So, If it really is About the LIght...

[Foto Ludens]

That's why I'll never be a pro: I like to shoot what I like to shoot, and I don't like to be told what to shoot.

Same here....

This thread is really a great argument for analog photography, especially with older gear. If I'm out in the woods on a wet, sloppy day, and I dropped my Minolta Autocord, I'd hate it. But I would shrug, say "Oh well", and go get another one for $100.00. Can't say that about a D1 rig!

Same here as well....

 

[photomc]

Thanks for your input ... all of you, Doug - I have read some of your previous post and think I understand what you are looking for. Here in N. Texas there are times in the late afternoon/evening starting around this time of year (end of Aug) that the light becomes special - I have also seen this light in parts of the Western states..it is hard for me to describe to anyone that has not seen it..kind of like trying to explain how the sky out West is Bigger..you almost have to see it for yourself.

Now, my travels have been limited to the US for the most part and while light is light, there are times when it is special. Thomas/David - I think you have given me enough reason to pick a local scene I like, and work with it with detailed notes on exposure, time of day, light conditions etc. Now, seems like it would be a good practice anyhow - my field notes are pretty bad (when I do them).

Cheryl, your comments are interesting as well...

 

[bjorke]

It's Rarely About the Light

Light is simply a part of CONTENT. Experience helps you be aware of the light, to plan or manipulate light, but when the subject becomes light itself, or is overwhelmed by lighting choices, then you're in real danger of being constrained by an overly-narrow set of mannerisms, of erasing genuine content in the interest of preconceived aesthetics.

IMO (of course) the great beauty of photography is in its ability to quickly record exhaustive detail. Lighting becomes part of that. In a photograph, EVERYTHING has the potential for meaning -- no part of the frame is neutral. So light, as part of what will be captured, cannot be entirely ignored. But too often it is used as a glossy polish on old shoes.

 

[Francesco]

There is nothing more satisfying that finding something ordinary with the right light that makes it radiate, shine, glow, etc.. Right place at the right time is all well and good but being quick to unfold the 8x10 and set up the shot is just as important. Gotta be quick!

 

[Donald Miller]

I think that a great deal depends on what one is photographing. Certainly I would not typically attempt portraiture in harsh midday lighting. Nor would I attempt to photograph abstractions based in line, form, light and shadow in the soft early or late light.

It was interesting to me that as I viewed Michael Smith's and Paula Chamlee's images, several months ago, how many worked because they were exposed in very high contrast lighting.

Let's face it, in most cases, high contrast lighting conditions not only affect overall contrast but local contrast as well. Local contrast gives the glow to a photograph.

 

[roteague]

Thanks for your input ... all of you, Doug - I have read some of your previous post and think I understand what you are looking for. Here in N. Texas there are times in the late afternoon/evening starting around this time of year

Did you know that in Australia you can leave Texas, drive south and be in New England a short time later? True, Texas is a small town on the Queensland/New South Wales border and New England is a region just north of Tamworth (Country Music capitol of Australia). Just a little triva for your day.

 

[photomc]

There is nothing more satisfying that finding something ordinary with the right light that makes it radiate, shine, glow, etc.. Right place at the right time is all well and good but being quick to unfold the 8x10 and set up the shot is just as important. Gotta be quick!

Francesco, that would be very true..your image of the interior with smoke and of course the most famous example - AA Moonrise are proof enough of know your equipment and reading the situation (my take is reading the light) before the moment is gone.

However, I think there is the time that must be spent BEFORE those images that the process of learning takes place. You have to know how your tools will respond (read film/exposure) that allows these wonderful images to be made. For many on this site, I think your skills are at a point where you do not think so much about these things, where some of us still lack the skill/knowledge to take what we know to the next level. That is what you give to those of us that are still trying..it can happen, it just takes work, there are NO special formulas, developers, papers, or equipment. But if we spend a lot of time reading how such and such an image is made it helps, but only to a point - I guess we all need our failures, without them we can't know what we did wrong or what we DID do right when we get the image we were after.

Thanks to everyone, this was everything I expected from the members of this site...maybe the staff at that new publication - Emulsion, will notice what went on here...sounds like it would make a very good article. Seems like most aritcles just don't have the meat that is needed and most books still don't cover the subject that well.

 

[photomc]

Did you know that in Australia you can leave Texas, drive south and be in New England a short time later? True, Texas is a small town on the Queensland/New South Wales border and New England is a region just north of Tamworth (Country Music capitol of Australia). Just a little triva for your day.

Now that is good trivia, of course I can drive from Paris to Rhome, then visit Italy and Venus...glad to see that fun names show up in many places...of course for then there is Trukey, Texas and POST...yeah, the same guy that brought us Grapenuts.....

 

[photomc]

It was interesting to me that as I viewed Michael Smith's and Paula Chamlee's images, several months ago, how many worked because they were exposed in very high contrast lighting.

Let's face it, in most cases, high contrast lighting conditions not only affect overall contrast but local contrast as well. Local contrast gives the glow to a photograph.

Hello Donald, glad to see your thoughts on this, as always good input. Your comment about local contrast giving the glow was something I had not considered. Will have to pay more attention the next time I view prints in person.

 

[c6h6o3]

It was interesting to me that as I viewed Michael Smith's and Paula Chamlee's images, several months ago, how many worked because they were exposed in very high contrast lighting.

One of my favorites of hers was made in Maine with only two zones of contrast. She expanded it in development something like +3. The print is stunning.

Light is to photography as sound waves are to music - signals which make possible the apprehension of the artist's finished product. You don't need high contrast lighting to make beautiful photographs any more than you need loud sounds to make beautiful music. Photography is about the space. It has nothing to do with the subject or the quality of the light reflected off of the subject.

 

[Francesco]

Photography is about the space. It has nothing to do with the subject or the quality of the light reflected off of the subject.

IMO, this means it has to do with both.

 

[Flotsam]

My curse is that whenever I run across a scene or an immovable object that would make a nice photograph, the Sun is _always_ in the wrong position. If it is obvious that the light would strike it perfectly in the afternoon, you can bet that I am there in the morning and vice versa. One of my first posts to APUG , (Way, way back when I was a mere lad ) was to ask if anyone knew of a calculator or program that would allow me to plot the position of the sun so that I could determine the right time to return to a spot when the light would be as I wanted it. Aside from that, some scenes benefit with a dramatic sky full of clouds some in overcast, some with leaves on the trees (that's where I am in Winter) some with bare branches (me... Summer). I'm always in exactly the right photographic place at exactly the wrong photographic time.
When I find a good subject under bad conditions, which as I say is mostly often, I might take a couple of snaps, but I just file it away for a return when the conditions are right. Some of my best shots are ones that I had to return to at least once, usually more.

And then there are those times when you walk out the door look up, and the light is so unique and beautiful that you are desparate to find something to photograph. It's good to have a mental card file of reachable places at the ready.

 

[Doug Bennett]

Bjorke wrote:

So light, as part of what will be captured, cannot be entirely ignored. But too often it is used as a glossy polish on old shoes.

You make that sound like a bad thing. But aren't all the shoes old?

Francesco said:

There is nothing more satisfying that finding something ordinary with the right light that makes it radiate, shine, glow, etc..

With rare exceptions, the content is derivative, it's been done to death. Waterfalls, old buildings, quirky faces. It's hard to be original. What sets a great print apart is lighting and composition, executed well on fine materials. As Francesco said, making the ordinary appear magical.

I'm all about the direct experience of the print. That's why I rarely look at any online photography; it falls so short of being there. I find the scans in my personal gallery to be embarassing, but in person.......... not bad.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

My curse is that whenever I run across a scene or an immovable object that would make a nice photograph, the Sun is _always_ in the wrong position. If it is obvious that the light would strike it perfectly in the afternoon, you can bet that I am there in the morning and vice versa. One of my first posts to APUG , (Way, way back when I was a mere lad ) was to ask if anyone knew of a calculator or program that would allow me to plot the position of the sun so that I could determine the right time to return to a spot when the light would be as I wanted it. Aside from that, some scenes benefit with a dramatic sky full of clouds some in overcast, some with leaves on the trees (that's where I am in Winter) some with bare branches (me... Summer). I'm always in exactly the right photographic place at exactly the wrong photographic time.
When I find a good subject under bad conditions, which as I say is mostly often, I might take a couple of snaps, but I just file it away for a return when the conditions are right. Some of my best shots are ones that I had to return to at least once, usually more.

And then there are those times when you walk out the door look up, and the light is so unique and beautiful that you are desparate to find something to photograph. It's good to have a mental card file of reachable places at the ready.

Neal you might try, as aposed to setting out to shoot a great photograph, set out to photograph light. The shapes within the light. Keep in mind that buildings and mountains and light colored soils are great reflecters so look at reflected light also. Just a suggestion.
Tom

 

[John McCallum]

Neal you might try, as aposed to setting out to shoot a great photograph, set out to photograph light. The shapes within the light. Keep in mind that buildings and mountains and light colored soils are great reflecters so look at reflected light also. Just a suggestion.
Tom

Tom's is a really great suggestion. This approach definately works (for me). Putting yourself in a place that you feel will be likely to turn up the photographic opportunity that you are after, then just watching what the light is doing.

I just attached the two examples below because I think it illustrates a couple of things.
The first had absolutely no direct lighting. It was 20mins after sunset, and almost too dark to see. The ambient lighting was very diffused. And a very long exposure could take advantage.
The second had strong and direct, horizontal sunlight. It's perhaps debatable whether it works at all , but certainly would not have with diffused light.
My approach to both was to look where the light was falling and use some old stuffy ideas from the back of the head, and try to visualise an end result that might work, and have a go. Tom's approach definately works for these situations (as well!).

There are certainly different approaches required in other circumstances, however. For candid people shots, the content and timing are paramount, and it's just too hard to get the perfect expression captured on the fly, and happening to have perfect lighting. So an educated viewer will subconsciously make allowances for what could perhaps be regarded as technically substandard lighting, when the capture of the old fella striding over the puddle is so perfectly timed.
Point is, I guess lighting has varying degrees of importance depending on what you want in your photo. I think in a landscape, good lighting can lift an image above the ordinary. As it is in other areas of photography as well, of course (that I know far less about). For me Good Lighting is the next most important thing after the need to click the shutter. Anything less, and it becomes an uphill battle to achieve a good picture.
And it will not usually appear there by chance or favour! It's got to be found and captured.
sorry .. turned into a ramble .. just 2c worth

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

John, that second one works just fine for me.

 

[GregMiller]

Light is to photography as sound waves are to music - signals which make possible the apprehension of the artist's finished product. You don't need high contrast lighting to make beautiful photographs any more than you need loud sounds to make beautiful music. Photography is about the space.

Flawed anology. High contrast light would compare to high dynamic music (i.e. loud notes combined with soft notes) not simply loud music. In music, mixed dynamics are generally more interesting than music played all at one dynamic level.

The real comparison with music & photography is with well controlled dynamics. Letting musical notes get too loud (distorted or blaring) or too soft to be heard is bd just as letting highlights blow out or shadows go detail-less. Controlling the "in betweens" is where the artists show up.

 

[Les McLean]

The best advice on landscape photography that I was ever given was "photograph the light, not the landscape" I have followed it for 25 years and it has rarely let me down.

There has been some excellent advice and opinions posted but no one has said anything about darkroom technique to help create the impression of light. Any thoughts.

 

[Francesco]

There has been some excellent advice and opinions posted but no one has said anything about darkroom technique to help create the impression of light. Any thoughts.

Impression of light using darkroom techniques = achieving beautiful local contrast in my opinion. The only technique I use to TRY and achieve better local/micro contrast is using minimal agitation on tube development. Ever since I made the switch to minimal agitation from continuous agitation I have had much success with rendering the feeling of light in my negatives. Not to mention increased apparent sharpness. A second technique is to vary development time consistently over a broad range of SBRs, thus controlling the range of light within acceptable levels.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

This one takes some thinking. My first response is that I always print for the light also. That really does not say much. As far as processing, I aggitate for highlights and mid tones independantly and leave some non aggitation time to put some detail in the blacks, but only once during to process.
When it comes time to print: In a controlled environment the lighting scheme dictates printing. I have 3 lighting schemes, with one of these schemes the images can be printed to emulate grey light and the 2nd high keylight.
Within the environment it really depends on the light recorded and how I saw it while exposing film. Sometimes there is a plan for the final print and some times not. When there is no plan I usually make 2 proof prints 1 at the right exposure and 1 printed down 40 to 50%. The darker one I'll put on the light box and view it with transmitted light, hoping to find an image that works well with saturated values.
These are some quick thoughts maybe some more detailed comments will come during the day and I'll put those up later.

 

[Doug Bennett]

Les said:

There has been some excellent advice and opinions posted but no one has said anything about darkroom technique to help create the impression of light. Any thoughts.

First of all, let me again apologize for my crummy scanning technique.

In a straight print of (there was a url link here which no longer exists), the area from which the water is falling, and the area underneath the fall, would both be jet black. Some careful dodging reveals a nice luminence above, and just a hint of detail below. IMHO, it makes the print.

In a recent shot of some gladiolas after a rain storm, the overall scene is nicely, but evenly, lit. I picked one flower in the center, dodged it, then worked outward with more dodging, creating a sort of luminous center.

In (there was a url link here which no longer exists), the light was again very nice but kind of flat. Some dodging of the leaves at left center, and of the area to the right of the tree trunk, worked well.

When out in the field shooting, I always try to walk around and carefully "see" the light. I recently shot an old storefront in south Alabama. I set up my tripod, was ready to shoot, but decided to walk around some. About 6 feet to one side, the windows of the building suddenly lit up with reflections of clouds in the sky. Again, some careful dodging of the windows made them stand out, and again I think it made the print.

 

[Doug Bennett]

BTW: if anyone is still making their own dodging tools (as I was until recently), let me highly recommend the Testrite Dodging Kit, costing all of about $8.00 USD. It comes with 6 or 8 plastic shapes and a nice handle. Much mo betta.

 

[doughowk]

Darkroom techniques: 1) split-filtering combined with dodging/burning for each filter (#0 & #5) setting ( as per Les McLean's book); 2) masks for windows, etc. that need heavy burning in to get detail; 3) graded paper to raise contrast/light areas; 4) minimal agitation for print (Juan's suggestion) to lower contrast for graded paper; 5) split-dev or 2 bath development to control tonal range. Some techniques that I've tried as I continue to learn from others.

 

[mark]

The dark room is a wonderful place to make a bit of unreality. I like creating shadows using masks and extra burning. Selective dodging puts hihglights where they were not. Old cardboard photo paper boxes work great and they can be manipulated and frayedin a way to make some seriously convincing shadows. Who needs PS when you have a darkroom, scissors, wire, tape and cardboard

 

[John McCallum]

...There has been some excellent advice and opinions posted but no one has said anything about darkroom technique to help create the impression of light. Any thoughts.

Yes we've neglected this a bit. Francesco mentions 'Local Contrast' in the print. I think the local contrast can definately give the print what is sometimes termed a 'Glow'. Getting the density and contrast factors working together properly can really make an image sing. It can gain a luminosity and three dimensional depth that a print with 'flatter' local contrast just doesn't have.
I've found this to be rather ellusive sometimes (and end up blaming the cat or the negative). It requires a great deal of assessment/judgement to be applied during printing, with incremental fine tuning to get it there. Also certainly, some degree of knowledge of the materials and tools is required.
A formal method of achieving a glowing print, I don't have. Hwoever I can mention, that you need to know what it looks like, and have to consciously aim to achieve it. (and it involves 'local contrast'). Hope this helps a little. regards, John.