Friday, April 16, 2010

The first sample from the shoot on Tuesday...














I don't have the CD's from the shoot yet - but Craig was kind enough to email me a preview. I think this one turned out nicely, don't you? The pose isn't quite the same as the Winslet/Vanity Fair shot - I think I slid down more on my stomach in some of the other versions of this, to more closely copy it. But it has some of the same mood, I think.

I didn't Photoshop this, and I don't think Craig did much, if anything. So what knocks me out how perfectly he got the light on me. And that's just natural light, by the way. The photographers among you will appreciate what a feat that is. I'm a big fan of natural light for photos. All those awesome white-dress pictures of me from my last shoot with Craig are done in natural light.

This time, Craig had one strobe that he used for fill-light in some of the other shots. But there are big windows in front of me and on my right, and he just used reflectors and fiddled with the curtains to provide the perfect blend of light and shadow. Look, you can even see where I've been doing all those damn lat pull-downs at the gym!

This was taken in the suite at a certain hotel in San Francisco. Every time I've stayed there, I have looked at the enormous windows all along two walls and thought "The light in this room is so pretty. I really want to do some photos here." My hopes are fully realized by this result. I'll show you more as I get them.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

I was tired of having the old post still be at the top of the blog. But I'm out of town, I'm writing a Stranger column, and I have a photo shoot today. Thus, I have no brain cells to devote to creative blogging.

So instead, let's make fun of this hideously ugly and ridiculously expensive dress. When I look at this, it reminds me of that doll my grandmother had on the back of the toilet, the one with her skirt over the extra roll of tissue. Didn't everyone's grandmother have one of those?




Or maybe it looks like a feather-duster. Or perhaps some faux-kinky sex toy, I don't know. What it does not look like is a dress any reasonable woman would pay $6,600 for.

Bye!