photography is about photographing the light

[Vaughn]

Light is only half the equation - a photograph is as much about TIME as it is about light...

Excellent point, though in my own work I would weigh time as much less than half of the equation, but still an important part. Most of my exposures under the redwoods are in minutes rather than fractions of a second...or even whole seconds...and this contributes to the feel/impact of the images.

And I appreciate blockend's magical statement.

The viewer does decide what the image/print is all about, but it is the role of the artist to guide the viewer to that conclusion.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Excellent point, though in my own work I would weigh time as much less than half of the equation, but still an important part. Most of my exposures under the redwoods are in minutes rather than fractions of a second...or even whole seconds...and this contributes to the feel/impact of the images.

And I appreciate blockend's magical statement.

The viewer does decide what the image/print is all about, but it is the role of the artist to guide the viewer to that conclusion.

Obviously a photograph wouldn't exist without the visual component, so light has to be first. I think we (collectively as photographers) tend to underplay the importance of time. It's still a critical component (it is literally half of the exposure), but we have a bad habit of thinking of time as not really a factor unless it is extremely long or extremely short (solargraphs of the course of the sun for a year, or Edgerton's frozen bullet).

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I've found photography to be rather malleable. It's about what is in front of the lens and bouncing around in my head at any given time. Although I've an affection for foggy misty colorful landscapes and dogs.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Since I became more interested in photography as a medium of expression rather than documentation, I have concluded that each photograph is unique and is treated slightly differently.
What we want to say with each photograph is different, what we make an exposure of is different. It seems terribly constrictive and simplistic to try to boil it down to one single characteristic. It begs the question: What does a person hope to achieve by making such a statement? What stands to be gained from it?

Fact: every time you make an exposure, you do in that instant summarize all of your knowledge of photography and experience with the medium. You make a decision of how to execute that particular frame based on all that experience. Add to that the particular thoughts you had about what's in front of your lens, and what you're trying to express, which is a different idea every time. Essentially you photograph the essence of all of those things.

Light, and the absence of it, makes all of that possible. But so does the oxygen in the air that you breathe, the engineering skills of the person who designed your lens and shutter, the person who engineered the film emulsion you're using at this time, and you skills in processing the film in your darkroom to turn photons into something useful. Etc. ad nauseum.

 

[pdeeh]

Mostly, for me, photography is about photographing the trees.
light goes far too fast for my tastes. I prefer more sessile things at which to point my camera

 

[Vaughn]

Another way of thinking about photography is that no one directly sees an object, landscape, person, or whatever. We only sense objects via our sight indirectly by the light reflecting off of those objects. So one is only photographing light. Capturing an object's, place's or person's essense is where the art comes in, at least in the way I work.

 

[Saganich]

The main point I think is if there were a hierarchy of the most important factors involved in a well crafted photograph light would be sharing the top spot. Personally I find it difficult to take a photograph unless I'm first attracted by light conditions. More than anything else lighting seems to connect with my emotional state; whether I'm trying to flee from a high noon summer sun or basking in the glow of an October sunset on an ocean beach or concerned about the sudden darkened sky before a storm, or amazed by the unearthly glow when the sun dips down below a thick cloud cover. Summer, spring, winter, fall, everything looks different hour by hour, day after day, year after year and it isn't enough just to notice (as most people don't) but to use it well to ones own ends in composition is akin to getting a good buzz on with friends. Being a frequent traveler between San Diego and San Francisco I know that this isn't so much the case on the west coast where the light is less affected by atmospheric conditions and therefor more consistent and predictable. Where I live there is a small window of perfection that is capricious and rare.

 

[dpurdy]

I think if you can convey a quality of light it will make most any photograph more powerful. Once you decide to make a photograph of something the next concern is the light... assuming the next concern is not wind or sharpness. Conveying the quality of light can make a viewer have a much greater sense of feeling the image. I have seen a lot of interesting compositions be blase' because there was no sense of light.

 

[removed account4]

i have spent most of my time photographing things in flat light, overcast days no harsh shadows
and always wanted to convey the sense of who the person was i was photographing, or give a sense of place
or let the building / site &c breathe, not so much use the light as a way of conveying these ideas.
when i wrote the original post in this thread i looked out through the trees across the amtrack rail to the bay
and it gave me a whole different perspective about things. i saw the darkness and haze of the thick stand of pine trees
on the other side of the bay, the houses on the coast and the foreground nearly vanished and all i saw was
the bay, some of it murky, some of it engulfed in shadow, some twinkling like a stary night, and some of it reflecting the sun so intensely that if i could have photographed it
it would have been such a graphic image, almost a photogram ... sometimes it is hard to see the forest through the trees
and understand what people mean when they say stuff, especially when they are talking almost poetically, or trying to explain
a concept they understand but can't put into words, and for the brief IDK 7 seconds i saw the bay like that, i sort of understood
what people meant when they say " i photograph the light" because most of the time, as i have mentioned, i did my best to NOT
photograph dramatic light, i tried to not photograph stark and deep shadows but some sort of other way.
i've thought about that drive a lot, and while that scene is something i can photograph if i want, almost any morning, i sometimes just drive by, or i just think about it, and it sometimes
reminds me that there are other things i can do when i am doing other things ...
thanks for the posts in this long thread, i'm glad it was dug up the other day, its been a nice read !

 

[Vaughn]

And thanks for starting this thread! It is good to get one's ideas out of one's brain and in front of others -- it helps to distill them. Light does not have to be 'dramatic', tho that sort of light does attract people.
Prairie Creek, Fog 5x7 negative, carbon print

 

[LAG]

Excuse me

So why is it that Photography and Photograph are mixed when defined? and why is it that B&W and Colour are decoupled from light? I simply cannot go along with this view

 

[frank]

i have spent most of my time photographing things in flat light, overcast days no harsh shadows

Even this is a quality of light.

 

[removed account4]

Even this is a quality of light.

yeah ... but it isn't dramatic, or anything special, it is just bland flat, illuminating almost forgotten about ... light.
no magical "god-light" rays descending from the clouds, no sparkle or glare .. its just... there.
( but i know what you mean ... )

 

[MattKing]

yeah ... but it isn't dramatic, or anything special, it is just bland flat, illuminating almost forgotten about ... light.
no magical "god-light" rays descending from the clouds, no sparkle or glare .. its just... there.
( but i know what you mean ... )

Actually, it is very special.

It is mercilessly revealing light.

It is light that demands that your subject speak for itself.

And it is light that reveals true colour.

Richard Avedon and "In the American West" comes to mind as being close:

 

[LAG]

... View attachment 164763

...
View attachment 164923

By the way, both lovely!

 

[Vaughn]

This discussion encouraged me to get out this morning and photograph the incredible light along the river, walking distance from home -- heavy fog with occasional faint disk of the sun showing. TMax 400 in the Minolta TLR. No pod (most exposures at f11 at 1/100), but might take one out with me next time. Already have my two developing tanks loaded with 4 rolls of Tri-X (from the eastside Sierras), so it will be awhile before I get around to developing this mornings work. All film will be processed for platinum printing.

 

[removed account4]

i have this thread in mind every time i use a camera these days
albeit , the camera i am using is a box camera .. or a modified box
i still think about the light, and wish that i can sometime photograph into
the sun and capture the glare on the water near me, which would be pure white at times
but the sun is always there. the more i look without a camera the more i see the light, most definitely ...

 

[tedr1]

Is this an appropriate moment to repeat Dorothea Lange's famous statement?: "a camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Avedon used a white sheet in a tent with a bunch of assistant and props, just like a portable studio, and then posed his shots for shock effect anyway, so might have well stayed in NYC to begin with, where he belonged. So, did he know how to use light, yes. Did he learn how to perceive
the light in the West, as he traveled with his premeditated agenda? Never. Therefore a waste of effort. In other words, to me, it's all about slowing
down and experiencing the light itself, soaking in it, appreciating it for what it is. Actually seeing. And just maybe someday you'll be able to take
a picture about something other than a stereotype.

 

[removed account4]

Is this an appropriate moment to repeat Dorothea Lange's famous statement?: "a camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera"

i photograph without my camera all the time,
and with my camera ( with no film ) all the time ..
its good advice. without the eyes seeing you can't see anything but
clutter and stuff

 

[pdeeh]

I bumped into a friend the other day whom I had not seen for a while, and I mentioned that I wasn't doing much snapping at the moment.

Her comment was, "Yes, but you're still looking and seeing aren't you." (it wasn't a question )

 

[DREW WILEY]

There has been quite a few times when I've taken the effort to lug a heavy pack with view camera gear way back into the mountains, and have even
had the camera all set up on a tripod ready to shoot, anticipating the evening, but not even bothered to remove the darkslide and press the shutter
because I didn't want my personal experience of the light interrupted for even a single minute. I have forfeited some pretty stunning sunset shots
that way. But there will always be another photograph, while you only get one opportunity at life itself. The hunt is more important than the kill;
so even from the photographic aspect, it's a deep intuitive knowledge of your game that will ultimately land you the prize. But if you approach it with
a commercial mentality, seeking a marketable stereotype, that's what you'll come away with - just another commodity.

 

[Vaughn]

Is this an appropriate moment to repeat Dorothea Lange's famous statement?: "a camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera"

Which begs the question, "If one has learned how to see, would one need to ever pick up a camera again?"

 

[baachitraka]

Yeah. To show what she/he have seen to the world.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes Vaughn, picking up that camera forces you to look at something discretely, and then ATTEMPTING to print it, especially in color, makes you realize just how much better your eyes are than camera and film, or anything else for that matter. Any decent watercolorist can mix complex hues in under a minute that would elude an inkjet master for decades. That's why we have to relearn the world the way film and papers see us, and not just ourselves. Bigger cameras help because they slow you down. Afterwards, one starts using a smaller more spontaneous camera in a different manner.
It's a lot different, I suppose, when a person like me has grown up in an outdoor environment without the distractions of TV, much less modern
computer nonsense, and watching the light was still a very big part of life, just like it was for ancient desert dwellers and Australian aborigines.
Quality looking takes quality time.