Part 1 - The Rights of the Model Part 2 - The Rights of Subjects?

 My Little Lady

Very interesting series of posts written by Dr. L and Alex over at What We Saw Today concerning the rights of the model and the acknowledgment they deserve.  While I think both parties need to be fairly acknowledged, will this push move beyond models?

Part 1 

Without the hard work and gifts of the models I've worked with, my photos would be nothing.  I greatly appreciate them and give them the credit I can.  Along with paying their modeling fees, I also send them a cd with the images I find good enough for their own promotional use.  If I ever make a great amount of money off of an image, I will share a fair portion with the model since we made the art

As I wrote in my comments to one of the posts, 

"While sharing the credit for the contributions of both the model and photographer to the final piece is crucial, it must also be decided upon before the art is created. Both sides need to stop making assumptions on where the credit of the creativity belongs. It is important to decide these issues in the planning discussions before the first click of the camera shutter."

Two of the models I've worked with have specified in writing in the model release they want to know where I will exhibit, post or publish any images of the images they appear in.  Neither stated they would limit the usage of the images, just wanted awareness of their placement.  I've always honored their requests because it was the right thing to do and was in the contract.  One thing I suggest to all models and photographers is to make these decisions before the shoot, not after.  To be honest, I would be upset if a model wanted to add restricting or additional rights sharing clauses after the photo shoot.  That is why I will from now on send future models I work with my model release before the session so we can negotiate language changes.

Alex made an interesting comment about painting versus photographing a model.

Let's go back to the world of photography. Most nude photographers regard themselves as artists, and indeed they are, but photography is a very different art form from painting or sculpting. It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models.

The input of the model is much more significantly tangible in an art photograph than it is in a painting. The photographic model has every right to be acknowledged, i.e., named. And yes, s/he should be entitled to share the copyright of the image and have rights to its reproduction. All sorts of restrictions can be put in place, of course, so that the image is not further processed or manipulated by anyone else once it is finalised, but share of copyright simply means that the authorship is shared.

There is a part of this I agree with concerning the art model's role in creating the image.  To paraphrase my statement above, my photographs with models would be empty without them and have no meaning or purpose.  They added crucial and very necessary contributions to the shared creation of those pieces

I am not sure how I feel about some of the subtle subtext in this statement that I am reading into it. This statement makes me think that Alex has a different opinion on the artistic contribution, creativity and role of the photographer in creating an image compared to a painter or sculptor.  I could photograph a nude and make a beautiful print of it or I could create a painting from the image, yet it feels like I am judged more as an artist by picking up the brush, not loading the image into the enlarger.  Maybe I am being defensive, but I feel the battle for recognition of photographer as artist is still not over.  Is it because of the ultra-realism of photography? 

I have a question about the rights of models who work with painters and sculptors.  What if a painter created a piece that was nothing like the model posed for, but was a graphic sexually explicit crotch shot painting with the model's face clearly visible and identifiable.  Does the model have a right to recourse?  I think the painter broke the trust of the relationship, but since the artist created a visual moment that did not exist, what can the model do?


Part 2

"... It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models."  Alex from What We Saw Today

With the recent technology enabling everybody to take photos, people are taking more snaps of everything, everywhere, at all times.  Will subjects (or the owners of) soon be demanding profits and rights for the images?

I found this page at the National Park Service website about photography permits for professional photographers.  I can understand wanting a permit system if the park will have to provide extra personnel and/or will need to clean up or fix things after a photo shoot.  I am troubled that I  need to get the permit even if I am not requiring any more park resources compared to amateur photographers.  What is interesting that painters do not need these permits.

The most disturbing line (to me) at the website is:

In addition, the National Park Service has been directed by Congress to collect a fee to provide a fair return to the United States for the use of park lands.

I may be getting paranoid and probably will need to move back to Montana and live in the middle of nowhere worrying about black helicopters, but I am starting to think everybody is going to want a cut on anything produced by anybody.  Will there be a time when I will either have to pay a fee to San Francisco for photographing the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, or Coit Tower because I may make money with them?  Will I have to pay Yosemite National Park royalties on images of Half Dome that I sell?

At this point I have to ask, will painters, poets, sculptors, musicians, mixed media artists have to go through the same hoops?

Percieving Art - a really long one... beware

 

Katie 022110 - Negative Neighbor 1

After reading a very elequont and well written articles by Dr. L. over at What We Saw Today about the future of art, I got to thinking about the relationship between perceiving art personally and how we learn as individuals.   We all perceive things differently and that affects how appreciate create and learn.  How will our ability to perceive art in the future define what art will become? 

One learning theory emphasizes the different types of learners and trying to meet their needs. According to Howard Gardner, people learn best through one or more methods of interaction with the subject.  Gardner came up with a list of eight multiple intelligences with a couple more to consider as additional avenues.  The big eight are:

1. Bodily- kinesthetic - learning better by involving muscular movement (e.g. getting up and moving around into the learning experience), and are generally good at physical activities such as sports or dance.
2. Interpersonal -  people who have a high interpersonal intelligence tend to be extroverts, characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group.
3. Verbal - linguistic - People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking notes, listening to lectures, and discussion and debate. They are also frequently skilled at explaining, teaching and oration or persuasive speaking.
4. Logical - mathematical - While it is often assumed that those with this intelligence naturally excel in mathematics, chess, computer programming and other logical or numerical activities, a more accurate definition places emphasis on traditional mathematical ability and more reasoning capabilities, abstract patterns of recognition, scientific thinking and investigation, and the ability to perform complex calculations.
5. Interpersonal - People with intrapersonal intelligence are intuitive and typically introverted. They are skillful at deciphering their own feelings and motivations.
6. Visual - spatial - People with strong visual-spatial intelligence are typically very good at visualizing and mentally manipulating objects. They have a strong visual memory and are often artistically inclined.
7. Musical - Those who have a high level of musical-rhythmic intelligence display greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. They normally have good pitch and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Since there is a strong auditory component to this intelligence, those who are strongest in it may learn best via lecture.
8. Naturalistic - This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to one's natural environment.  Those with it are said to have greater sensitivity to nature and their place within it, the ability to nurture and grow things, and greater ease in caring for, taming and interacting with animals. They may also be able to discern changes in weather or similar fluctuations in their natural surroundings. They are also good at recognizing and classifying different species. They must connect a new experience with prior knowledge to truly learn something new.

 -Wikipedia

I would say I perceive things best using my visual - spatial and musical intelligences with a touch of the naturalistic as well.  I also recognize times when the other ones work for me, but these are my key ways I perceive and create things. 

Katie 022110 - Negative Neighbor 2

 

How we perceive art is as deeply personal as how we experience food, sex, attraction, revulsion, and any other life experience, different strokes for different folks.  Can you tell me what blue looks like?  You can list examples of blue things, elaborate on how it makes you feel, and even tell me which wavelengths in the visual spectrum are assigned to the blue hues.  Thankfully art is easier to discuss how we perceive it, but I know your explanation of your perceptions of art contain only a small amount of what you experienced, felt, and interpreted into them.

The visual-still arts are the most concrete to describe and elaborate on.  You can spend time with the piece to interpret it for your own consumption.  Your eyes can gaze on each part as long as needed.  If you can touch it, then you can touch it as long as needed as well.  For some art, a second is only needed, for other art, a lifetime.  What I appreciate about this form is that I can come back to it and digest bits of the piece or the whole thing as I need to.   This type of art has a very slow temporal life, limited by the length of the show, life of the viewer, or the decomposition, fading, or erosion of the piece.  Last month I saw the Pantheon in Rome.  It will probably be there the next time I see it.  It will be around after me and has been around for thousands of years before me.

Performance/moving art with a visual component is the next most concrete.  You are absorbing sight, sound, movement, action and other sensations to form your own version of the narrative.  With all this though, it is temporal.  The dancer's move, the actor's line, and the dialogue are gone after they are performed.  Only our memory (or a rewind button) allows us to experience it again.  During that instant though, our visual and auditory worlds have to be open to receive all the information we are going to get.  We are living in the temporal existence of the piece.

Music is the most abstract, for me.  I play music, love it and try to have it around me all the time.  It has some similarities to visual moving/performance art.  The temporal existence is a challenge since it lasts only as long as the note is held.  When the music stops, the perceiving time is done.  We are left only with our memories and feelings created by the music to create an interpretation.  A challenge unique to music and other auditory arts is the lack of all senses involved other than hearing.  I can't use anything other than my ears to capture what happened.

I love both listening and playing this piece - the tuba line is the best at  5:17 to 6:48 - I  get chills hearing and playing that part.


Another challenge with instrumental music (and dance) is the lack of words.  Everything exists in a temporal moment and demands the audience to truly make their own interpretation of the moment.  Music with lyrics may be abstract, but by listening to the words and how they flow with the music, I can get a deeper sense of the creator's message.

Flamenco music and dance flow with a passion that always stirs my heart, loin and spirit.  It can be inspire and heartbreaking all at once.


With all the above said, I have to go back to Dr. L's post.

Art is real. Its essence cannot be conveyed by pixels. The story of its time and place and purpose and moment resides in its physical package, the medium.

and

This is serious business if we come to accept a virtual gallery as a primary venue to show any kind of art. Nad's words "quickly forgotten" tell us all we need to know. We are not talking about just the end of literature. We are talking about the end.

I can see her point, but don't feel it is as widespread or absolute as may be feared.  If all art becomes an online gallery, it will be the death of art.  That wont happen though.  Viewing live sports events on location is still a preferred experience over watching it live on TV.  The televised version is probably closer to the action than the person in the stands, but experiencing it live is truly a richer experience.  Overall, I think people will always prefer the real thing to the recorded/digital version.

I think the impact of the internet on art, and any other form of communication and information, is similar to the printing press and the first recorded sounds.  Before printed words, all books were hand-written and most stories were passed down through oral traditions.  Before recorded sound, all music was experienced by live performers.  The temporal moment made it a cherished treat.  Within one minute, I can listen to pretty much any audio thing I want because of the ease of the internet.  While I may enjoy hearing Bach or Bachman Turner Overdrive through my computer speakers, listening to the real thing live is much better.  Seeing Ansel Adams Moonrise Over Hernandez on my screen reminds me of when I saw a real print of it, but since I don't have $40,000 to buy one, the virtual experience is better than none.

In considering the future of art, we always need to look at the technologies available to the artist.  Early photography was not considered art.  To make it more artistic, the pictorial photographer tried to emulate painted art.

Pictorialism largely subscribed to the idea that art photography needed to emulate the painting and etching of the time. Most of these pictures were black & white or sepia-toned. Among the methods used were soft focus, special filters and lens coatings, heavy manipulation in the darkroom, and exotic printing processes

Wikipedia

Along came Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, and many other photographers stating, "bullshit" to the idea that photography had to emulate other arts of the time.  They defined a new genre of art that emphasized contrast, tonality, and clarity of image.  They created the concept or philosophy of the fine art print. In a previous post I wrote about a digital photography pioneer who challenging the concept that the traditional fine print is truly the only fine art photograph.  In the future, we may look back at the fine prints created by film photographers as garish, over-saturated, and with too much contrast.  Who sees true black in the real world?

It took some time and now photography is widely accepted and appreciated as an art form.  Very few cutting-edge artists exploring new media will have their art considered seriously in their lifetime.  This is the challenge of the new artists who is inventing the new art.

In the future, there will be new types of art that solely live in the digital world.  They may have no tactile, permanent existence. They will only be exhibited, performed, and created in the digital world of electrons and pixels.  We will only be able to absorb it through the machine that it lives in and puts it out onto the device we use to interact with it.  That same device may be what we use for communication, making lists, and doing our taxes.  Like music, they may be temporal and live only within one sense.   It may become something like a holographic universe that we absorb virtually through a connection to a computer.  Imagine if you could create a piece of art that a person could truly enter and be surrounded by to experience it.

Candace Nirvana 022110

All of this does not mean the death of art as we know it.  As Dr. L stated:

In the beginning was NOT the word, despite what we've been told. In the beginning was the image - those we saw before our eyes, and those we filed inside our heads.

Humans have been transferring images to walls for thousands of years.  We have been banging things together to create music and dance to a rhythm.  The piano, while made with better materials and engineering, is basically the same as the first pianofortes from centuries ago.  Every time a new form of art or technology/technique in art is created, we must make one of five choices, ignore it, accept it, accept parts of it and use it with the old methods, alter it for something even newer, or try to destroy it for all others.  There is some music I can barely consider music, so I ignore it or avoid it.  I've accepted using a digital camera.  I want to try making silver prints from digital negatives.  I would love to try taking digital photographs of my thoughts someday and push the format further.  I will always speak out about art that promotes hatred and persecution like many speak out about the nude art we create as dangerous.

In conclusion, humans will always need to create art and to experience it in whatever way is best for the individual.  Some will be tactile, or aural, or visual, or a mix of all the senses and types of intelligence.  Some will be using methods we can not fathom yet and others will be using the oldest techniques of art, a simple smudge on a flat surface.  Art is not going to die from new methods of exhibitions.  If it dies, it will be from others suppressing the artist's ability to make it.

Big Changes

Photo by Patrick Barta

I just read a story that Samoa is going to change the direction of traffic on its roads to match the UK system of driving on the left. Many Samoans are protesting and fear the accidents once the change comes about.

I've driven in England, Northern Ireland, and Ireland. It took me awhile to get somewhat comfortable with driving on the left side of the road from the right side of the car, shifting with my left hand. Every morning I had to remember to keep left as I started out. Thankfully, there was a sticker on the dashboard that reflected an arrow pointing left onto the windshield in front of the driver. I enjoyed the change, except when I was lost in Dublin and frustration grew and driving skills diminished.

This was a huge change to a core instinct. I knew I had to adapt because I was visiting a country where this was the norm, the tradition, and part of the culture. I now wonder how it would be if we had to make a similar change to Samoa.

Imagine if you had to make a change to something so basic and instinctual in your daily life. How would you feel about the change? How would you feel about those that pushed the change upon you?

I think some of us would transition with ease while others would struggle for many reasons. Maybe acceptance and transitions come through flexibility.

In a recent comment on a blog, the writer mentioned showing his old Sony Walkman from 1980 to his 13 year old son and his son could not believe that "it was credible piece of technology." Compared to an iPod, the Walkman is pretty crude.

I am in the process of going digital. Before 2008, all my serious photography was captured on film in my Nikon SLR or my Hasselbad. I mainly shot black and white, developed and printed it myself. Now I use my Nikon DSLR and have not touched film since 2007. I am learning how to use Adobe Lightroom and hope to learn Photoshop as well.

This change from film to digital is a core change for me. I miss the smells, sights and sounds of my darkroom. I love the detail my Hasselblad captures and the prints I made from it. Those things are part of my core photographic soul.

Now, I am enjoying the speed and efficiencies gained through digital work. Once I get a photo edited to my liking, I can make one print as easily as a thousand prints. That was not easily done with film. There are many other gains as well.

I am not sure if I will go back to film. I think I will use it again though because it is the most sensual form of photography since it is analog and tactile. As for driving on the left side of the road, I would rather not.

Prerequisites and Post Modernity

Dunes Oceano, 1936
Edward Weston

Below is a comment by UL in her blog's post on Defining Art and Erotica. What Dr. L says about the "prerequisite" pretty much summarizes one of the core philosophies of the Post Modern movement.

I am going to say something that will be very dangerous because it will affront some - but we should just assume technical greatness as a PREREQUISITE for great photographic art. The technical cannot in and of itself create great art. The great art comes from what you talk about, Joe - the ability to evoke a reaction, an emotion, to SAY something, to resonate, to stay in minds and hearts.

I learned some interesting things from my photography teacher this summer. We were looking at photos in SF MOMA of the contrast between life in southern Spain and just across the Straits of Gibraltar in northern Africa. She asked me what I thought of them. Having spent time in that part of Spain, I appreciated seeing the life of it again. She then asked, "How about the technical aspects?"

I hemmed and hawed because I did not want to say, "Overexposed, poorly printed and the colors are kind of flat. They look like snapshots." I thought that if it was in a museum, it must be good and my impressions must be wrong. I told her a mild version, something like, "I don't get why he overexposed the photos and printed them like this."

"Because his technique is bad." was her reply.

"Maybe the message of the photos is more important than the quality of the print." I said.

She looked at the photo once more and nodded. "He does convey the message well. That is what makes it post modern." she responded before we went to the next photo.

Beth, my instructor, is an amazing woman. She is a brilliant photographer with an amazing artistic sense of capturing the quietness of scenes so that you can feel it. Her photos are post-modern. She also knows art and art history. I guess that is why she is teaching Art and Photography.

I learned two key things from her that day. First, one of the major philosophical differences between modern and post modern art. Second, it is OK to be critical of work in a museum.

Wall Street, 1915
Paul Strand

Through Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Ruth Bernhard, and many other masters of the photographic Modern movement, we learned of the true art of technical greatness to create amazing beauty. Look at their works. The technical aspects of contrast, composition, print quality and many other areas defined what an art print should strive for. They created art to capture the beauty of the subject without using the painting art techniques of the earlier Pictorialist photographers. These men and women pioneered the fine art print.

Drug Store, Detroit
Photo by Robert Frank

The post modernists though felt the subject of the photo is more important than the print. Robert Frank's prints were very good, but a bit rough compared to those before him. He cared about the people he photographed and wanted to tell their story as art. His book, The Americans, is considered by some to be the last Modern Art book, by others as the first major Post-Modern Art book, and by yet others as the bridge between the two. Follow this link for my in-depth look into Frank's work.

Andy Warhol believed there were enough photos out there. Why create more? Take an existing one and make it say something new about the subject.

Unknown Warhol Piece at the New York Museum of Modern Art
Photo by SB

In every lower-level photography class or workshop I've attended, there is always one of them. The student that has a beat up simple camera, usually with a light leak. They can barely afford paper to print on so they do not make many test strips or trial prints. When they are done and present their photos for critique, you can easily see the haste and thriftiness of their technique is evident. That doesn't matter. The photo they took is art and speaks to your soul. As Dr. L said, "the ability to evoke a reaction, an emotion, to SAY something, to resonate, to stay in minds and hearts." They did that.

I agree with Dr. L that in today's art world, mastery of technique is expected. I strive for print quality and try to implement good composition, appropriate contrast, and other artistic components to my photos. I feel for my art technical quality is a mandatory part or its success.

On the other hand, sometimes technical quality is not needed. It is "the ability to evoke a reaction, an emotion, to SAY something..." that makes it art. It is the soul of the image that makes it art, not necessarily the technique.

"... the ability to evoke a reaction, an emotion, to SAY something, to resonate, to stay in minds and hearts." I think that is one of the things that separates erotic art photos from porn. I will write more on that another time.

PHOTO NOTES - Paul Strand's Wall Street gives me goose bumps when I see it. It is amazingly beautiful and powerful to me. Edward Weston's Dunes Oceano shows his mastery of finding human contours in nature. Have you ever seen as sexy and sumptuous sand in your life??

Me at Forty

My POV of 40

Photo by SB

My final project for the class I just finished was Me at Forty. Here is the little write-up I read before exhibiting my photos for critique.

Men at Forty by Donald Justice

Men at forty
Learn to close softly
The doors to rooms they will not be
Coming back to.

Turning forty can seem cliché to those who have not reached that number. This cliché for men usually involves sports cars, brave athletic heroics, sordid love affairs, and other attempts to recapture youth that has slipped into the middle.

I am trying to live beyond the cliché now that I am forty. I look back at the doors I've closed along the way. I look at where I am now and see new doors open from how I have lived so far. I look to the future and wonder what doors are yet to be discovered.

These photos represent some of the realities I feel at this moment. In ways, they may show me missing my youth or regretting some of my life choices. I prefer to think of them as interpretations of how I exist now. They are my POV or Point-of View of the now.


I RECOMMEND CLICKING ON THE PHOTOS FOR A HIGH-RES VIEW. MANY OF THEM HAVE SUBTLE CONTENT.

Living in Both Worlds
(The Lady in Red)

Photo by SB

Weeds Along My Road

Photo by SB

A Glance into My Views

Photo by SB

A Role Model, Richard Avedon (self-portrait)

Photo by SB

Between Two Americans (Portraits by Richard Avedon)

Photo by SB

The Not-So-Fastrak... in the Passenger's Seat

Photo by SB

Still has a Purpose

Photo by SB

NOTES: I took the photos of the Avedon photos at the SF MOMA. Anyone could take photos, sans flash, at the Avedon exhibition. I am not trying to copy his art, just capture a part of who I see myself as in this stage of my life.

On another note, I am amazed how they placed the photo of César Chávez along side Ronald Reagan. Talk about two very different Americans. Both made their name in California.

I posted an concept test earlier. Click here to view it.

eCensorship

" "
Photo by SB

I saw something that scared me about the personal ownership and control of printed materials. A few months ago I got the chance to read a few “pages” from a friend’s Kindle. For those who don’t know what a Kindle is, it is a computer screen tablet that you can download books, magazines, newspapers, and other print-based materials. There are some great things about this new technology, but I immediately discovered one problem with it and after reading the SLATE article at this link I found a complete deal breaker. I don’t want a “book” that decides what I can and can’t read.

The first flaw is the lack of color. I want color photos and illustrations. What good would a National Geographic be without the photos? I am sure though this technological hurdle will be over come.

If you read the article, you can see my concern. “They” can determine what I read and how long I can read it. Let’s say I buy an eBook from them. They may treat it more like a rental than ownership. If they want they can say I have rights to it for 10 years, 10 months or whatever they want and then delete it.

What is scarier though is if I bought a book today that became “banned” five years from now. They have a record of its purchase by which they could track to me. You may think this is paranoid, but after the warrant-less wiretapping and other “Patriot” Act bullshit, I have lost the illusion of my privacy.

They could also delete banned books, or books that somebody sued over or wants to make disappear. Once it is deleted it is gone.

When I go to a bookstore and buy a book, it is mine. Short of breaking into my house and destroying it physically, it will exist and be mine. If it becomes suspect or banned, it may still have a chance of surviving.

One last thing I don’t like about the Kindle… the experience. Imagine how the pages felt between your fingers the last time you opened a high-end photo book. Can you feel the quality glossy paper? What about a cheap paper back? Can you feel the rough, cheap paper? Can you smell it? Part of the pleasure of reading is the analog simplicity it offers. Would you rather have sex with a real person or an eSex version with a simulated partner on an electronic device? How about dinner?

I may be a Luddite, but I don’t think so. I have a lot of modern technology. I shoot digital and haven’t touched film for over a year. I am listening to my iPod while typing this on my beloved Apple MacBook Pro. Later tonight I am going to watch a recorded episode of Top Gear and then settle in to watch another episode of the amazing HBO show, Deadwood.

It is not the technology I fear, but the way it can be used to censor and destroy liberty, art, beauty, and most importantly – truth.

PHOTO NOTE: One of the things I worked with Candace on is word art. In future posts you will see more of these things we created. Some are words, others are images that I projected onto her. This will be my new icon photo for censorship. We did this word in one shot... I think she nailed the feeling of it.

Playing with Candace

Toward the Light - Original
Photo by SB

One of my greatest pleasures is working with an image and experimenting. I love doing this in the darkroom as well as on a computer. Both analog and digital offer me artistic therapy that my soul needs.

In the darkroom I get the deeply sensual experience of touching the papers, dodging and burning areas with my bare hands and seeing the negative image of the model's beauty on my skin as I create unique art with each print. The disappointment or elation of watching the developer bring the image to consciousness as I slowly agitate for the required time. Then watching the print fix and wash under the soft orange light, hoping it looks even better in the real illumination. By doing this I feel one with the model in a much more intimate and artistic way than when I tripped the shutter. At those times I truly understand what Ansel Adams meant when he said.

The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.

Toward the Light

BW

Photo by SB

Digital image manipulation is a new art that I am learning and loving. I am nowhere near as proficient with it than I am in a dark room. It has no tactile affections like analog printing. The physical involvement is minimal and mouse clicks are not sensual like using a squeegee to gently caress the print dry.

Toward the Light
SAT

Photo by SB

Using a computer though frees the mind to try things I could never do in the darkroom. Do I want to take the blue out of the background, yet accentuate the model's soft pink lips. I can do a million minor adjustments to make the art truly what I envision it to be. Just thinking about that arouses all parts of soul, body and mind. While I miss the sensual tactile experience, the mental growth is just fine.

Toward the Light
Low SAT

Photo by SB

Do you have any preferences between any of these photos? Do they tell you different stories? Isn't Candice truly beautiful? All my models are and I appreciate them dearly.

Toward the Light
Mod SAT

Photo by SB