Last week we reported that Zoomr CEO Thomas Hawk was thrown out of a San Francisco art museum because a guard thought his expensive camera could be used to spy on female employees (www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Photographers-Face-Ejection-Over-Lenses-/3$4097).

Really.

For the record, Hawk is an extremely talented PROFESSIONAL photographer and the top dog at a company that many say is better that its counterpoint-Flickr.

Well, thousands of you read the story. A surprisingly large amount for such a short blog story. And those who commented about their own similar experiences were from Puerto Rico, California, Denver, New York City and Tennessee.

In the past I have written about how UK photographers risk getting their public rights jeopardized as well as a case in NYC that has officials trying to get pros to fill out permits before shooting there. I have resisted getting on the bandwagon as of late, but I am steamed. Pros shooters and even amateurs are really facing a crossroads here, where these types of stories are becoming the norm. As one commenter put it: “now we have camera profiling.”

Four recent issues reported just this summer include:

China Olympics Bans Professional Cameras

D.C. Rep Slams Union Station for Barring Photography

Photographers Face Ejection Over Lenses

Photography Guidelines in UK Set to Include Amateurs, Tourists

Not sure if security guards are just overzealous in a post-9/11 era or photographers are being thrown the rulebook. For the record, I’d be curious to know just how vast this problem is. I invite you to please list your experience in the comment area below if you have been a target of photographic profiling. Thanks! -A

Last week I attended the Long Island Photo Workshop, held in Smithtown, NY. Its 30th year as a wellspring of photographic knowledge for instuctors and students alike–all professional photographers, the Workshop featured industry notables including Joseph and Louise Simone, Hanson Fong, Gary Small, Fay Sirkis, Janice Wendt, and Dave Black. Courses ranged from “Professional Digital Imaging” taught by Gary Small, which highlighted techniques for using Photoshop, to “Light is the Greatest Influence” led by Dave Black, and “Mastering the Techniques-How to Be a Complete Photographer” instructed by Hanson Fong, who covered 10 classical bridal poses, flow posing, window lighting, infrared B&W, and Hi-Key Lighting. Each workshop enjoyed the intimacy of a small class with a hands-on approach to photography.

In fact, my personal experience at the workshop couldn’t have been more hands-on, and I mean literally. I started my day off sitting in on portrait pair Joseph and Louise Simone’s “Create Your Own Signature” class, which covered the gamut of everything portrait related from how to work with subjects under carefully monitored lighting to refining rules of composition, and using the subject’s personality to express itself through live demonstrations. As I watched the Simones in action photographing a family, focusing in on the tiniest of details, which included changing a young girl’s hair style (she couldn’t have been older than seven) to a half-up-do, little did I know that I would be next.

When I introduced myself to Joseph and Louise Simone between breaks, the two insisted that I pose for a portrait. Remembering that my own grandfather had once told me that I wasn’t photogenic, I dropped my head, and half embarrassed/half flattered replied “I’m not a model.” The Simones in unison answered, [I’m paraphrasing now], “that you don’t need to be a model to pose for a portrait— it’s more about capturing who you are, and not about putting on a pretense.” And, in fact, after my modeling session, I can now assuredly concur, but still blushing from the initial shock, I tried to laugh off their suggestion. All I needed was a little soft encouragement from my editor… And there it was, just when I was ready to shrug off the entire request as a mere pre-noon ego boost, my editor bestowed some tactful words of wisdom, which sounded something like: “I wish I could smash your head open and get into your brain, so that you would understand that if the Simones want to photograph you, you let them do it!”

So there I was getting primped and powdered. My experience as a model–I am going to use that word in conjunction with myself as much as possible here–gave me a deeper insight into the world of portraiture. Until last week, my photography work was limited to behind the lens and behind the computer, writing, shooting, reading, editing, press releases–ugghhh, but being the subject for a portrait shoot stretched my perspective to new lengths of understanding.

One of the purest forms of photography–yes I said pure–portraiture is too often misunderstood. Though some may decry it for the ostensibly ‘manufactured’ or ‘arranged’–these are words I’ve have heard thrown around the industry–aesthetic; the produced look, the contrived lighting, the rigid postures and poses, I would venture out onto a limb here, and say that the adjectives used above would most likely describe a bad portrait. For my encounter with the medium was nothing short of, dare I say, comfortable! Yes, there is a science to capturing a portrait; one that expresses the subject or the intention of the shoot through the framework of the lighting, background, camera position, and pose, but it should not interfere with the sincerity of the image itself.

As Louise Simone took my hand into hers, massaged my fingers and sculpted them into a delicate masterpiece, and as Joseph stood behind the camera snapping shots with a cat-like subtlety, I found a simple peace and flexibility within this ambiance of structure and precision. It was as if I was calmed by my faith in them; they gave me their vision, and we created that reality in the images they shot.

If I had to define the end-product which hangs on my living room wall next to a Goya print, I would say that it is a candid portrait. And no, I’m not being ironic when I use the word candid–the photograph captures more than just a girl in a red dress posing for a picture; what that is, I can’t say, but I can assure you there is something more…

So what I’ve taken from the Long Island Photo Workshop, or more specifically, what I’ve learned from the Simones is that if you look at a portrait, and there isn’t that “something more” then the naysayers are right, it’s just a manufactured scene with contrived lighting…but if you ever find yourself staring into the character of a given photograph, rooting out a certain mystique in the shapes that envelop the scene, astounded by the eloquence and multidimensionality of the subject looking back at you, then most likely you are staring into a portrait…

I recently received a children’s book in the mail, and didn’t have to wonder very long why it was being sent to the editor of photography magazines. The book was sent to me from the publisher, Abrams Books for Young Readers (www.abramsyoungreaders.com). The title of the book was Babar’s USA. Authored by Laurent De Brunhoff, the son of the originator of the beloved elephant that was first created in 1931. The book is illustrated with photographs by Zephir. Photographs … that caught my interest.

Babar was created in a bedtime story told by Cecile de Brunhoff, Laurent’s mother. Laurent’s father, Jean de Brunhoff illustrated the story and published it. After Jean’s death in 1937, Laurent took over as family storyteller and has been bringing Babar stories to children since 1946.

Babar’s USA mixes illustrations of Babar and his family traveling across the country with digital photography. Many of the photographs were taken by De Brunhoff and his wife as hey traveled cross country. The artist then printed the images, tracing them on a light box, he drew in the figures to scale. In some instances, he scanned these collages into the computer and further manipulated them digitally.

I think it’s great that a household name such as the character Babar has “embraced digital photography” in the pages of this book. Besides just seeing the images, which unless you’d read about the manner in which the final pages were created, might have seemed to just be any old pictures mixed with drawings.

At the end of the story, Babar arranges a surprise for the elephants of Celesteville: boxes filled with computers, video games, iPods, cellphones and digital cameras. Talk about embracing technology. Laurent de Brunhoff is in his eighties now, and has incorporated not only the grandeur of many of the more photogenic national parks and other locations in the U.S.–but also includes pictures of diners; the airport in Nashville, where a musician played as they waited for their flight; a visit to Graceland to pay homage to “the King” (Elvis); and Disney’s Epcot; among other places.

Bringing such a classic figure as Babar and his family into the present day with all of its technology gadgets and gizmos adds a freshness to this well-known storybook character. It’s good for our industry whenever people are exposed to digital cameras and photography through other artistic mediums such as literature.

There is one thing that bothered me though. Near the end of the book, Celeste emails digital images to her friend Wendy, and the note she writes is in abbreviated text as if she was text messaging on a cellphone.

“Thx much for the gt time we had in NY!” it read.

Wendy’s reply is similar:

“Hi Celeste!!! There’s nothing nicer than a visit from frnds. Thx 4 coming!!! :-)”

I think it’s great that computers, email, digital cameras and other techie-items were incorporated in this story, but I wonder if children reading books like this one will will mistake text-appropriate terminology for proper grammatical expression.

Perhaps it was only meant as an homage to the way present-day children and adults communicate with each other, by email and text messaging but I wouldn’t want to see kids growing up thinking the way you text message someone is the correct way of spelling. Maybe there are other books on bookstore–and school library shelves–already that use such language, and this is only the first I’ve come across one. Language is the basis for how we communicate, and I understand texting for what it is when used on a cellphone, but it doesn’t have to translate to emails–at least for children I don’t think it should. It’s one thing for an adult who knows how to read and write to abbreviate words used for correspondence (although I doubt Miss Manners would agree), but I can only imagine what elementary school teachers see on their students’ spelling tests.

Diane