So I took some headshots today.  I think they turned out pretty well.

A.  

B.

C.

D.

E.

Another set from a few years ago.  In case you haven’t noticed this is Rebecca.  This time we’re along the north shore of the Picnic Point Peninsula.  This particular location is my favorite on the entire lake.  I’ve also shot here with William.  

Way back in 2009 I photographed Rebecca.  I’ve shown other photos from this session but there were a few outfits that I didn’t get around to.

The second in my series on food.  Emily is a Chicago model who was up in Madison last October.

I am extremely pleased with how these turned out.  Emily is an outstanding model and I would recommend her to anyone.

One of the things we did is shown above.  I have a lofted area that looks over my living room.  It’s one of the reasons I bought this unit.  Particularly because it lets me lean over and shoot at people laying on the ground.  The problem is that I usually forget about it when I’m shooting.  So it was nice to actually get to use it.

I am very impressed with the two images above.  I think they both look very retro, very much in the pinup style.

Since the begining of the year I’ve been trying to do this series of photos with models covered with various foods.  Flour, cocoa, sugar, and others.

The problem was, I’d have tons of people interested, but after a few messages they’d disappear, stop responding.  Or maybe some would respond, we’d actually set up a shoot, then at the last minute they’d cancel.  Both of these scenario’s happened MANY times.  I was begining to think the series was cursed.  So I stopped looking for a few months.

Then Elena contacted me, and we actually got to set up something and shoot it!  These are the results of that.  Elena is covered with flour in this set.

It’s not that I don’t believe what I’m about to write.

It’s not that I know it will be a lot of work to get all the topics covered.

And it’s not that I don’t really want to get this out there.

It’s that I think that too many people are going to take it the wrong way.

This post and the ones following are about what I look for in a woman.

What this series is NOT about:

It’s not about all women.  Many, probably even most, women are not what I am looking for.  It doesn’t mean that most women are bad, or wrong, or inferior.  Just different.

It’s not about how women SHOULD look.  Yes, I’m going to talk about physical attributes.  Yes, I generally have a specific type.  No, that does not mean I want need or expect all women to look that way.

Most things that can be compared between two people (two women) I have a preference.  Or at least an opinion.  Generally I’m open to different things and not too tied to specifics.  There are three things though that I’ve come to realize that I require in a woman that I’m considering for a mate or a serious relationship.

Number 1.

She must be attractive.

A lot of people are going to read that, put their own prejudices and ideas on it, and think I mean a woman needs to look a specific way.  They’re going to call me shallow, a male chauvinist and a misogynist.  Fine, if that’s the only way you can see that statement then it’s done it’s job.  I wouldn’t want to be with someone who thought those things.  But really think about how you choose a mate.  Would you really want to choose someone who was unattractive?  That’s what I’m saying.  I need to be attracted to her.  However she looks if the question “Is she attractive?” can be answered with a “yes”, what more do I need?  And I’m certainly not saying that other people need to think she’s attractive.

Number 2.

She must think of herself as attractive.

Because if she doesn’t think she looks good, why should I?  I’ve been around too many women who put themselves down, who are never satisfied, who can’t even accept a compliment.  And that’s just draining.  Yes, you could certainly take this one too far.  I don’t want a narcissist, or someone with no desire to better themselves.  But in general she should be happy with how she looks.

Number 3.

She must enjoy posing nude for me.

I think this one is going to be the most limiting.  But it is very important to me.

From a leisure standpoint, photographing nudes is something I enjoy.  And I enjoy it even more when I can share it with someone I’m in a relationship with.  This is no different than someone who enjoys motorcycles also wanting their mate to like motorcycles.

From a practical standpoint, someone who knows what happens during a photo shoot should be less likely to feel any jealousy or fear when I photograph others.

Personality wise, women I have photographed nude have been more confident, independent, daring, open, and comfortable with themselves.  All of these are qualities that I feel are important.  I’m not saying that a woman who doesn’t pose nude can not be those things, but I have not met a person who has posed nude who doesn’t have these attributes.

This requirement will also weed out a large number of women who allow others to make decisions for them.  There are many people and organizations in our country and elsewhere on our planet that feel that nudity is wrong and should be limited to a very small set of circumstances.  For a woman to decide to pose nude, and possibly go against the wishes and views of her parents, family, friends, religion, public opinion, and even the law; shows a remarkable ability for independent thought and decision making.

So those are my three requirements.  In the next post I will talk about what exact physical attributes I prefer.

The article linked above is from December.  I’ve saved it, because I wanted to share and comment on it at some point.

It refrences The God Delusion, a 2006 book by Richard Dawkins.  I read the book when it came out and used to own a copy.  One part that many people think is more extreme is when Dawkins equates teaching, or indoctrinating, children in specific religions with child abuse.

If I recall correctly he begins that section by saying that there are not Christian children, or Jewish children, or Palestinian children, there are only children.  His reasoning is that children do not have the experience, knowledge, or in some cases mental ability to comprehend what religion is and what they believe.  That by teaching them at such a young age you are not allowing them to choose a religion.  Forcing them into your particular world view and associated biases.

Jesus and Mo - slack jesusandmo.net

This particular Jesus and Mo is not about religious teaching directly, but does bring up a very good point.  Much of what is done to children is done without their consent.  Often it’s done without asking for their consent.  Most people, most parents don’t even consider the possibility of asking their children what they would like to do.  Even parents who I think may be some of the most well informed and open among us.  If you read the comments on the article I linked you can see that even among Atheist parents, the concept is foreign.

“But wait,” you may say, “Didn’t you just say the children couldn’t make those decisions?”

Yes, I did.  But just because they can’t make them, doesn’t mean you should do it for them.

Too much in our society, children are treated as property.  What is done is not in the best interests of the child, but in the best interests of the parents.  Parents are given incredible leeway over how and what they can do to their children.

Why?  Just because you figured out how to fuck somebody?

You know in many parts of the country the process to paint your house a different color is much more difficult than the one to butcher a newborns penis.  Or that with one simple form, once a year, a child can be kept at home, cut off from the outside world.  And I’m not even going to mention what happens in some of the less developed nations of our planet.

That baby, that child, that teen, that’s a PERSON.  An individual that, by chance, shares 50% of your DNA.  So the next time you’re thinking of making a decision for your son or daughter ask yourself if you would feel comfortable making that same decision for your brother,

Or your sister,

Or your parents,

Or a stranger.

Because you don’t OWN your children.

Often you’ll hear people talk about the power of the internet being in communication.  The ability of one person, or one company, to reach out to thousands, millions of people all over the world.  And while that is advantageous, for many companies the real power should be in personalization and customization.  An area where many companies fail by not even trying.

Netflix is a company that does very well in offering consumers a choice of services.  Something they’ve been doing, almost since the very beginning.  They currently offer 11 different subscription plans.

From their $4.99 a month limited DVD plan, to their streaming only $7.99 plan, the $9.99 One DVD plan, all the way up to their 8 DVD’s at a time plan for $55.99 a month.  Depending on how much you want to pay, and what you want to watch Netflix gives you quite the choice.

In addition, the streaming only plan and all of the DVD plans include unlimited viewing on any Netflix capable device.  And that list is huge, Mac, PC, PlayStation 3, Wii, Xbox 360, Apple iOS devices, Apple TV, Google TV, other set top boxes, networked Blu-ray players, built in to select TV’s, and Windows Phone 7.  Netflix lists 35 separate devices on it’s website.

Now lets contrast that with Hulu.  A company that’s actually newer than Netflix.  Hulu has two plans.  There’s the free service and Hulu Plus, for $7.99 a month.  Hulu’s free service has select shows from NBC, ABC, FOX, and a few others.  Generally only the 5 most recent episodes, and the vast majority of them have commercials.  Now because I’m not paying for the shows I understand why there are commercials.  And since the commercials are only limited to only one or two per break I’m okay with that.  Somebody has to pay for the content, and advertisers appear willing.  The free Hulu service is limited to watching only on a Mac or PC.

Hulu Plus gives you every episode of current season shows, a large catalog of past seasons, 720p quality video, and the ability to watch on your Apple iOS device, PlayStation 3, select TV’s and set top devices, with many more coming soon.  But, and for me it’s a big but, it still has commercials.  That’s right, they want me to PAY THEM, to watch commercials.  This is where the problem is.  Would it really be that difficult or troublesome to have multiple plans, including some without commercial interruptions?  I would pay more than $7.99 a month for the things that Hulu Plus offers if it was commercial free.  But Hulu doesn’t want to give me that option.  I suspect it’s because the owners of Hulu, the traditional major networks, are beholden to the advertisers, and not the consumer.

Often this “mistrust” of the consumer isn’t limited to just the parent companies.  It can be seen in individual properties.  Sometimes even switching from one end to the other.  Take V, for example.  The reimagined series began in 2009 and was broadcast on ABC.  It was also available on Hulu, ABC.com, iTunes, and through the ABC iPad app.  But when season 2 began in January of 2011, it was only available via broadcast.  It is not available on Hulu, ABC.com, iTunes, the ABC iPad app, or any other legitimate streaming or digital service.  And though ABC has acknowleged episodes will not be available online, they haven’t really said why.

Unlike Bones, which embraces the internet like few other shows.  Bones can be watched

1.  Broadcast live with commercials

2.  Recorded from the live broadcast with my DVR, commercials can be skipped

3. The next day for free with commercials at FOX.com

4. The next day for free with commercials at Hulu.com

5. The next day for purchase, commercial free, from iTunes in HD $2.99

6.  The next day for purchase, commercial free, from iTunes in SD $1.99

7.  The next day for purchase, commercial free from iTunes in HD as part of the season $59.99 ($2.61 an episode)

8.  The next day for purchase, commercial free from iTunes in SD as part of the season $39.99 ($1.74 an episode)

9.  The next day for rental, commercial free from iTunes in HD $0.99

10.  At the end of the season when it is released on DVD for about $30-$40

11.  At the end of the season streaming on Netflix as part of your regular subscription.

12.  As repeats or in syndication.

Twelve different choices, with a cost to the consumer from free to $60.  Now I really like Bones, so I often watch it live, or slightly delayed, skipping most of the commercials in the first half.  But I wouldn’t be watching it at all if it wasn’t for Netflix and iTunes rentals.  Though Bones premiered in 2005, I didn’t start watching it until the summer of 2010.  At the time Netflix had seasons 1-4 available for streaming and I watched them all from the beginning.  But I faced a dilemma.  Season 6 began before Season 5 became available on DVD (and Netflix streaming).  I didn’t want to start watching Season 6 until I finished watching Season 5.  Some episodes were available for online streaming through Hulu.com but not all of them.  Then Apple introduced TV show rentals for only $0.99.  I was able to get caught up, and now watch every episode.

Finally I want to talk about manufacturers.  Most manufactures only make a limited selection of products.  Take milk for example, it’s sold in quart, half gallon, and gallon sizes.  Adding different sizes, or custom sizes would not significantly improve sales.  I doubt there’s much demand for 3/4 gallon, 2 gallon, or 100 ounce sizes, for example.

But other types of manufactures could see a significant change to their business if they offered true customization.  Car manufacturers are the perfect example.  They currently pretend they offer choice to the consumer.  But  you can’t really get exactly what you want.  Can I get a moon roof installed on the basic model?  No, you have to get the bigger engine, and the navigation system too.  Oh, you want the 4 wheel disc brakes with 17″ aluminum wheels?  Well, that means you also have to get the premium surround sound and leather seats.

The car companies are still living in the ’70′s.  They guess what people want to buy, make a lot of them, and hope they sell.  It’s a one way, top down style of thinking.  There is no reason, other than tradition, that cars can not be built on demand.

Why not send one or two vehicles to each dealership for consumers to look at and test drive, then set them down at a computer and let them choose the options and colors they desire.  Send the order to the factory, the car is built and delivered within a week.  No excess inventory, no huge end of season sales, the consumer gets exactly what they want.

In the end the world will change.  Those companies and people that understand this will win.  Those that continue to do things the way they have always done them will cease to exist.