HOME | DD

TomasClark — Michael

Published: 2014-02-21 01:28:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 1461; Favourites: 26; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description In the earlier days of my career I did a lot of work for Playgirl magazine, which then was only in print and not online. The editors always complained that my work was too artsy but they kept hiring me anyway and paid my day rate, which was pretty handsome even back then. One of my first big shoots was with this guy Michael who after two layouts with me went on to become Man of the Year and gave me my first cover. After our first shoot on location in Los Angeles the editors were going to have another photographer work with him but Michael said no, he'd only work with Tom. I love it when models do that. 


For this second outing Michael and I and my makeup artist all piled in my jeep and drove six hours up to the Kings River in the Sierras where we spent the better part of the day taking pictures and having fun. It was late in the summer and the water in the river was low so we were able to get right out into it and play. Here's the rub: I was shooting mostly with my Hasselblad in those days - a ten thousand dollar camera and lens that should never have been anywhere near the water. But oh well, I wanted to be out in the water with Michael so I waded in with my camera held tight against my chest and hoped that I wouldn't stumble on a rock and go under. For this particular shot I got up on a big rock in the middle of the river so that I could shoot down onto him; it worked and we spent a couple of hours out in the water working, playing and having the time of our lives. At one point I was standing chest deep in the water shooting straight across at Michael and thought to myself, wow, I'm getting paid a lot of money to do this. Life is good! I hope I don't fall in because I can't afford a new camera. 


I worked for Playgirl for several years and though it was a lot of fun at times there were other times when it was a pain in the butt. Erections were in one day and out the next as the magazine struggled to push the envelope without losing advertisers. As fate would have it, when erections were out I had guys who couldn't keep it down and when erections were in I had guys who couldn't get it up. Not a bad gig, you say. But honestly, battling the editors all the time took the joy out of it and I finally said thanks but no thanks and moved on. What was great during my tenure with the magazine was the access I had all the time to models, both male and female, who were open to doing nudes. I honed my craft while getting paid and had all the models I could have ever wanted for my fine art imagery. 


This image was shot with my Hasselblad on transparency film and scanned from the original slide. No post work has been done on the image at all. Can you see the difference?

Related content
Comments: 7

Andrew310 [2014-02-21 22:25:14 +0000 UTC]

That's an interesting point you raise about being able to perceive a difference in quality between a high-end film camera and a digital. Of course, we are looking at a digital scan of the film image, and viewing it at screen resolution so we can't truly make this comparison. Do you notice degradation between the original and the scan? Aside from all the other trade-off (no cost to take lots shots, ability to view them immediately, etc) do you find that shooting digital is somehow inferior to film?  The technology has come so far, that I wonder if we're beyond that debate, but my opinion is not nearly as informed as yours.

I think your work is amazing because of attention to fundamentals such as composition, light, and the mood created through a symbiotic photographer-model collaboration. Without that talent, the most expensive equipment would just produce expensive snapshots.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TomasClark In reply to Andrew310 [2014-02-23 16:33:51 +0000 UTC]

Yes, there is a certain amount of degradation through the process of scanning and reducing the resolution for screen viewing. But there is also an integrity in the tones, colors and gradations that remains strong, at least to my eyes. Digital has come so far it's crazy to contemplate it. But the fundamental difference, that digital has to interpret what it sees and film simply records what's there is still something I'm always aware of. I guess it's the heavily saturated look of digital that I struggle with since over a lifetime I've been accustomed to the presence of grain, which provides a delicacy and transition between tones that digital doesn't have. With grain there are negative spaces in between the crystals that haven't recorded light and those spaces of "nothingness" are what ultimately make film more appealing to me in terms of how the colors move from one to the next. 


I don't think digital is inferior - it's just very different. I love working with digital for many reasons and it's the de facto standard now for most of my work. This year I'm returning to B&W film for some of my work since I just can't seem to get what I want out of digital B&W. I don't mind the cost or the slowness of return if it means being able to get that stunning look of B&W film back into my imagery. I'm not a purist by any means - I just know what I like to see in my work and don't want to lose the integrity of what goes on in my mind's eyes. 


And you're so right - the most expensive camera in the world is only going to take snapshots if it's not in the hands of someone who understands light and exposure and knows what to do with the people in front of the camera. The symbiotic relationship between model and photographer that you speak of is far more important to me than any camera or lighting equipment. I buy the finest cameras I can afford because I need them to work without fail through years and years of use and abuse. I still have my Nikon F3 and Nikkor 105 1.8 lens that I bought thirty years ago and will begin using them once again this spring. If something is working for me I don't just automatically trade up to be able to say I have the latest and greatest. I like the old shoe comfort of cameras and lenses because I don't have to constantly be worrying about how to best use them. It's almost as if my mind and the camera have a life of their own - and that frees me up to concentrate on my models and how the light is falling upon them.  

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

thedreamismine [2014-02-21 16:18:48 +0000 UTC]

Great shot.  You have had an enviable career.

The Hasselblad of course is a top film camera. 
I wonder, now in the digital age, what you use; digital back for medium format camera, or high resolution full frame DSLR?
I am considering buying the Nikon D800, considered by some reviewers to have some qualities of medium format in a size and cost of a DSLR.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TomasClark In reply to thedreamismine [2014-02-23 16:39:13 +0000 UTC]

I also have my sights set on the D800 as I feel like it's the best choice for what I do. I'm returning to B&W film though and will be shooting with my vintage Nikon F3 and its companion lens, the Nikkor 108 1.8 because I'm just not happy with the look of digital B&W. When your eyes have been accustomed to a certain look in pictures over a period of many decades as mine have been, it's not an easy thing to just shift gears and go with something new. I'm always open to growing as a photographer and artist though and I've proven to myself that I was capable of making the shift from film to digital. Now I can go back and incorporate certain aspects of film into this new paradigm of digital. It's an interesting process and one that will likely never be over with for me. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

StevenSWM [2014-02-21 03:10:51 +0000 UTC]

You know, I remember him, I guess because the cover appealed to me, in that I always liked the distinctive look of the Chippendale dancers who wore a black bow tie and shirt cuffs on a bare upper body.  As I recall, quite vividly, Michael was shirtless and wearing a very Red Bow Tie!  And I remember he was, Man of the Year, around the middle to late eighties(???).  So, that was your cover...seems I've been liking your work long before I realized.  lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TomasClark In reply to StevenSWM [2014-02-21 03:57:08 +0000 UTC]

You've got a good memory! That was my first cover - Michael with the red bow tie with a black cumberband. I don't remember the year for sure although if I wasn't so lazy I could easily look it up. Mid to late 80s for sure. He was a dancer and did strip gigs for parties and events. Nicest, smiliest and happiest guy around Hollywood in those days. We honestly had a lot of happy times working together - he was just so easy and fun. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MarcoHerrera [2014-02-21 01:51:00 +0000 UTC]

It's great to hear the story behind the photograph..great shot indeed!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0