At the Loreto Chapel

Most of the work I do for families involves young children, often between the ages of three and ten. But I also really like photographing older kids, so I was happy when Sonia from Sacramento contacted me and asked me about a session while her family were visiting Santa Fe.

Sonia’s son is already away at college, and her daughter is in high school. The last time they’d had family portraits taken was over ten years ago, and since it wouldn’t be too long before their daughter would leave the house, Sonia and husband Ken thought their trip would be a good opportunity to get some new images.

They were also looking to record their trip to New Mexico, so we settled on an evening walk using the historic centre of the city as a background as we shot.

It’s great to see that appreciation of the preciousness of the time we have with our children, which doesn’t diminish as the children get older. A session like this is a great way to mark a moment in time, and have something to look back on later.

Sometimes, it's the more candid moments that get the most natural reactions.

There's always time for a Reservoir Dogs shot at the Palace of the Governors

The next thing you know, she'll be off to college too. And you'll be glad you have the photo.

Earlier this year national medical magazine PracticeLink hired me for an assignment to shoot an editorial portrait of Dr James Melisi, a surgeon who had recently moved to Santa Fe from the Washington DC area.

My background is journalism from the writing side of things, and I’m always keen to understand the angle the article’s taking, so I can get my images to match. The piece was about his move and how he’s enjoying the history and landscape of northern New Mexico. An amateur photographer, the good doctor has already had a show of his work in a local cafe.

The brief was to photograph him in a distinctive historical Santa Fe setting maybe including his camera to show the new enthusiasm he’s found for photography. The magazine liked my work and my approach, so I spoke to Dr Melisi and suggested we meet downtown for a bit of a two-man photowalk. The simple plan would make it easy to shoot in a few public spots without having to move light stands and the rest.

Simple not random

‘Simple’ doesn’t mean unplanned however, and before the day of the shoot I walked a potential route with my camera checking the light, the backgrounds, sizing up different angles.

Part of the challenge of portraits using only natural light (with a bit of reflector here and there) is keeping the faces well exposed without blowing out the sky. Another issue is that nobody looks good in hard sun full on their faces.

For most portraits you look for shade or shoot people backlit with the sun, but this job called for showing the subject in front of something recognizably historic and Santa Fean. Which meant standing them outside and keeping them and the background exposed well.

There’s not doubt that that a little judicious fill-flash could do the job here, but that’s not really my thing.

The other challenge was the weather. We only had a few days in which the shoot could be scheduled and snow cancelled a several of them for us.

We were shooting in February, but this was for the spring edition, so too much white stuff visible wasn’t going to work.

In the end we chose a slot on a Sunday morning when the weather didn’t look great, but we just had to take our chances. The sky was cloudy – most unusual for Santa Fe – and here my recon trip from the day before was very helpful.

A flat grey sky didn’t paint an accurate picture of life here, and wouldn’t look that good in print, so I’d have to shoot around the sky, placing the doctor in a historical setting that didn’t show the sky and didn’t depend on good light. No pressure, then.

Grab the light

We got some images of him under the portal of the Palace of the Governors, and in an old courtyard off E. Palace, where I could show some Santa Fean ageing stucco and blue paintwork.

Dr Melisi was gracious and friendly – I kept chatting to him to keep it all relaxed and loose. And then there was a break in the clouds.

It looked like it wouldn’t last long, but it was a chance to get him front of a big building with some blue sky behind him. Over to the Museum of Fine Art, and the luck was with us at last. There was enough cloud obscuring the sun that I could face James towards it without him being blinded, giving me a good angle on the tower of the museum and the blue sky beyond.

Make sure his camera is visible, and make it look like I happened to bump into him while he was out taking photographs, and there you go. Get some tight shots, some wider, some landscape and some portrait to give the magazine full coverage for whatever they might like to do with the design.

In the end, that was the shot they used full page, as you can see.

The final magazine image looks relatively simple, but when you’re being paid to give the client a range of shots to choose from and don’t have the chance to reschedule whatever happens with the weather, you have to find a way to make things work.

Jean-Luc looks out at life from his Airstream kitchen

I’m not much of a manifesto guy, but the last week has made me want to jump up on the barricades and take a stand for a particular type of photography.

I’ve just finished the Documentary Storytelling workshop with Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Deanne Fitzmaurice at the Santa Fe Photography workshops. Over four days (that included class time), I shot and edited a story about French chef Jean-Luc Salles, who’s given up running high-end restaurants to cook excellent food from scratch that he serves out of a 1960s Airstream trailer called Le Pod that sits in a parking lot here in Santa Fe. (I’ll write a post about him and show more of the photos later).

I learned a great deal, met lots of good people, and the experience enhanced my love of documentary photography as the most powerful and compelling type of shooting (not to mention the hardest to do well).

Making it hard for yourself

When you’re shooting a portrait, your first instinct is to clean up the background, get in tight to the subject and show only their face (or perhaps show a full-length portrait against a neutral non-distracting background). A portrait photographer might well control also the light, give instructions on how the subject should pose, and take their time to get the shot they’re looking for.

There’s nothing wrong with this, and the results can be great, but it’s largely about the photographer exercising control of the situation – the classic example of this being the white seamless: shoot someone who’s following for your instructions against a giant roll of white paper and your job of lighting and composition just got a lot easier.

But how much information does that really tell you about the person you’re photographing? It speaks to your craft, and shows us what the subject looks like, but often it doesn’t do much more than that. In contrast, the documentary shooter will put someone in their real context by deliberately including the subject’s surroundings and using the light that’s available (which is part of the story).

This doesn’t mean that clutter is somehow approved of, however. Your job is still to compose elegantly, draw the eye in to the right place, and minimize irrelevant distractions, but it’s just got a lot harder, because now you’re looking at not just one plane of content but several, and all need to be appropriate and artfully arranged. And since you’re shooting someone moving in a real place rather than someone standing still in a studio, you’ve got to be quick about your decision-making too. Oh, and you’re likely not directing the subject either.

A successful image made under these circumstances (as well as being something of a miracle) gives the eye more to look around in, and expands our sense of the subject.

Truthfulness

So the role of the documentary photographer is to observe and create images, not to direct or intervene. For press photographers, these rules are sacrosanct and breaking them can be a firing offence. No moving stuff out of the way to create a cleaner shot, or posing subjects or getting them to hold still (unless it’s clearly an environment portrait – where the expectation of the viewer of the image is that the subject is aware of the photographer and following instructions).

The same goes for processing – you can crop, burn, dodge and turn to black and white, but you can’t clone things out, paste things in, or in any other way manipulate the image to create a scene that wasn’t actually there.

Making Art out of Real Life

This is why I love the documentary approach – because you’re trying to capture and explain real life in an attractive way that is still true. You’re not staging a shot, controlling all the lighting and the posing – you’re showing it as it really was but still making art out of it rather than just snapshots.

To me, it’s partly the challenge that is so appealing, but it’s mainly that I find the end result much more rewarding – shooting models in front of a perfect light set-up doesn’t communicate very much that’s real to me. I find the whole thing artificial, however beautiful.

Being Human

As if the technical challenge wasn’t hard enough, the documentary photographer has to decide what’s important and what images are worth making – and this requires an emotional involvement on their part. To tell a good story, you have to understand the subject and empathize with them to a degree. If you don’t grasp what’s important to them, and what they feel strongly about, then you won’t be focussing on the right things.

While an important part of a studio photograph involves making the subject feel comfortable, this is so much more the case in documentary photography, when you’re likely entering people’s homes or places of work for a much longer time. For the workshop, I followed my subject Jean-Luc around for days, ending up at his home on a Friday night. This is weird behavior, but if you can’t put people at their ease in the midst of this, then you’ll never get anything good.

For a press photographer, you need good people skills even to get the access you want. Often people in the news for whatever reasons have people around them whose job is to protect them from photographers, or the subjects themselves just don’t want the invasion of privacy that comes with coverage. But Deanne made the point that if you’re honest about what you’re trying to do, and why, and you’re respectful about it, you can turn that ‘no’ into a ‘yes’.

Why it matters

Telling people’s stories in a visual medium such as photography can highlight things that are often ignored, shine a light on people’s struggles or triumphs and connect people in a remarkable way. These needn’t be very important tales that win people Pulitzers, it could just be a family hanging out at home, or a skilled and passionate chef making great food in an Airstream trailer in a Santa Fe parking lot, but it’s still stuff that shows humanity in all its fantastic richness.

It might sound trite or overblown, but other folks can do the posed studio portraits, I’m going all in on the documentary side of things.

Families probably don’t need another staged portrait against a dodgy background, but a thoughtful series of photographs that shows the small joys of their daily life is a valuable thing. And as organizations switch their marketing from cheesy slogans and big-budget spends to connecting with people more authentically, they need work that shows how they really do things.

It’s time to get real, and documentary photography does that like nothing else.

Are the days of the SLR numbered?

Posts from Scott Bourne  and Trey Ratcliff singing the  praises of these next-generation cameras coincided with the recent announcement of the Fuji X-Pro 1 system, and showed that the exciting action in the camera world at the moment is not happening with DSLRs.

Even Nikon’s release of the scary-good D4 hasn’t attracted that much attention (at least partly due to the scary-high price).

The Fuji system is carefully aimed at all the serious photogs who would love a Leica M9 but can’t or won’t pay the money for it (and the very spendy lenses). Fast primes mated to a small discrete body with a big sensor inside is the sort of stuff that gets our attention very quickly.

But with the Sony NEX series, the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3rds environment, the NIkon 1 series and the new Fujis we’re now looking at 4 different standards. Steve Huff, who definitely know what he’s talking about, maintains that none of them are the perfect choice right now, and that sounds about right.

But even if, as Trey Ratcliff argues, the days of the SLR are numbered, it seems  to me that it’s still too early for a lot of us to jump ship from our SLRs. From where I sit, surrounded by some Canon gear and some Micro 4/3rds gear, these are the things that are making me pause:

No clear comprehensive upgrade path

With the SLRs, Canon, Nikon and to a lesser extent Sony, you can choose one system and know that in three-five years you’ll still likely be with that system. I started with Canon because I inherited an old film SLR and lens from my mother in law. The body went almost immediately when I bought my Rebel XT, and the lens not too long after that.  But six years, 3 bodies and eight lenses later, it’s still Canon in my bag.

Right now with the mirrorless options, there’s so much new stuff emerging so quickly that you can’t know what the next best step is, let alone what will happen in three years’ time. My micro 4/3rds Olympus EPL-2 and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a great combination, but I’m not even sure I’d get a single new M4/3rds lens or body now. The lens choices are good, but the sensors in the Sonys and new Fuji look much better.

On the other hand, while the Sony bodies look good, the lenses are pretty big and there aren’t that many options. And no-one’s even shot the Fuji, so it’s too early to say (although there’s a lot of love for its daddy, the X100).

Lots of money for less absolute quality

What you like about a camera isn’t just its potential image quality. Some of your other priorities might trump IQ – size, focus speed, lens choices, ergonomics . . . but for the same money as you’d spend on any of these mirrorless systems, you could get some really good SLR gear, that would perform better in absolute terms under quite a few real-world situations (so long as you had the camera with you – which is of course one of the great appeals of the smaller systems).

Depending on what you shoot, 90% of it could potentially be covered by the mirrorless setup you choose, and there is the ineffable appeal of something small enough to slip into a (albeit pretty large) pocket. But to me, there are enough limitations of all the systems currently that I couldn’t sell my 5D II, (even if I didn’t shoot video with it).

Limited depth of field control

Given the physics of using smaller sensors than the full-frame SLRs, and the limited number of extremely fast lenses, there are a bunch of shots that you just couldn’t get with these mirrorless cameras that you can with SLRs. I borrowed both the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.2  last year, and while I wasn’t completely sold on the 85mm, the 35mm f/1.4 just sang. And the creative options that both gave me, not even counting their low-light performance (which I’m charitably suggesting might be repeatable by some mirrorless in-camera ISO magic), is currently impossible for these mirrorless cameras to reproduce.

But since the Fujis and Sonys already have APS-C sized sensors, it’s quite possible we’ll see full-frame size sensors in the not too distant future, without the Leica price tag.

Where are Canon in all this?

I see they’ve released the G1 X, with a much larger sensor (which was always the Achilles heel of the G-series cameras before), which is good to see. But to stick a slow medium zoom on it makes it clear it’s not really for serious enthusiasts.

Maybe they’re afraid to cannibilize the sales of their DSLRs, but they’d be better to cannibilize those sales themselves, than see the money head off to Fuji or Sony. A small Canon mirrorless body with a big sensor and an EF-lens adapter would be a great thing to see – maybe the G1 X sensor (larger than a Micro 4/3rds) will be the basis of some interchangeable lens action in the future.

Pick your poison

I don’t want to sound like I’m dissing the mirrorless cameras (although I agree with Trey Ratcliff that ‘mirrorless’ isn’t a great name for them).  I just submitted a portfolio to get a place on a documentary photography workshop with Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice, and realised that around half the images I submitted were shot with my EPL2.

My real point is that while the turbulence in the high-end digital market is exciting, it makes it hard to know where to spend your money next. I think there’ll be even more fragmentation for the next while, before things settle down.

Some people (mainly enthusiasts, I’m guessing) will take the money they would have spent on an SLR and some lenses, and put it into a mirrorless system that will be their only camera. There’ll get almost all the performance they would have got, and take more photos because their system is smaller and easier to lug around.

Some pros will stick solely with the big bodies because they’re too invested in the systems, don’t need the benefits the mirrorless cameras and/or shoot the kind of work that can only be done with full-on DSLRs – sports, wildlife, some portraiture.

Other folks (pros and wealthy amateurs) will run both sets of systems in parallel, choosing the right setup to leave the house with as the job or mood dictates that day.

I’m already in the third group, which is bad for my bank balance, but it’s exciting for the range of options now open to me and the rest of us. If only I could decide what my next step will be in the mirrorless arena.

We take photographs of our children for one main reason – to capture memories of the people we love. Images help us remember what they were like when they’re all grown up and living half a world away (like me – sorry, Mum).

Most of our memories get spun into stories – “Remember the time, when . . .?’ we ask each other, and the story we tell puts our loved one in context, as their actions reveal more about them.

And so while photos are a great way to trigger these stories, there are other techniques that can incorporate photos and also deepen the experience as well. Recently, I’ve been thinking more and more about different types of digital storytelling.

Just looking at individual photographs on our screens doesn’t fulfill all the potential current technology offers, and we don’t get a narrative flow that adds up to more of a story. Printed albums work because the images build on each other, and have a rhythm that is more rewarding for the person looking at them.

Digital productions with images, music, voiceovers and video can have a similar and even richer effect, and are becoming ever easier to do. There’s not even a good word for what these things are – slideshows, multimedia pieces . . . but whatever you call them, I’m becoming increasingly convinced they are a valuable tool.

A while ago, I produced this video of my daughter answering some questions, interspersed with some images. It was simple but I think it worked pretty well.

I’m still finding my way in producing these, but as another experiment, this time I went out with my daughter on an ‘explore’ in the arroyos and hillsides in our neighborhood. Where normally I might just grab the camera, shoot some stills and let them sit on my hard drive or post a few to Flickr for the family, this time I was intent on shooting some video as well as stills, and putting it together into a little package – that you can play above (if you haven’t already).

The video I shot is pretty ropey – the 5D Mark 2 produces excellent quality, but it’s only as good as the shaky-handed poor-focussing person holding it, but for something casual like this, I’m not too fussed. For real paying work I’d have it locked down on a tripod with a good microphone attached.

There are new skills to learn in creating this sort of work, of course. Some are technical – importing and editing video, dropping in music and stills – but the harder skills involve getting a sense for pacing and balance. How to tell a story well in this new medium.

But I can see plenty of uses for this approach – from children and family shoots, where you include some video too, through to commercial sessions, where you’re building a welcome video for the client’s site with some interview footage, music, video and stills.

Let me know your thoughts on this type of package, especially if you’ve tried it yourself. I’d love to see some good examples, too.

Attentive readers (hi, Mum), will perhaps recall that around this time last year, I tried out a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM  as a replacement for my able but unloved Canon 24-105 f/4 L.

The copy of the Sigma I received front-focussed badly, and since I had only the Canon 5D at the time as my main camera, I couldn’t use any micro-adjustments (even if that would have worked).

Sigma offered to calibrate the lens with that body, but I declined, as I wanted to it work on all the cameras I might potentially have, not just one. The lens went back.

With some regret, I must say, as I liked the feel and size of it (especially compared to the larger Canon 24-70 f/2.8 aka ‘the brick’), and liked some of the images I shot with it.

A year later, and I still had the 24-105mm largely gathering dust on the shelf, but now I also had a 5D Mk II to complement the older 5D. B & H had a (temporarily) good price on the Sigma ($799 instead of the usual $899 in the US), so I took the plunge again. And as this review shows, I’m glad I did.

This copy out of the box just worked. Sharp and fast, with none of the front focussing issues of the other copy. So why did I get it, when I’m normally such a proponent of prime lenses?

Studio-type work

Given my two-camera approach for paid sessions on location (a 35mm f/2 on one camera and and 85mm f/1.8 on the other), I wasn’t thinking of using this much on regular shoots.

But I might try it in place of the 35mm f/2, so I can go wider still – there’s a big difference between 24mm and 35mm (much more obvious than, say, the difference between 70mm and 81mm).

I can also see other professional uses for the lens, mainly in studio-type shooting. The times I have used the 24-105mm professionally have been school class photos (where I was shooting at f/8 and on a tripod), and the indoor portrait sessions, where I used off-camera flash. In other words, work in a controlled environment where the flexibility of the zoom was more important than narrow depth of field, and the lens was in its sweet spot as far as sharpness was concerned.

Soon after the Sigma arrived, I volunteered my time (with fellow photographers Minesh Bacrania, Charles Kiyanda and Henrik Sandin) to work on Santa Fe’s Help Portrait – we shot portraits for the growers, farm workers and vendors at the Santa Fe Farmers Market. We shot hundreds and hundreds of frames using the 24-70 in a studio-type setup with backfrops and off-camera flashes and it did really well.

Low-light walkaround

To me, wider aperture offered by the Sigma at f/2.8 was the single biggest reason for replacing the 24-105mm f/4 – to create the most useful walkaround lens when I’m only using one body. Unless I’m under the sort of circumstances described above, I live under f/4, partly for the narrow depth of field and partly for manageable shutter speeds indoors.

On a full-frame camera, the Sigma vignettes a little wide at f/2.8, but that’s easily correctable if you don’t like it, but otherwise it’s sharp, contrasty and fast to focus. I’ve not tested it myself, but from reviews the vignetting understandably isn’t such an issue on smaller sensor cameras.

See the vignette against the white wall on the left? Canon 5D II w. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM at 55mm. f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 800. Some levels and contrast adjustments - so the vignette wouldn't be so noticeable straight out of camera.

If I’m carrying one camera around, and want it to be more flexible than the Olympus EPL-2 and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 duo that’s almost always with me, then the 5dII with the Sigma 24-70mm is now my go-to choice.

Early (very early) on Christmas morning, that was the setup I grabbed to photograph Miss F opening her presents. I still adhere to the idea that if you’ve got 2 cameras to hand, a wide prime and a tighter prime offer the best combination for ultimate quality. But when you’re bleary-eyed and only want to have one camera around your neck, then this fast zoom really shines.

I could get the wide establishing shots, and the capture-the-details tighter images without any bother, all while blurring the background and keeping the shutter speed fast without jacking up the ISO too much.

Downsides

• While it’s lighter and shorter than the Canon 24-70 and has a lens hood you can turn round on the lens and still put the camera down, it’s still pretty chunky. To me, its size and weight are an advantage compared to its competitors, but it’s a lot more substantial than most primes.
• It’s not weather-sealed like the Canon L lenses, and it takes crazy wide 82mm filters, which you probably won’t have to hand from your other lenses.
•  I got a good copy this time, but had a dodgy one before. For this much money, you’d like Sigma to get the quality control right, so there’s no messing. So I’d recommend buying it locally or from someone with good returns policy so you can check it out well.

Upsides

•  Great image quality – sharp, with good contrast
•  F/2.8 for good low light and narrow depth of field options
•  Cheaper than the Canon alternatives
• Built like a tank (except for the weather sealing). So it will take a beating, just don’t take it out in a downpour or sandstorm.

Conclusion

I like this copy of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM . To the point where the Canon 24-105mm went off to eBay, and if you offered me the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM in its place, I don’t think I’d take it. Just make sure you get a good one.

As snow and cold weather embrace Santa Fe this week, how about a reminder of what a gorgeous autumn we had?

This shoot for Laura and Rick and their children Merrick and Milana took place on a lovely Sunday afternoon, and featured Merrick’s signature red hat.

Sometimes the ‘correct’ thing to do for the shoot – it’s easier to photograph someone when they’re not wearing a wide-brimmed hat – isn’t the right thing.

Merrick wears his hat all the time, its’ a part of what makes him hime right now, and that needed to be shown in the session (I also shot some without the hat).

The session went really well, and some of the images were made in a lovely accordion folding holiday card – see below.

A piece I wrote and photographed for New Mexico Magazine has appeared in the December issue – and getting the shots was a bit more intrepid than the work I normally do.

Back in March, I went up to a snowy field beside the Brazos Pass in northern New Mexico to talk to and photograph Stuart Penny, who teaches snowkiting – a fast-growing and exciting winter sport.

The snow was really deep – one step the crust on top would support you, but the next you’d be post-holing up to your crotch in the white stuff.

Stuart was teaching a class, and I hung out for a while watching him instruct his pupils on how to harness the wind to have them zooming across the the snow.

When the class was over, we talked about the sort of shots I wanted and how to get them. I wanted some wide establishing shots to show what the sport was about (both in landscape and portrait formats to give the designers options when it came to layout), some close-up portraits and then some shots of him in the air.

I’d not shot snowkiting before, so beforehand I’d checked online to see what other photographers were doing with it. This gave me a sense of some of the issues I’d face, and helped me visualize what I’d be looking for. One of the ideas I liked was getting the kiter in the air with the sun in the shot, too (shown here in the upper of my two beautiful sketches).

One question was that for the activity to make sense to people who’d not seen it before (like most of the New Mexico Magazine readers), I needed to show the ground, Stuart and the kite – shown in the lower of the two sketches.

Shots of him in the air without the ground or the kite would work well as supplementary images, but wouldn’t tell the whole story. I knew that this piece was likely to run only on one page (two if the images were good enough), so the establishing shots and portraits were the must-haves.

So with all this preparation, Stuart and I quickly came up with a plan. Based on the direction of the winds, he showed me how he’d go aways a little, turn around and then come straight at me. He said he’d stay on the ground for a couple of passes, before going round again and getting airborne.

‘I aim to go straight over your head,’ he said calmly. ‘I probably won’t hit you, but just in case, be ready to get out of the way quickly.’

This could be a problem, as running wasn’t an option. I figured if I had to, I could just fold myself over face down in the snow.

Stuart nailed his passes, and as he flew over my head I racked my 24-105mm lens as wide as I could and kept shooting (click on any of following images for a larger versions).

The snow acted as a great reflector throwing light up into his face, so even with the sun behind him, the images worked well.

Not a normal day at the office for me, but one I greatly enjoyed.

Here’s what that sketch of a snowkiter airborne with the sun turned into:

And I like this one with Stuart looking at us with snow coming off the back of his board.

And finally, the man on the ground:

The text of the article is here.

And you can learn more about Stuart on his site.

Shooting older children can be more tricky in some ways than, say, preschoolers – the older kids are more self-conscious and (wisely) more suspicious of a bloke with a funny accent showing up with a bag of cameras.

It’s my job to try and make people feel comfortable, which I do in a number of ways. Some of it is just personality, and I talk to children pretty much as I’d talk to adults, which seems to go down well whatever age they are. I also start slowly, learning a little more about the girl or boy, and assessing their temperament.

I tend to meet them where I find them – if they’re quiet and subdued, I’ll be quieter and smaller in my gestures and suggestions. If they’re energetic and full of beans, I’ll be running around with them in no time.

Here are some images from a shoot earlier this year, where the subject Heather (I’m not using her real name, at her parents’ request) tolerated me very graciously. She’s funny and open, and loves dogs – we got on well.

Shot in her yard in the early morning, we picked spots where the angled light would be attractive but not too harsh, and I used a reflector both to bounce light up into her face when she was backlit, or to diffuse some of the harsher light in other spots.

I got stains on the knees of my trousers from kneeling down to capture Heather playing with her dogs, but only an idiot wears light trousers to a photoshoot, so I got what I deserved.

I was talking to Heather throughout the whole shoot, and a couple of times she had this great look as she thought about the silly question I’d just asked her. I was very glad I caught it:

The dogs were friendly and keen to play, so I spent a little time getting their portraits too.

After seeing the photographs, Heather’s mum said, ‘you have a wonderful way of making people feel comfortable, especially children. [Heather] was very open with you and that was reflected in the photos.’

I couldn’t wish for better feedback.