
Over the past week, I’ve been thinking a lot about the distinction between the kinds of photography I will and won't shoot. At a recent casting, I found myself having to state repeatedly that “I don’t shoot the sexy stuff.” But in hindsight, I feel like that’s a little dishonest, because when you get right down to it, I do shoot sexy images. I shoot lingerie and swimwear without compunction and more times than not, as a beauty photographer, I’ll work with nudes or implied nudes in order to achieve the clean, bare shoulder look desired in a lot of commercial hair and makeup materials. The subject matter is inherently sexy and when you throw a gorgeous model into the mix, no one in their right mind could argue that it wouldn’t fall into the realm of “the sexy stuff.” And yet, when directing models or describing what sort of gigs I’ll book, I continually find myself asserting that “I don’t shoot the sexy stuff.”

I guess what I'm really talking about boils down to the difference between swimsuit ads you might see in Pacific Sunwear versus something you might see in Sports Illustrated. A figure you'd see in a dayspa ad as opposed to something out of Playboy. But where does that line fall? I joked with a few friends over a bottle of wine after the casting that if it’s in black and white it’s art and if it’s in color, it’s porn. It’s an old joke that I’ve heard bounced around creative circles since my very first days of photo school. Of course, the adage is absurd, but there must be some truth to it for it to stick around like it does.

It’s true that black and white photography more often evokes a certain mood that biases us to call it “art”. The removal of color steers our minds from the realm of “what was in front of the camera?” towards “what was in the artist’s head?” It has an inherent element of abstraction that encourages a viewer to look a little deeper, and that’s the crux of the difference between art/fashion photography (something you’d find in a Gallery or an issue of W) and glamour photography (something you’d find in Maxim or FHM.) A deliberately sexy image is all about how attractive a model is. It says nothing more than “Hey, check HER out.” Whereas an image that is merely incidentally sexy is more about mood, gesture, expression; a desire to tell a story. It’s about something other than the model’s various physical charms. That something may be a simple shift of focus to the clothes or it could be the illustration of a greater aesthetic idea, so long as it invites the viewer to do something other than ogle the figure of the featured model.

So yes, I do shoot sexy photos, but I don’t shoot The Sexy Stuff.
I shot this test earlier this month in my living room with a single gridded softbox, no reflectors. (My new softbox had just arrived and I wanted to see what it could do on its own.) No MUA or stylist on this one.





