And old friend and veteran photographer once commented on "The Light" or "Luminosity" being a defining quality of good photography.
I think he is very right... but what do we mean by that? All photos have light, so what's the difference?
How do we define that quality of the light which makes some pictures stand out?
14 comments:
I think it has to do with the dynamics of light. In an ideal shot there's an equal distribution of different levels of luminosity. This gives the image a kind of presence.
Trying to fake it by manipulating the lightness curves of the image in post production does not give the same effect. This is because it can not mimic the radiosity effect of light, i.e. how lit surfaces reflect ambient light on to each other.
If light does not enhance the composition and intent of the photograph, it is wrong light.
Imagine a foggy, almost black and white picture with a backlight of bright light from one of those broze glass walls on some office picture. The composition would be muddled, even if the bridge was completely visible above the fog.
If you did not shift the focus to account for the bright object or use the bright building as visual counterweight to the bridge, which might make an award winning shot, you could lose the ability to make the viewer's eye track the way you wanted as they viewed the photo.
"The Light" or "Luminosity" being a defining quality of good photography....In an ideal shot there's an equal distribution of different levels of luminosity....the notion of "perfect" light...
IMO, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Brooks Jensen (publisher, Lenswork magazine) stated, "There is no good or bad light. There is just light.", which seems to go hand-in-hand with another of his statements, "Real photography begins when we let go of what we have been told is a good photograph and start photographing what we see."
IMO, most photographers have fallen victim to the notion of "perfect" light and it's twin sister, a print that maximizes the dynamic range of the medium. The result being a photographic world of "perfect" light.
The "real" world just doesn't work that way.
Right this moment, as I look out my window, I see a very low-contrast world - a very grey overcast day. One that my spot meter indicts is very "flat" with a very truncated dynamic range.
If I were inclined to photograph under such conditions, and my intent were to convey the "reality" of the day - both of which I do on a regular basis - then my print will have a truncated dynamic range and a look that would be described as "flat". A print that stands in opposition to Ansel Adams' much-venerated Zone System wherein every print must utilize the full dynamic range of the paper on which it is printed.
Sorry, but to my eye and sensibility, all that accomplishes is to create an homogeneous photographic world of "perfect" light.
There is no good or bad light. There is just light."
he is wrong. there are many differences. i'm surprized by his statement.
but i guess each has their own interpertations and wild imaginations.
I am disappointed.
I had followed this thread hoping for some light reading.
But this is, like, heavy, dude, you know?...
I see colors everywhere, and they're singing my name.
The "real" world just doesn't work that way.
nothing is ever as it appears.........
watch your back as you walk through shadows.
The comments on this blog recently are getting *scary* weird.
"watch your back as you walk through shadows."
Alas, a contortionist hemeralope I am not! To do that I'd need a lamp and mirror, at least. (Oh, and maybe a GPS...)
Eolake asked...
How do we define that quality of the light which makes some pictures stand out?
What pictures?
Can you give us an example(s)?
That's a very reasonable question.
I'll try, but I think that for us to perceive the subtle quality I'm searching, it would need to be dozens of examples, and preferably prints.
The comments on this blog recently are getting *scary* weird.
Lighten up old chap, it's only mere harmless fun. You can come out from beneath the covers now :)
Yours Truly,
King Zod
Don't trust him! I know King Zod's reputation for supreme sneakiness. He used that same comforting ruse to conquer planet Tarania in Galactic year 12,307,821!
Um... or was that Emperor Zurg?
Never mind. My mistake.
Pascal said...
Don't trust him! I know King Zod's reputation for supreme sneakiness. He used that same comforting ruse to conquer planet Tarania in Galactic year 12,307,821!
Um... or was that Emperor Zurg?
Never mind. My mistake.
That's too funny! Very good Pascal, you brought a laugh here. Honest. Ever thought about replacing Steve Martin or Jim Carey? I think you'd do well!
Say, that's not the first time I make a new friend and in a short time he compares me to Jim Carrey. :-)
Fear not, my good man. I intend to write books, in my same style: deep ideas with as much fun as possible. Harry Potter, hang on to your wand! I mean, broomstick! I mean, sneakoscope! I mean... Oh well, let's just say I DON'T mean a dirty pun, and let's leave it to that.
You're wondering what the books'll look like? Well, partly very much like Harry Potter, and partly the exact opposite.
I hope this made things clearer...
Post a Comment