I think it serves as a filter to prevent me from photographing girls that don't get it, aren't ever going to get it and even if they did get it, would freeze up. A shoot - my shoots - must flow. No rules, no barriers, and a whole lot of trust. I know that's a tough thing, to trust a photographer, particularly one a model's never met, but it's the price of admission.

Re-reading the above, it's apparent now why I'm not shooting a whole lot.

Jackie, nude in my motel room in Minneapolis last summer. Excellent model of exactly the type I like. Uninhibited, curious, beautiful and kinky.

Behind Angela is the entire St. John's Harbor. I'm sure some visiting merchant seamen got an eyeful about then. Reflected in the glass is Cynnamon, also nude, but with her own camera. I managed to hide the reflection of my own bulk by careful positioning, making this another self-referential picture, hopefully a little puzzling and a little provocative.

During the shoot I didn't really pose the girls, and though Angela is clearly posed here, she isn't posed for me, but for Cynn, so by carefully selecting my argument, I can say truthfully that this too is an unposed picture, as it was made during their interactions with each other, and not specifically for me and my camera.

Nathaniel commented a post or two back that I should decide whether I'm doing this blog for me or for the readers. Answering as honestly as I can, it's both. Sometimes I need to write, mostly I want to entertain as well. If you keep coming back to read this, it makes me feel good. So for now I'll probably continue daily posts, though sometimes I may have to stretch a little for topics. I think I hit all the best topics back during the first month of the blog's existence.

This photograph is out of context. The New- foundland shoot in particular needs context, both photo- graphic and textual, to be completely understood and appreciated. I've never shot that way before, always maintaining that each individual photograph should be able to stand by itself and tell its own story.

This particular picture is somewhere in the middle of the seduction. There was a play day, which was the girls getting to know each other, the seduction, which happened over a two-hour period, and then a day of dress-up play afterwards. Plus some more-or-less random pictures after that and scattered throughout. A series of photographs of that week would include examples of each, leading the viewer to appreciate it as an experience extended over time. Maybe someday I'll be able to edit the pictures and add some text by me and by the girls and come up with something memorable.

Angela and Cynnamon in Newfoundland this March.

I dropped the thermometer today and broke it. That means I can't develop any film until it's replaced on Monday. I guess getting twenty years of service from a free thermometer isn't too bad, all things considered.

Sat at the bookstore today considering work I'd seen in Aperture magazine. Once in awhile I pick these magazines up to see what it is that I don't want to do, but this time I was hooked. Low contrast color work seems to be popular right now, which means I certainly won't do that. But bodies of work involving places are also popular, and because places are all different it makes a broad interesting theme. Maybe I'll give some of that a go one of these days. I'd rather continue with B&W though. Just until I get it right.

Ashley and Chantel in Winnipeg a few years back.

Last night was my second large format people photoshoot. I completely understand why, when the roll-film camera was invented, it took off so well. I am re-thinking this whole move to 4x5 from medium format now. It sure seemed like a good idea at the time...

Candy, photographed in West Hollywood. She's moved to Seattle and is available for art modeling.