Sad Day; little Dottie.

3:45pm today. Right at the end. What an amazing dog.

Sad day today; Dottie was 15 1/2. I was here in the garage, retouching a job, and she was asleep beside me on the floor in her bed. She went into a pretty bad seizure. Rushed her to the vet, but she never mentally recovered. I brought her home and gave her a haircut and cleaned her up and made a bed in the back yard, and the vet came over and we let her go to sleep. All in all, a pretty awful day. I’d been mentally preparing for it for months, but it was much worse than I thought.

Anyway, we got her when she was tiny; the whole litter had been dropped on the side of the road in a sack. Somebody scooped them up and took them to Humane Society. We fed her with a medicine dropper; warm milk. Not even weaned yet. She loved to swim, and chase extension cords (snakes), and chase garden hoses (snakes), and herd me around by the ankles. I cannot count how many states we’ve been in, during road trips.

She was a fighter til the end; even after that long seizure today, she tried to stand right back up on the vet’s table, but she was too weak.

I got a nice pink sheet, and made a bed; there was a nice cool breeze in the back yard. I am still in shock. It happened so fast it hasn’t even hit me yet.

15 and a half years with one animal. Unbelievable. What an amazing companion.

Back yard of my brother's house, mid-air.

Always ready to ride; here in the old '62 Falcon

Question to Ad Photographers: Swipes in Comps?

Delicate territory ahead: I know how I feel about this issue, but how I feel has little if any impact on the world. Computers are here to stay. Marker Comps are gone forever. Clients want to see Comps, in advance, that are about 99% finished, before they sign off. I wonder how other photographers are dealing with this dicy issue.

In the old days, an ad agency (your client) would sell their client on a concept for a photo based on a Marker Comp. Downloadable swipes were not available; even legally-licensed stock was not available quickly. An illustrator at the agency would create a very crude illustration for the client to sign off on, and that Marker Comp would be carried into the photo session.

But now, with the Mac/Photoshop/InDesign thing everpresent, what I’m seeing is that my clients are producing TWO complete jobs for the client — there is the Comp, which is very tight, with no Greeking Text in place, and then a swiped/legal stock photograph, cropped and in place; THEN, after the photo session, they create a whole new finished/real Document for printing. To me, a massive amount of work, but that seems to be what End Clients are demanding. They seem to want to go into a project with every detail thought out and signed off on.

My question is: How are Ad Photographers dealing with this? Do you bring it up to your client? Do you mention that when they show you a stock image in place, and they say, “This is what the client wants, and then is what they’ve signed off on”, that that is really what they’re hiring you to shoot, even though it’s based on someone else’s photograph? I mean, there are legal ramifications to this practice for the hired photographer.

I wonder if ad agencies even realize these legal ramifications sometimes? I know they feel stuck in the middle, since the current norm seems to be “Show the client a VERY finished working comp, before the photo session begins”. Once it becomes the business norm, it’s hard for any agency to not do tight comps.

Has anyone refused to shoot the comp? How different would you alter it in order to feel OK?

Is this even an issue worth worrying about? I think it is, but I never hear anyone else talking about it out loud. Is everyone just shooting the comp, but then throwing salt over their shoulder, and hoping it never gets noticed?

Delicate territory…

Orphan Works passes Senate

Still has to go thru House, and then to Bush.

Why are the senators’ votes not recorded?

Gov Track site.

And how timely to run it through on a Friday, when we all thought they were working on a Bailout.

And the really sad thing to admit is, I really have no idea how this will affect me, or other photographers, after reading all the propaganda from both sides. ASMP for it; APA against it; who’s to really know what’s best? How to sort thru the information?

Buried

Knee-deep into two large ad jobs. (How do people post stuff every single day? I cannot see how they do it).

Monday Links

Joerg Colberg: Toledano, “America’s Gift Shop”

Blog Post about SEC, and possible exemptions that could have caused this problem.

Another great post at J. Danziger, about Abelardo Morell’s camera obscura work.

Excellent work on “AIDs in Odessa” by Andrea Diefenbach.

Jay Maisel’s building in the Bowery.. Yeah, that one. (Thanks, Tricia).

Beautiful portraits from Russia by Ingar Krauss. (Seen at Shane Lavalette).

Off to the gym…

The Strength to be there, (and the wisdom to get bailed out)

AIG television spot

Tricia sent me this article today. Appears that AIG is pulling their “Strength To Be There” campaign, in light of the recent government bailout. Some stuff — you just can’t make it up.

I was told by my broker yesterday that the key reason that AIG was bailed out, (as opposed to Lehman), was that AIG insures a huge number of Bonds on the market. The way I understand it, if a bond is insured, it raises its rating dramatically, due to no (little) risk. So if AIG went under, well, let’s not think about what that would mean.

And if you’re an architecture fan like I am, this is an interesting related story.

Update: Joerg sent me this audio interview from NPR, with Michael Greenberger. Good interview on “Fresh Air”. Click “Listen Now”. Sobering. (Thanks, Joerg.)

Weird Times: Good time to put the house in order

Crazy times. I’ll call yesterday my own Black Tuesday. I got the phone call from the broker of a close family member that they had some Bonds with Lehman Brothers. Not a massive amount of money, but enough that it certainly hurt, when the realization came that the money was either gone forever, or at best, worth maybe twenty cents on the dollar. And that is if Lehman is purchased.

So that, along with two sick dogs, made it a tough day.

When you overhear that bleached Suze Orman say, “Yes, this is as bad as The Great Depression”, it sorta makes you perk up. Was that an over-the-top statement? I don’t know.

So my advice is, in these weird times:

1. First off, don’t go out and read Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road”. Or don’t go rent Mad Max, or Children Of Men. Or, fill in the blank with whatever other movie/book related to End Times.

2. Secondly, more important, get your house in order. Review your accounts. Meet with your broker. (I’m sure they’re not doing anything else right now, right?) And more than anything, don’t expect that they’re out there, covering your ass and watching out for you. Even if they are a professional. Take the reins. Maybe I’m an idiot, but I never made the connection that Lehman Brothers would be DIRECTLY CONNECTED to my family member. When I think Lehman Brothers, I think foreign countries; I think giant corporations; I think shopping centers; I think 30-story buildings. I don’t think that they’re DIRECTLY connected to somebody’s retirement money.

This broker, when I got him on the phone, expressed actual SURPRISE that Lehman Brothers was having issues. “Gosh, it all came down late Friday; it was too late to do anything, Mark. We’re really sorry about all this”. As if he hadn’t been reading Page A1 of the NY Times for the past month, that clearly mentioned Lehman as “the next one that could fall”. Yes, I guess in the end, it is MY fault that I didn’t call there and make damn sure that he had nothing even remotely close invested with Lehman, but it almost seemed like a personal insult to do so. (As if someone called me and ask if I had my data backed up). Well, no more; after that guy gets out of therapy, he’s going to be kept on a very short leash from now on.

I advise everyone reading this to watch your own broker too. Just because they’ve got on a suit and tie doesn’t mean their watching over your business. Don’t be bashful about asking very specific questions about what funds you’re actually in.

One article today, in the Times.

Another good article.

What I’ve Learned from this Greenberg/McCain fiasco

(Disclosure, up front: I have no axe to grind with Jill Greenberg. Actually, I love the Monkey images, I even love the children images. And her straight-up commercial work is very strong and viable; she has certainly carved out a niche in the commercial marketplace, which is hard for anyone to do. Another reason I’m writing this is to somehow connect with younger photographers who are just now starting out — sit up, read about this situation, and learn from it. And don’t repeat it!)

These are the important topics that I think should be learned from this situation:

1. First off, decide who you are. Are you an artist, or are you a commercial photographer? You need to know, because The Rules are really different. There are only a few I can think of that walk the line between the two successfully; maybe the illustrator Brad Holland, and the illustrator/photographer Matt Mahurin. If you stretch it, maybe Geof Kern, Frederick Broden. But for 99.9% of the people out there, you’re one or the other.

If you’re an artist, you work on your own dime. You get your imagery however you can. You do your work, and then you take it to galleries to sell, or you sell direct. You’re self-motivated, and self-financed. When you do a piece of work, it fails or succeeds solely on your own personal vision. For the most part, you never accept commissions from commercial clients. (Actually, you’d be embarrassed to; and your friends would laugh at you and call you a SellOut).

If you’re a commercial photographer, you’re paid by a client, like a Hired Gun. You get a Creative Fee from someone. You get your Expenses covered, (maybe). You’re working, at least in some way, as a team. You’re legally in bed with another party; in this case, The Atlantic magazine. Your reputation, and their reputation, is at stake here. Together. Intertwined, for as long as the job lasts.

In this Greenberg/McCain thing, unless there’s a whole other sub-story going on, I would imagine that The Atlantic was hiring Greenberg for her slick/commercial formula lighting. Simple as that. Look at her site — she has a proven track record. You’ve got the ringlight fill; you’ve got the two hot rims; you’ve got the kicker Key; you’ve got the desaturation; you’ve got the Photoshop adjustment Layers. It’s a formula; let’s not bullshit anybody — she’s just another commercial photographer in LA, with a studio, accepting commissions from Corporations. She’s no “living on the fourth floor in downtown LA, above Wolfy’s Diner, with no air conditioning, looking down on the homeless in cardboard boxes, doing her “personal work” and slaving away about her “personal view of the world that just HAS to get expressed”. Bullshit — let’s get real here.

So in this case, The Atlantic thought they were simply hiring a slick commercial photographer for a cover shoot, and hoped they’d get that slick lighting portrait that she does for everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. On a commission job, don’t screw the Subject, unless the Client is in on it. If it’s an Attack Piece, that’s fine, no problem. But make sure the magazine is in on it. When you’re working for a commission, I just can’t justify going off like that, and I’m talking about that awful bottom lit portrait; not even the horrid stuff that she did later, in Photoshop. McCain showed up, he stayed his alloted time, and he thought he wouldn’t be screwed.

3. Since Greenberg delivered the “safe solution”, with the formula lighting thing, she pretty much loses any right to claim “I’m an Artist”. because, really, she just “bent over for The Man” and did her formula lighting. Her “true artist statement” was either the bottom light screw job, or the stuff that she did later with the type added. If she was a “true artist” she’d not deliver the safe portrait, but ONLY deliver the Hatchet Job. So let’s be clear — she did not perform as an artist.

4. As far as the reduced embargo period, well, The Atlantic screwed themselves there, by agreeing to it. They’ve got no one but themselves to blame. Everyone, including myself, has tried to reduce the embargo period; sometimes you get it, sometimes you don’t.

5. You don’t pee in the pool. If you’re a commercial photographer, your actions can affect every other working photographer out there. Imagine the paranoia right now, if you were McCain or Obama, and you were walking into a cover shoot, as we get nearer to the election. Can you imagine the trepidation and doubt? And what about celebrities too — it’s hard enough to pull off a shoot like that. So when you go off and pull something like Greenberg did, if affects EVERYONE after you. The Ripple Factor is massive.

6. The thing that bugged me was her admission that she “left the eyes red, and the skin rough”. Please, if you’re going to take a commercial commission, at least do what’s in your commercial portfolio. Don’t shortchange someone, just because you disagree with their view of the world. Either that, or turn the job down.

7. The “cunt thing” and the “wife thing” and the “Roe V Wade thing” and the “shark teeth thing” — absolutely unbelievable. So bizarre, it’s almost like a cry for help or something. Again, if you’re gonna be an artist, then be an artist — go find a stock image of McCain, license it legally, or buy it out, and then go to town with Photoshop, and add all the shark teeth that you want. But DON’T take an image from a commercial session and do that, when there’s a client’s reputation at stake.

8. Don’t screw your Client either. Don’t drag your Client into your own Personal Hell. Your client paved the way for you to be there; your client is paying you some kind of fee plus expenses; your client is getting you ACCESS to this famous personality; your client is trusting that you’re going to deliver the style that’s in your book, (and not on your gallery’s wall). Your client has a pre-existing relationship with the subject; your client will need to continue to assign stories, long after your little End-Run-Shenanigans have been done.

9. Karma. You’ve just got to wonder about that concept here, and how it will come into play.

10. Who knows — maybe she’s brilliant. Maybe she’s the next Damien Hirst? Maybe this was some back-room plot, planned months in advance, to move her out of the doldrums of commercial photography, and into the glamorous world of Fine Art. Maybe this was the publicity fuel to launch her into the national spotlight. If so, I wish her the best. God knows you need scandal and drama to succeed in that world. Maybe she makes bank like no other commercial photographer. Time will tell. Maybe by week’s end, she plots a window-ledge dramatic fake-suicide scene, covered by news helicopters in LA, saying she’s collapsed from all the pressure. It’s covered live on local news, like the OJ chase. And she’s already arranged for a Reality TV crew to be there, having worked the deal months ago, and this is Episode One of her new Reality TV show, of which, of course, she’s Executive Producer. It’s called “What It’s Like To Be Inside The Body Of Jill Greenberg”. Months later, the ad campaign launches her new scent, called “Anger”, and women from the westside of LA flock to the Beverly Center to be first in line for purchase. Who knows — maybe we’ve all been hoodwinked. (I doubt it).

Nominations: Find me a truly objective news source

Here’s my question: Where can anyone find a source for news that does not have a political slant? Is there one? Is it even possible? I sit here, trying to get informed about the real issues of this election, and everywhere I turn, it’s getting so incredibly obvious that almost every news source has an ulterior motive, a political slant, an agenda, a dog in the race.

Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews — I love them, but no way. Actually, I can’t even watch Maddow and Olbermann any more. Way too biased. I’m actually waiting for Olbermann’s head to actually explode one night, on-air. No way in hell that FoxNews is allowed on inside my house; the button for channel 48 is permanently banned, and actually physically ripped off of the TV. CNN is okay; I do like that Christine Amanpour woman. NY Times seems skewed way to the left, even though I read the online version every day. Tom Friedman is my favorite.

It just bugs me that I feel that everyone — every news program — is subtley trying to sell me on their skew. Please recommend an objective news source — a publication that’s truly out to find the truth. And bonus points for anyone who can steer me to the guy that’s truly responsible for this Subprime Mortgage Hell that we’re in right now. I’ve got a brand new set of garden shears that I’d love to try out.

Thanks.

Fourteen Questions about the Greenberg/McCain mess

Screengrab of Index Page, Sept 14th. Copyright 2008 Jill Greenberg

So, I read these various articles about the Greenberg/McCain photo session. Who knows what is true, what is rumor, and what is exaggerated. First, here are several background Links, to give you the story:

PDN article, (as of Sunday noon, with 142 comments, many of them incredibly hostile)

Rachel Hulin post

Joerg Colberg post

American Digest, strikes back

Greenberg’s website

Unrelated YouTube video featuring Greenberg

Greenberg has a supporter in the crowd. Leslie Burns-Dell’Acqua justifies the Greenberg tactics because editorial rates are low. (Update, Monday the 15th: She now appears to be backpedaling. This will be interesting to watch. And she’s a photographer career consultant? Wow. Why not write to her and express your feelings?)

—–

So here are the questions I’m left with, see below. I’m fascinated with this story.

1. If Greenberg was so intent on making a political statement, why did she speak to the press about this, which to me, dilutes her photographs, and puts the focus on her personally?

2. Can a photographer be both an “artist” and a “commercial photographer”, simultaneously? Can they toe the line between the two disciplines?

3. If Greenberg was truly being an “artist”, why didn’t she submit ONLY the second setup, which was the bottom-lit frame, as opposed to her formula-lighting commercial solution? Wouldn’t a true artist submit only their “best statement”?

4. How will this affect commercial photographers in the future? More doubt? More scrutiny? More required publicists standing there, insisting on “seeing a Polaroid” before they allow the photographer to begin the session and shoot film?

5. Could this force more commercial photographers to shoot digital and tethered, so that the publicist or handler can stand there, next to the Digital Tech, and see what’s being shot, and be powerful enough to immediately pull the plug on the session if the light is bottom-lit like that?

6. How does the Picture Editor feel about this? Were they complicit in this? Was this an attack? Did Greenberg discuss this second setup with the PE, in advance?

7. How does “embargo” work in this situation? Did Greenberg work a deal to use the second setup before the normally-applied embargo expired?

8. How does the Editor and the Publisher of “The Atlantic” feel about this situation? Are they pleased with the attention, or they embarrassed that they got end-runned?

9. Does the publicist/handler of McCain, that was there at the session, still have a job? Are they now in therapy after being berated and called on the carpet for being too lax?

10. Don’t you know that, tomorrow morning, in many magazine offices, there’ll be lawyers called into action to revise and ammend the Photographers Agreements? I’m not sure how they’ll restructure the wording, but you know there will be some hand-wringing about this topic.

11. Is it right that Greenberg would take a job, with the vision being her formula “ringlight-fill-with-hotter-keylight-with-two-sidelight-hotter-rims” but then consciously make the choice to “leave his eyes red, and his skin rough”?

12. How will this affect her future work with agencies? Since she’s in LA, maybe it’ll elevate her in the liberal marketplace? The new “bad girl”? The new “female Serrano”? Or, could it kill the more traditional commercial assignments, due to corporations’ fear of scandal?

13. Why in the world would Greenberg take the images even further, by having her Retoucher add shark teeth to McCain’s mouth? And weirdly, these are outtakes from the “commercial version” that she gave to The Atlantic? Is this appropriate, or even legal?

14. Don’t you think that newly-revised Photographers Agreements will stipulate that “no frames can be held back”, and that the magazine must know about every frame that was shot, during their allotted time period, in order to cover their behinds? And that Embargos will get even longer than they currently are?

—–

Disclosure: I’m a full-on Obama supporter; I’m a commercial photographer; I’m trying to be as objective as I can with these questions, (even though I really disagree with Greenberg’s approach and behavior, in that I think it will affect all editorial photographers negatively, worldwide, from now on).

Update, Monday Sept 15th: The Atlantic editor drafts letter of apology to McCain, and refuses to pay Greenberg, and explores legal action.

Update: In a NYPost article, the Atlantic editor appears to create some distance between the magazine and Greenberg: “We stand by the picture we are running on our cover,” said Atlantic editor James Bennet. “We feel it’s a respectful portrait. We hope we’ll be judged by that picture.” But Bennet was appalled by Greenberg saying she tried to portray McCain in an unflattering way. “We feel totally blind-sided,” he said. “Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional.”

Update: Response from the writer of the McCain article.

Update, Monday Sept 15th: Fox News District Attorney (posing as reporter) interviews Editor of The Atlantic. (I apologize for linking to anything related to Fox News).

—-

Final Thoughts, (and then I never want to hear the word Greenberg again)

“That subversive Laurel Ptak!”, or, “How did I get so old overnight…?”

(Note: This is not serious, kinda. So please, don’t anybody get all wound up about this. I’ve never met Laurel Ptak, even though she upsets me. I’m sure she’s a fine person, and pays her taxes, and is a model citizen. Yet, sometimes, a man can only take so much before he implodes. Try to stay with me on this one. -MT)

I have several other alternative headlines for this post:

1. “How do these people that she features pay their rent?”

2. “I had no idea there were so many Trust Funds in the world”.

3. “How come all these other blogs feature normal photography, and this Ptak person is turning over the apple kart?”

4. “Laurel Ptak just can’t be an American”.

5. “How come these young kids are so cool, and I don’t feel so cool; actually I feel kinda like an old guy sitting on a park bench in Brooklyn, babbling on about the old days, and Walker Evans, and Robert Frank, and Duane Michals?”.

6. “All these artists that Laurel Ptak features; I wonder if they get sick of eating Ramen Noodles?”

7. “Who buys this stuff? This is not Photography!”

8. “I like pictures with four straight, square borders. How come the stuff she features is all cut up? This gets me all stirred up”.

9. “Is this what I’ve got to shoot to be cool…?”

10. “I wonder what she looks like — I’ll bet she wears little 1950’s dresses, with different colored socks, and has big glasses, kinda like that Lisa Loeb “Stay” woman. I’ll bet she lives in a tiny apartment in Williamsburg, with a cat, and she reads Russian novels. And you just know that she went to Yale or Sarah Lawrence, or one of those schools where they overthink everything, and write those horrid Artist Statements, crammed full of multi-syllabic words that essentially mean nothing.”

—-

Ever since I’ve started following these Photo Blogs, there’s always been one that has stood out, and that’s been “I Heart Photograph”. But this is where I show my age — I’m being a man and admitting my cluelessness, but I simply don’t “get” a lot of this work, (even though I’m fascinated by much of it).

I was just raised in a way too “practical” household. Everything you did, you did it for a reason. And then once I became a commercial photographer, the end goal was to shoot a creative image, but also, equally important, was to get it approved and published. So I’m sitting here, looking at I Heart Photograph, and I just wonder, “Hmm, what job was this for?”, even though I guess most if not all is not for a job, but for a gallery wall, and then thus, to be sold, (hopefully).

You know that old saying about “everything that’s truly new will not be accepted in the beginning, because we have no previous context for it”, (or something like that). Well, that’s how I feel when I’m looking at her blog. In terms of the work, it’s like I’m wanting to speak English, but she’s always speaking Russian, and I can’t quite get my head around it. But many times, I see that work, and I smile, or I go, “Fuck, that is an amazing image. How did they ever concept that?”

So, when I look at her blog, it’s like going to the gym — you’ve gotta work muscles that you don’t ordinarily work, when you’re just walking down the street, looking at commercial imagery.

I advise everyone to go to her blog. But go there late at night, or really early in the morning, when your head is opened up, and somebody’s not yelling at you to do something. Just go there and let it rain on you. Try not to have any judgements. (Trust me, YOU WILL, but just let them be, and keep looking.)

I give her an A+ for pushing the envelope, and having remarkable posts on a consistent basis. I think she’s doing a great service in expanding people’s minds. It’s healthy food for the BRAIN. I don’t like all the work, but some of it just absolutely knocks me down.

And while you’re there, don’t miss this person’s work too.

A quick note about Animals

I read James Danziger’s post today about Brent Stirton’s work with the gorillas. Danziger features several of Stirton’s images. But it’s that last image, (and make sure and click on it in Danziger’s post, to get it larger), that just takes my breath away, (but not in a good way). I can’t stop looking at that picture, and can’t stop imagining what that scene must have been like. Of all these blogs, Danziger nails it more than any of them. He gets it.

Image copyright Brent Stirton

Here too is a short interview with Stirton, from PDN. What a bizarre set of circumstances that he did that amazing work with those gorillas, but also shot those Brad Pitt baby pictures as well. I love his take on how he puts it all together in his mind.

Also, the camera does lie. I shot this image of my blue heeler a couple of days ago, as she exited the truck at the park, for her daily walk. She’s 15 years old, blind and deaf, and has defied death multiple times, but in this photo, (and only in this one photo), she looks like a puppy again — ready to swim; ready to kill extension cords; ready to kill the garden hose; and ready to rip the bottoms of my jeans to shreds while she’s herding me through the studio. I have this now as the Wallpaper image on my iPhone. It will last there a long time.

Age 15, still ready for adventure

Portrait: Carnie Girl, from the State Fair

Carnie Girl, Tennessee State Fair, Sept. 2008

I was out at the State Fair the day before yesterday, and witnessed this crazy accident, where this electrician at the fair was cruising around on one of those electric carts, and he came down a hill and turned over the cart. Trouble was — he had two small carnie kids on the kart with him. He turns over, and bodies fly everywhere; kids crying; cops come running, etc. Ten minutes later, this carnie girl, above, comes over and saves the day, and gets the kids back to their parents. No idea how old she is, but she had a great face, and wore this wacky ballcap over to the side.

And I guess you can’t have a fair without the required “Get Your Picture Taken With A Monkey” booth. Not sure how I felt about this one; maybe a tad borderline.

Cowboys at the SugarCane/Sorghum area

Kids on the BungieJump ride

Powder on the ham hocks of the Weightlifters

Photographers and Health Insurance?

In the past few months, I’ve heard of all kinds of physical ailments from many of my friends. Let’s just list them, why don’t we:

* Eye injury, (sudden).
* Heart attack, mild. (My father, and Cracker Barrel).
* Heart attack, mild. (sudden, a young woman).
* Motorcycle injury, (really really bad).
* Motorcycle injury, (death).
* Stomach issue, (sudden).

I list “sudden” because that’s what’s on my mind. I’ve been paying my health insurance premiums for years, and never really used them. When I bought it, I told the woman, “I want a high deductible; I just want insurance for something like a car wreck; not a common cold”. But what’s on my mind is, since so many of my friends have had sudden, immediate issues: Would my own Insurance really cover me, if I was rushed to the hospital for something? Do YOU know if yours would?

I just see these auto-deducts taken from my account each month, and I think, “OK, I’m covered.” But am I really? I just wonder HOW FAR the coverage goes; how many days in the hospital? Would it cover the ambulance? Would it cover the emergency room?

With all these friends having weird stuff happen, and with all this Obama/Hillary insurance stuff being talked about, it’s just come to the forefront of my mind. I wish there was a simple, non-legalese document that explained the limitations.

Nice little mention by Rachel Hulin, of PhotoShelter

With all the talk of politics in the air, Rachel did a small feature today on the Photoshelter blog, mentioning the Martin Luther King, Jr., story, for Debbie Edelstein at Newsweek, done in 1998. Here’s one image below, of Congressman John Lewis, on the Edmund-Pettus Bridge, in Selma, Alabama. Rep. Lewis was at the original Selma-Montgomery march, and was badly injured. He and Hosea Williams are visible leading the group in the small photo that’s in the Wikipedia post.

Rep. John Lewis, on Edmund Pettus bridge

It’s State Fair season again

I know this is a really delicate area, to be photographing the county fair, but I sucked up my pride yesterday and headed to the Fair. Oddly, not one, but both Hasselblads went down on me; my plan is to go back today, but i’ve got to get one of these cameras working again. The Fair is one of the most over-photographed topics out there, but I just relaxed into it and found a few scenes that were great. There was a weightlifting contest, kinda like a redneck version of Venice Beach; and of course the grilled corn on the cob, which is the real reason that I go. (One year, on the very last night of the fair, I drove out there, paid the $7 entrance fee, just to walk in and buy one ear of corn. Total time spent at fair: about eighteen minutes. But when you’ve got a weakness, you just admit it and honor it). Below is a frame from the Wilson County Fair, which happened about two weeks ago. I’m a sucker for bad Fair art.

The goal today is to get one of these film cameras working, and head back out there. There’s just something great about shooting for yourself, with no reproduction goal in mind. First off will be the sheep barns, and then the rooster cages.

I watched this Zuckerman short, linked from Rob Haggart’s site, and just loved the Chuck Close quote, about not waiting for inspiration to slap you in the face, but to just “get out there and do the work”. Something about doing a film on “wisdom” seemed a bit weak, (why not campfires, or togetherness, or love, or sunshine?), but still, the Chuck Close thing was awesome.

My Mother, the Fine Art Photographer

Here’s a picture of my mother, last Saturday, after a birthday party for my little niece. She carries around this point-and-shoot, (why don’t I buy her something better?). Anyway, she’s got something going on in her shoulder and it won’t allow her to raise her arm, so she’s got that tilted-horizon thing going, influenced from Garry Winogrand and Moshe Brakha.

“Vote early, and vote often…”

This is a reminder to make sure your Voter Registration Card is updated with your current address, and that you know your proper voting precinct. The election will be here before you know it, and you don’t want to be caught up in the madness, on November 4th, either showing up at the wrong precinct, or trying to get your address corrected. Think back to four years ago, have you moved since then? If so, it might be necessary to update your address.

And don’t forget, Early Voting is possible. Why stand in line, in the craziness, on Tuesday, November 4th? Get it done early. Just make sure that you check on the certain (limited) precincts that will be open for Early Voting.

Whatever the case, take a moment and review your Voter Registration card. Make sure you know your precinct. Some people may have moved once or even twice since the last time they voted.