2.04.2014

In the process of getting my presentation together I happily run across a forgotten magazine cover. Proof that there is a profit motive for photographing beautiful people.


This is a magazine cover we shot back in the 1990's. The art director for this medical magazine called me and asked me to make a nice photograph of an attractive woman. I had someone in mind and made a call. We did a quick shoot with a very large soft box and a 35mm camera loaded with AgfaPan APX 100 black and white film. I selected a frame while I stood in the darkroom watching the film dry and I printed it a couple of hours later. I sent the art director an 11x14 inch fiber print. He loved it. ( the image above is a reduced sized scan of a printed cover ).

Interesting that we worked without a committee construct and approve a layout. We worked with minimal input from the art director. The input consisted of, "please give me a vertical."
We didn't need to send contact sheets back and forth. We didn't need to scan or e-mail or share on Dropbox. There was no retouching. No sharpening. No skin smoothing. And everything worked out fine. 

Streamlined. 

Trust. 

8 comments:

Howard (N.Falls, On) said...


The "Tuck" look is much in evidence. A very well done assignment, and with such primitive equipment. Amazing.

Mike said...

That's a classic shot, too, that looks as relevant today as then. I have forgotten about turning jobs around that quickly, too. How did we ever do that?

Juan Carlos said...

I agree with Howard: the "Kirk Tuck" look is certainly there.

Ron White said...

Kirk - Excellent, subtle but importtant for me in the composition, slightly off-center to the left, not perfectly vertical, very well done.
Ron

Michael Matthews said...

Perhaps you should put together a gallery called "Lou". A place where the world-weary can stop by briefly as needed and in just moments depart refreshed.

James Weekes said...

Ahhhhhh. If there is anything that I miss from the film days, it is Agfapan 100 (and 25). They were so smooth and even.

Wonderful portrait.

Wolfgang Lonien said...

Stunning. And no post processing needed. Can anyone remind we why we use digital?

Anonymous said...

Beautiful and timeless portrait. $10K in the best modern DSLR and glass along with painstaking Photoshopping couldn't top that. My favorite portrait last year was taken with an old 35mm with 50mm f/1.8 lens and a roll of Acros 100. The camera and lens cost $15 on CraigsList. That shot makes me look at my stable of expensive modern gadgetry and ask "Why?".