Jon Warren Photography

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.

OK.  So it's like this:  I really don't know why I get so annoyed, frustrated, and/or enraged by the things that go on in this society.  The reasoning side of my brain understands that there's absolutely nothing that I can do about any of it so I shouldn't even bother thinking about it let alone getting upset by it... but the emotional side -- the side that's in control quite often -- doesn't quite seem to comprehend that inability to change (or fix) the world.

I just saw on the TV in the break room that the Christmas tree in Rockafeller Center in New York is being lit... um.  I like Christmas and all, but um... folks.  WTF is wrong with you that you want to celebrate the birth of someone that people are trying to remove from view?!?  Oh... And whatever happened to actually celebrating one holiday before starting in on the next?!?  Hello.  Have y'all forgotten about Thanksgiving?!?

If I was really for "big government" or for government legislating what we can and cannot do, I'd be all for them passing legislation making it illegal to put up any Christmas decorations (trees included) before December 1st.  Heck.  I'd be all for making it a limit of the twelve days of Christmas!  Certainly 12 days should be plenty.

If they want to celebrate Christmas this long -- and that is after all what that tree has become a symbol of -- then stop trying to take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance; stop trying to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency; stop preventing prayers during high school commencement ceremonies; stop making it illegal to publically display in government buildings The Ten Commandments (after all, those are what are the basis for most of societies laws); stop making people take down Nativity Scenes.

But, since they don't want to stop doing any of those things, then they should stop trying to take away Thanksgiving.  And that is in essence what they are doing.  We need to take time out of our lives to reflect on those things upon which we are thankful for.  Otherwise why do we even have that holiday -- and if you even mention shopping you need to have your head slapped so bloody hard that you'll feel it next year.

As a programmer who lives alone and sits in a 6'x8' cube at work rarely needing to talk to people -- the people side of photography has been my biggest challenge.

What do I mean by this?  Simply that these are some of the questions that've caused me problems and I can only muttle through trying to find my way in the dark and hopefully learning from my mistakes.

• How do I get my ideas across?
• What is the best communication channel?
• When is the best time to communicate with someone?
• How do I get people to drop their fears of being photographed?

Most of those -- OK, all of those -- are per-person settings.  (Computer-speak for it varies by person or that everyone is different.)

I program in Java.  It is a language and technology based around the idea that if you write your program to do something, then it'll do that something on every computer -- regardless of type of computer (e.g., Windows-based, Macintosh, UNIX).  In other words, things are consistent.  There is no differences -- no change -- from day-to-day in how to do things.

People -- on the other hand -- are NOT computers.  No two are completely alike.  (Thank God!)  However, this produces a very large challenge for someone like myself:  How do I keep track of all of these permutations?

It also produces another challenge for myself, not because of my programming background, but because I'm the highly empathetic individual that'll worry and fret over others feelings and will feel bad for hours if I (as innocently or unpreventably as it might be) did something to upset someone with whom I would like to photograph.  No, not because I've potentially made them permanently say "No", but because I upset them.

You, like me, have no doubt heard the term "avant-garde", but do you really know what it means?  I didn't, so I went in search of a definition -- and some enlightenment -- today.

I didn't find it.  In fact, I'm more confused now than I was yesterday and I'm feeling myself become more cynical about this and other similar terms that no one actually knows what they mean!

Avant-garde (pronounced [av?~ga?d] in French) means "advance guard" or "vanguard".[1] The adjective form is used in English, to refer to people or works that are experimental or innovative, particularly with respect to art, culture, and politics.

Avant-garde represents a pushing of the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm.

"...the term ‘avant-garde’ has been appropriated and misapplied by various sectors of the culture industry since the 1960s, chiefly as a marketing tool to publicise popular music and commercial cinema. It is now common to describe successful rock musicians and celebrated film-makers as avant-garde, the very word having been stripped of its proper meaning."

Source: Avant-garde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So.  Is it any wonder that I have no bloody clue to what someone might be referencing when they use the term?

I'm at the point -- photographically -- that everything I do is pushing my own boundaries.  Not those of society, but those of my own abilities.  Does that make me "avant-garde"?  Heck no!  I'm not trying to change society with my photography.  NO.  Hell no!  Not at this point in my photographic career.  Heck, I'm still wet behind the ears.  I'm just trying to figure out what the heck I'm doing and -- more importantly -- I'm still trying to develop a style.

Bear with me a few years.  I'll eventually get to the point where I'm comfortable with my own abilities.  Then -- and only then -- will I feel to the point where I'd even be possible to think about trying to become an "avant-garde" photographer.  Until then... well... I'm just me doing my best.

I've closed my account on OneModelPlace.

Here's why.  After several months of trying to find my way around on their site and getting fed up and frustrated after each and every attempt, I'd simply had enough.  Their web developer needs to be fired and someone that actually knows what the hell they're doing hired.  Basically the site's navigation is the worst that I've ever encountered in my more than a decade of being on the Web.  I've been to more sites than the average 'Net surfer.  I've seen just about every permutation possible for how a site can be navigated, yet OMP's left me baffled, confused, frustrated, and pissed off time after time again.

They have a great wealth of information and a great number of industry folks (models, photographers, MUAs, etc.) on there.  However I've never met anyone that's said that they understood their way around that site right off the bat.  Most of the time it's stuff like "once I got used to it" or "once I figured things out".  Um.  I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have to "get used to" or "figure things out" when it comes to navigating (using) a site.  It should be abundantly clear where I should go to do the things I need to do.  A UI should not hurt the user...

Update: I've been told by their webmaster that there's a new version of the site that fixes a lot of the confusing areas of the site's navigation.  He's asked that I take a look at it, so I will out of curiosity.  I'll update y'all later.

I don't quite recall where or who or exactly how this was said... but the gist is there:

One out of focus photo is a mistake.  A couple dozen out of focus photos is an experiment.  A hundred out of focus photos is a style.

I just sat down for a day's worth of programming at my job and loaded up Winamp to listen to my music.  There staring back up at me are the slightly out of focus and/or blurry eyes of Fiona Apple (from the cover of her 1996 album "Tidal".  It got me thinking about that above quote.

How can you tell, when looking at one photograph that's been picked to be on an album cover, whether or not that photograph came about because of a mistake, an experiment, or the photographer's style?  The only answer that I've been able to arrive at is this:  You can't.  One data point is never enough to dissern a trend.

I'm much more a fan of the proverbial "tack sharp" photograph than I am those that aren't.  In fact I chose to not include a recent photograph (that the model loved) in my own portfolio, because it was completely out of focus.  Since I hadn't intended it to be that out of focus, it's a pure mistake -- and as a mistake I didn't feel as if it was something that I should include in my portfolio.

Taking a "tack sharp" photograph (as I've learned countless times) is really really difficult.  There's going to be areas that aren't in focus.  We're all used to this to the extent that  probably don't even notice it as long as the primary area of interest in the photograph -- the part that catches our eyes first (most often the eyes of the subject) -- are in focus.  We only really notice it when nothing in the photograph is in focus -- such as that album cover.

Hmmm...

So, it's Halloween today.  There was a costume contest in which a few people participated.  I brough my camera.  Yet.  I didn't use it during the gathering of all the participants... and I probably won't wind up using it today either.

Why?  Well... I was chastised a few months ago for talking to a couple of people about my photography -- there's a few here that I'd really like to get in the studio as they have the "look" that I'm after.  However.  That's not going to happen.

I brought the camera today more as a joke than anything.

Yet, I'm not laughing.

I'm crying inside.

I want so much to make some beautiful pictures, but I guess I've been going about it the wrong way.

People are insecure.  Or, put another way and use one of my favorite Men in Black quotes "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."  They worry about things that they usually can't -- or won't -- change, instead of embrassing who they are and what they look like.  As that poem that was turned into that "Wear Sunscreen" song says "you are not as fat as you think".  Believe it.  Also.  Heck.  Take a look at my work -- my glamour/fashion work.  Do you see (many) blemishes or wrinkles?  No!  Why?  Because I've spent countless hours working on those photos to make them as good as I possibly could given the post-processing knowledge and abilities that I had at the time.  The more I do, the better -- and faster -- I become.

Sigh.

I feel like I don't know where the "line" is... so I'm not sure what I can and cannot say or discuss... therefore I get depressed when I see a perfect opportunity to showcase some of my other (non-programming) talents but feel repressed.

Is it a Happy Halloween?  I don't know.  Did their costume contest day "improve moral"?  I really don't know.  Heck.  I don't know why it would need improving.  Things haven't looked bad here at all.  All I do know is that I'm feeling kinda gloomy and saddened right now.

Yes, I'm certain that my lack of sleep from last night compounded with the head cold that I have aren't helping matters one bit.

Maybe some food will help.  But I'm really not all that hungry.

Maybe some music will help instead.  :-)  I did just get a "new" CD in the mail last night.  It's the first CD that I've bought in -- um -- at least 3 years.  I think the last one was Chely Wright's "Metropolitan Hotel" album back in 2005, but enough of that one.  The new one I just got is Michelle Hotaling's "Chained By Dreams".  I've been listening to a few of the tracks off this album (the 3 that she had free downloads of from her MySpace profile) for a few months and have absolutely loved them -- not to mention that they've always brought a smile to my face when I hear them.  So this album was on the top of my list of ones to buy once I got around to having some money that I felt I could spend on music -- photo equipment has been my priority for a while, but I've got just about everything I need now, so it's about time that I got a few "just for fun" things.

Edit:

I thought I'd clarify something that might've been taken the wrong way.  I am happy here.  I'm just happiest when I'm doing something that I am passionate about -- be that improving a web-based UI or taking photos.  If I have my camera in-hand, then I'm wanting to be able to create in that regard... not feel like I'm an outsider that's unwelcome -- or that I should've just automatically known that I should be someplace.  Nope.  I'm not a mind-reader.  And I'm not just an automatic "official photographer" for any work functions just because I happened to bring my camera -- no matter how much I enjoy shooting.  I just don't like feeling pressured into doing something that I'm also feeling as if I've been told to not discuss.