What photography is about.

Great Bustard · Mar 10, 2012

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

CharlesB58 said:

Photo=light
Graphos=write

Photography literally means writing with light. Effective photography is often about the use of light and shadow.

Click to expand...

Of course, no light, no photo. But some photographers go to great pains to create their own light for the scene, whereas other photographers simply use the light that exists.

More often than not, for available light photography, the photo is not about the use of light and shadow, but about the scene itself.

Click to expand...

This can depend on the subject itself, don't you think?

Absolutely!

CharlesB58 said:
Take my shot of the stair rail. The "subject" as most people consider the photo would be the railing. But would that photo be worth a look if it didn't have the pattern of light and shadow on the wall, mirroring in effect the railing itself?

No argument whatsoever.

CharlesB58 said:
Conversely, we can consider concert photography. In most such images, capturing the artist in a way that evokes a sense of "being there" can more important than the lighting itself. Still, a concert shot which also masterfully uses light and shadow can rise above the run of the mill shots.

Indeed, lighting is can be a crucial element to the success of a photo. That said, often it is irrelevant.

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

I disagree. Of course light and shadow are often important considerations, but they are not the make-break point for the success of a photo.

Click to expand...

Aren't they?

Often, no, they are not.

CharlesB58 said:
If we agree that photography is "painting with light" than how can we not consider light and shadow equally important to the success of the photo as the subject? If they weren't, it could be argued that all photos simply need be taken with full on lighting, or flash, and as long as the subject is captured, it's a successful.

Not that lighting doesn't play a role -- of course it always does -- just not always (or even usually) the primary role.

CharlesB58 said:
Of course, we must decide what we mean by "successful" and whether we want to go beyond that defined success and strive for "masterful".

I'm sure you're aware of the quote by Vernon Trent:

Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light… I just take pictures…

CharlesB58 said:
Example: Anyone can walk into Wal-Mart and for a relatively low fee end up with very successful portraits. A lot of people do. As a photographer, I have to decide, for myself, whether a Wal-Mart style portrait is successful for me and my goals . Or, do I strive to make more effective use of light and shadow produce portraits that seek to match what older masters such as Halsman, Karsh or Burrell, or contemporary masters such as Lebovitz, Kelko or Sharp produce?

Or maybe even carve out your own unique style.

CharlesB58 said:
So, "success" can be a very subjective thing when it comes to any given photograph.

I take that as a given.

CharlesB58 said:
Ok I'm speaking strictly from my personal preference and style.

As do we all, but it's really important to distinguish between our opinions on what we like and don't like as opposed to lofty generalizations about photography as a whole.

CharlesB58 said:
If I had taken these two photos, I personally would feel the first one...

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 2.8, 1/320, ISO 100

Click to expand...

CharlesB58 said:
...is more "successful" inasmuch as I have a strong inclination toward light and shadow as it defines the subject, just as you have done.

Not that I would consider the second photo...

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/5.6, 1/8, ISO 100

Click to expand...

CharlesB58 said:
...a "failure". Rather, I would convert it to monochrome and do some contrast adjustment. That is strictly my personal interpretation of the scene, and not meant to judge the success of the photograph according to your personal interpretation of the scene.

The fact is, these are two very different photos, both stylistically and as far as "genre" is concerned. Of course, discussion of success relative to style and genre is a whole new set of threads themselves.

Naturally, I disagree, but I'll save that for...

CharlesB58 said:
Oh and GB, I also have in mind a thread on people as subjects, emphasizing a very different aspect of success, just as your two examples demonstrate.

...your next thread.

Great Bustard · Mar 10, 2012

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

The list goes on and on. In the end, the vision of the photographer, and their skills in processing, almost invariably outweigh the differences in tech. But there are circumstances where the tech plays a central role, and the photographer finds themselves limited by their equipment, and needs more.

However, as you note, this is less often the case than the "gearhead" just substituting photos with high quality in place of high quality photos.

So, absolutely, the photographer first and foremost in most situations, and the cabability of the gear needs to be considered in not only that context, but the context of the display media of the photo (who needs 36 MP when their photos are only going to be displayed on the web?).

Context, as always, is key.

Click to expand...

The thing about discussing gear is that it can be quantified subjectively, and is also a way to externalize shortcomings of photos. "Oh, my photos aren't as good as they could be because of the shortcomings of my gear..."

Ok, this can be true-in context. Certainly, quality gear can help augment existing skills, and in some cases provide capabilities beyond someone's current gear.

While it's certainly true that better gear could lead to a better photo, that doesn't mean you can use your gear as an excuse. For example, my 5Dc has a DR of 11 stops. Let's say I take a pic that has noisy shadows or blown highlights, and those are distractions in the photo.

I could blame the camera for it's limited DR, or I could blame myself for being too lazy to shoot multiple exposures and merge in post.

In other words, often it's not so much that better equipment can get a shot that lesser equipment can't, but rather that better equipment simply makes getting the shot more convenient .

CharlesB58 said:
Call me an old fart, but I tend to think in terms of how many great photos have inspired me which were taken with manual exposure, manual focus cameras . Sometimes the photos were luck. But most of the time it was the photographer rising above what are only now considered limitations of his gear.

I think what the best photographers do is first hone, expand and improve their understanding of light, shadow, color, timing etc., then start selecting gear that best matches their desires to fulfill their vision.

Yes, master photographers will think in terms of exposure, DR, focus and DOF, color fidelity et al. and how well their gear fulfills their expectations in that regard. But they don't think of those as the deciding aspects of the quality of the photo. Rather, they think of those things as the tools used to bring what they see-the light, shadow, form and color of the scene-from their minds onto a medium of reproduction such as a computer monitor or print.

Image quality is only one aspect of a quality image, and how much the technical elements of IQ matter in any given photo depends tremendously upon the scene.

My favorite example is this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39831113

where the photographer presents two photos of the same scene, one very noisy (low IQ) and one very clean (high IQ). Neither is "better" than the other, but are instead simply different .

The advantage of having equipment that delivers higher IQ than other equipment is that it gives you more IQ options . But that doesn't mean that it necessarily results in "better" photos.

John Iversen · Mar 10, 2012

If I think about it, a lot of my decisions about an image have to do with "big" light or "small" light . . . & then it drives the image from there.

"Big" light (The Worker);

"Small" light (The Seashell);

Not exactly high photographic technique, I know, but digital to my way of thinking is even worse than the film days for getting lost in the technical minutiae.

Salskov
--

There is no such animal as a “dead system” – despite what the best efforts of Marketing would have you believe.. That there are many photographers whose opinions would render any extant system obsolete is without dispute, and indispensable to the bottom line of present day camera manufacturers.

Great Bustard · Mar 10, 2012

John Iversen said:
If I think about it, a lot of my decisions about an image have to do with "big" light or "small" light . . . & then it drives the image from there.

Interesting notion -- "big light" vs "small light", but am not sure how the relationships "big" and "small" refer to the light. I get the feeling that by "big light" you mean a scene where lighting is forefront throughout the scene, and by "small light" you mean hihglighting a contrast by use of light

John Iversen said:
"Big" light (The Worker);

"Small" light (The Seashell);

Simply outstanding photos!

If I read you right, then this would be an example of "big light":

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/15, ISO 100

and this would be an example of "small light":

Canon 5D + 50mm / 1.4 @ f / 1.4, 1/60, ISO 1600

John Iversen said:
Not exactly high photographic technique, I know, but digital to my way of thinking is even worse than the film days for getting lost in the technical minutiae.

Honestly, as much as I enjoy discussing the technical, I never get "lost" in it. I simply use my equipment to get the best photo I can. Most of my photography lies in recognizing a scene that is "interesting enough" to be worth taking a photo of in the first place, successfully capturing the scene, and then processing the photo to reflect why I bothered to take it in the first place.

CharlesB58 · Mar 10, 2012

Great Bustard said:
Or maybe even carve out your own unique style.

GB, we have a certain degree of agreement in all points here: I think differences are more a matter of priority and semantics.

On this one statement, I will say that this is what I am working toward. I look at photos, and, if they are studio shots or obviously lit using artificial or supplemental lighting, I try to determine the set up. I don't want to duplicate styles. However, I do seek to emulate certain styles as a learning experience.

As an aside, this is why sometimes I'm a bit taken aback by people who seem to liken themselves as expert or serious photographers, but are unfamiliar with acknowledged masters (other than a nodding familiarity with Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson).

A musician cannot truly develop his or her talents fully without listening to as greatest number and variety possible of those who have already reached a point of mastery. Listening to masters not only provides example, but also inspires and even invigorates the imagination. I've listened to masters of various instruments and thought "Wow, I didn't know you could do that!".

I think the same is true of photography. We can look at photos by masters and discover techniques, interpretation and stylistic elements we may not discover on our own.

Of course, personal style can be problematic, depending on the subject. It's always the great challenge of photography to produce effective photos (which engage the attention of viewers and get them involved in the process of interpreting the image) and maintain a personal style. There are a lot of people producing photos that have a unique style, but are only appreciated by the photographer. While that's fine, my goal is to produce photographs that help accomplish specific goals. So effective for me goes beyond whether I personally feel the photo works.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

CharlesB58 · Mar 10, 2012

Great Bustard said:
John Iversen said:

If I think about it, a lot of my decisions about an image have to do with "big" light or "small" light . . . & then it drives the image from there.

Click to expand...

Interesting notion -- "big light" vs "small light", but am not sure how the relationships "big" and "small" refer to the light. I get the feeling that by "big light" you mean a scene where lighting is forefront throughout the scene, and by "small light" you mean hihglighting a contrast by use of light

My take on this is he means the standard idea of large light source or small light source. Contrast can be a direct result of this. In 30+ years of involvement with photography, I've regularly seen people become frustrated about their photos simply because they've never learned this basic concept.

Every time I see portraits taken in direct sun, without the use of reflectors, diffusers or even fill flash, I shudder... LOL

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Great Bustard · Mar 10, 2012

CharlesB58 said:
CharlesB58 said:

Or maybe even carve out your own unique style.

Click to expand...

GB, we have a certain degree of agreement in all points here: I think differences are more a matter of priority and semantics.

On this one statement, I will say that this is what I am working toward. I look at photos, and, if they are studio shots or obviously lit using artificial or supplemental lighting, I try to determine the set up. I don't want to duplicate styles. However, I do seek to emulate certain styles as a learning experience.

As an aside, this is why sometimes I'm a bit taken aback by people who seem to liken themselves as expert or serious photographers, but are unfamiliar with acknowledged masters (other than a nodding familiarity with Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson).

A musician cannot truly develop his or her talents fully without listening to as greatest number and variety possible of those who have already reached a point of mastery. Listening to masters not only provides example, but also inspires and even invigorates the imagination. I've listened to masters of various instruments and thought "Wow, I didn't know you could do that!".

I think the same is true of photography. We can look at photos by masters and discover techniques, interpretation and stylistic elements we may not discover on our own.

Of course, personal style can be problematic, depending on the subject. It's always the great challenge of photography to produce effective photos (which engage the attention of viewers and get them involved in the process of interpreting the image) and maintain a personal style. There are a lot of people producing photos that have a unique style, but are only appreciated by the photographer. While that's fine, my goal is to produce photographs that help accomplish specific goals. So effective for me goes beyond whether I personally feel the photo works.

Fortunately for me, I am my own target audience. That's not to say that I don't enjoy when other people like my photos, but the bottom line is that pleasing others is not my goal (painfully obvious when taken in a larger context, is it not?).

That said, often then input of others is important to me. For example, when you commented on the distracting contrail in my pic. While in that particular case it was something I was going to address, there have been numerous times when people pointed out something like that which I had not noticed, and I was grateful to them for pointing it out.

However, more often than not (and by a large margin), I disagree with criticisms leveled against my photos. Not that I'm right and they're wrong, but instead that my tastes are different than theirs, and, for my photography, it is me, not they, who is judge, jury, and executioner. Not all photographers have this luxury, as they must answer to the tastes of others.

I mean, that's not to say that I haven't taken photos specifically for others, but they asked me to take the photos because they liked my photos, not because they had some any "special requirements".

Ah, well, yes, there are so many ways to look at photography. People always seem to misinterpret my shallow DOF photos as some sort of demonstration that shallow DOF is "better", when, in fact, it's simply that shallow DOF photography appeals to me.

Great Bustard · Mar 10, 2012

CharlesB58 said:
Great Bustard said:

John Iversen said:

If I think about it, a lot of my decisions about an image have to do with "big" light or "small" light . . . & then it drives the image from there.

Click to expand...

Interesting notion -- "big light" vs "small light", but am not sure how the relationships "big" and "small" refer to the light. I get the feeling that by "big light" you mean a scene where lighting is forefront throughout the scene, and by "small light" you mean hihglighting a contrast by use of light

Click to expand...

My take on this is he means the standard idea of large light source or small light source.

Ah.

CharlesB58 said:
Contrast can be a direct result of this. In 30+ years of involvement with photography, I've regularly seen people become frustrated about their photos simply because they've never learned this basic concept.

Every time I see portraits taken in direct sun, without the use of reflectors, diffusers or even fill flash, I shudder... LOL

I guess this goes back to the equipment making it more convenient for the photographer. For example, having a large DR to work with allows for adjustments in post that will have the same (or similar) effect.

Ah, here we are -- an example of me making you shudder:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/6400, ISO 100

CharlesB58 · Mar 10, 2012

Great Bustard said:
However, more often than not (and by a large margin), I disagree with criticisms leveled against my photos. Not that I'm right and they're wrong, but instead that my tastes are different than theirs, and, for my photography, it is me, not they, who is judge, jury, and executioner. Not all photographers have this luxury, as they must answer to the tastes of others.

This is the way it should be.

The key to personal success in photography is to take the full body of knowledge, training and experience one has and engage all of it in producing an image that satisfies one's personal goal.

The key to professional success in photography is doing the same thing for the client.

The jackpot comes when a pro can sell clients on his personal style, and so make a living off doing what he would be doing for free anyway.

That is in essence what those who practice and make a living from the esoteric and sometimes mysterious art of "Fine Art Photography" do all the time.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

John Iversen · Mar 10, 2012

Perhaps this is oversimplifying (however Thoreau did advise us to "simplify, simplify, simplify") but I think of "big" light as light which straightaway defines the context of the image, and "small" light as the context of the image defining the quality and/or usage of light.

And this isn't a parlor game with words, but something which immediately strikes me when I see a potential image.

Salskov
--

There is no such animal as a “dead system” – despite what the best efforts of Marketing would have you believe.. That there are many photographers whose opinions would render any extant system obsolete is without dispute, and indispensable to the bottom line of present day camera manufacturers.

BabuRick · Mar 11, 2012

Thanks for starting a great thread - both the original post and responses to it.

It inspired me to take this one this morning. I was trying out a new s/hand lens (or perhaps I shouldn't mention that in this thread

)

mujana · Mar 11, 2012

Nice shots Charles...I especially like the third one!
Few of mine..hope you enjoy.

mujana · Mar 11, 2012

Nice thread...ok...just 3 more.
Thnxs

ROC124 · Mar 11, 2012

Excellent images; I especially enjoy the first one.
--
Bob Cole
http://www.robertcolephotography.com

Mark Chan · Mar 11, 2012

Roel ,

fantastic shot of that couple!

RoelHendrickx · Mar 12, 2012

Thanks for your appreciation, in particular for the photo with the "unexpected" shadow.

Actually, I posted that one in a thread under the title "The Shadow Knows" because the scene as it presented itself, reminded me of those Sergio Aragones cartoons in Mad Magazine, in which the shadows tells more about the people.
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Search

What photography is about.

Great Bustard

Forum Pro

Great Bustard

Forum Pro

John Iversen

Leading Member

Great Bustard

Forum Pro

CharlesB58

Forum Pro

CharlesB58

Forum Pro

Great Bustard

Forum Pro

Great Bustard

Forum Pro

CharlesB58

Forum Pro

John Iversen

Leading Member

BabuRick

Senior Member

mujana

Forum Pro

mujana

Forum Pro

ROC124

Leading Member

Mark Chan

Senior Member

RoelHendrickx

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts