Let's talk making great images.

[SunTzuNephew]

In junior high, and high school I was quite the camera nerd. I had inherited quite a lot of high-end, professional camera equipment like 3 Nikon F bodies, a Nikon FTN body, a bunch of lenses, even a Mamiya 645... lots of stuff.

And I knew everything about exposure, lenses, filters, tricks for exposure, etc.

What I didn't know is how to compose a picture. My pics were crap.

Well, all that neat stuff got stolen, and the replacements did too. I finally got a little 35mm pocket camera with automatic exposure. I set it to automatic, and started taking pictures.

And without all that other stuff to worry about, I found I had time to actually look through the viewfinder and think about what I was shooting, and actually compose the shot a bit. It meant I didn't shoot an awful lot (why bother, the picture isn't going to be any better than the viewfinder view), but what I did shoot was pretty good ... and I think it's gotten better.

Now days I have a couple of digital cameras, a pocket that goes with me mostly everywhere, and a DSLR with a couple of lenses. And I know enough to mess with the exposure settings when I need to, but most of the time we're satisfied with the Auto (maybe with/without flash).

Don't let the hardware define the photo...the eye of the photographer is whats important, the hardware is ancillary. If the picture doesn't look good in the viewfinder, it's really not going to get much better afterwards (unless you're a photolab/photoshop guru).

 

[Photog]

Trevor,
You have started an outstanding thread here! Great contributions from all.

When I am out photographing, my best work only comes from pre-visualized ideas. Personally, I have a difficult time creating really nice images, on my first visit to an area. Many times I feel artistically frustrated. I end up taking pictures instead of making images. I work through compositions, even if the light is not right for the subject. As I do this, I formulate the vision, composition and light that might work. These end up being scouting trips.

I try to make sure my next visit to the area is at a time that has great light for that area and those subjects. Sometimes that means coming back at a certain time of year, so the sun or weather will enhance the image that I have now started to pre-visualize.

On these scouting trips, I also tend to do the photojournalist type of work, stringing a story together, with photos. On the return trips, I am focused on the pre-visualized images; but I still add more ideas and lighting options, creating a need to return a few more times.

I will say, that I may change the way I word critiques in the "Critique" thread, based on the ideas presented in this thread. Thank you gentlemen.

I’m still chewing on the idea of good light / bad light, and how that relates to the subject. Hmmm.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Many times I feel artistically frustrated. I end up taking pictures instead of making images.

You and me both brother, you and me both. We had over a foot of nice fresh snow dumped on us yesterday. The trees looked wonderful. I drove 45 minutes to one of my favorite area's and began taking shots. Got home, loaded them up, looked,... didn't like a thing. I will give them some time before I get rid of them but on the surface I wasn't all that happy, but that is the way things go.

I'm still chewing on the idea of good light / bad light, and how that relates to the subject. Hmmm.

Perhaps a few examples would help, as Aaron suggested.
I came across photographer Gianni Galassi's work not all that long ago and was blown away. This is a guy with an eye. While looking at his work I couldn't help but try to deconstruct it. His use of hard light grabbed my attention right away which lead me to think a little differently, thinking perhaps not all light needs to be soft in order to be good. Perhaps light is just light and it's qualities either serve your vision or they don't. What may work for Mr.Galassi may not have worked for someone who seeks soft even light. Thoughts?

 

[Lost Canadian]

...and at the other end of the light spectrum, another young photographer whos work I absolutely adore, 15 year old Olivia Bee's. This young master of the self portrait has an uncanny eye and understanding of light. And to say just that wouldn't even scratch the surface when speaking about the depth to her work. What do you think?

 

[photoman]

Perhaps a few examples would help, as Aaron suggested.
I came across photographer Gianni Galassi's work not all that long ago and was blown away. This is a guy with an eye. While looking at his work I couldn't help but try to deconstruct it. His use of hard light grabbed my attention right away which lead me to think a little differently, thinking perhaps not all light needs to be soft in order to be good. Perhaps light is just light and it's qualities either serve your vision or they don't. What may work for Mr.Galassi may not have worked for someone who seeks soft even light. Thoughts?

man- all I know is Trevor views a ton of other photographers. I am betting you more than 100 photographers book marked. :sombrero:

Looking at Gianni Galassi I am impressed with his vision of light, shadow, positive & negative space, and viewing the abstract in architecture. I am not sure this relates directly to your question regarding good and bad light. Looking through the 'Extralight Exhibition Set" it easy to see most of the shots were taken in sweet light. Whether it is in the early or late hours of the day, broken light with cloudy skies, or natural fill light. This is obvious by the angle and the length of the shadows in most of the shots. The others have great depth and texture which is also created by the angle of the light. In direct light the depth and texture is lost.

The other set has a lot of post process work with many of those shots being composits. This can be seen by the hard edges, unnatural textures, and negative space without tones. Still very awesome work to look at but more digital art than photography in my view.


To answer the question of good light and bad light I say there is most definitely bad light. Direct and or midday light is usually no good for landscape photography or sports photography. The primary reason is that the contrast between foreground and background are too great to be able to capture. If it looks bad with your eyes- it will look like crap from the camera. If I am shooting sports such as soccer or football in midday light it is nearly impossible to balance the light on the players faces and the background. You either have dark faces or completely blown out backgrounds. In landscapes midday light is very flat as there are little to no shadows cast by objects to create depth. In warm climates you will also get a dust, pollution, or vapor haze that further complicates the issue.

There are of course exceptions. If you can find full shade when there is midday light you can get some great shots. Same is true if you are in a slot or narrow canyon where you can benefit from reflected light off granite or sandstone which both create a nice warm glow. In both of these cases you are limited to a specific area to shoot as once you are back into direct light you are then again dealing with harsh contrasts and flat light.

So the short answer is: It depends

 

[Lost Canadian]

Bad light for a certain situation, yes, I'd agree, like certain styles of landscape etc, as you mentioned. But what if the goal is high contrast, would the bright sun in the middle of the day still be considered bad? That's what I mean. I'll provide a few of my own iPhone shots as an example. These were both taken in contrasty daytime conditions. Both in my opinion work on some level, but neither of which would have worked had the light been soft and even. So is it bad light if it works?

 

[Lost Canadian]

man- all I know is Trevor views a ton of other photographers. I am betting you more than 100 photographers book marked. :sombrero:

Ironically enough, photographers actually make up but a minority of my creative influences, that said though, yeah,...I look at a lot. I have to though, because as I mentioned in my first post, when it comes to photography, I'm an Ox. I need all the help I can get. :elkgrin:

 

[photoman]

When I am out photographing, my best work only comes from pre-visualized ideas. Personally, I have a difficult time creating really nice images, on my first visit to an area. Many times I feel artistically frustrated. I end up taking pictures instead of making images. I work through compositions, even if the light is not right for the subject. As I do this, I formulate the vision, composition and light that might work. These end up being scouting trips.

I try to make sure my next visit to the area is at a time that has great light for that area and those subjects. Sometimes that means coming back at a certain time of year, so the sun or weather will enhance the image that I have now started to pre-visualize.

Great issue to discuss!!

I consider all my trips scouting trips whether I have been to the location before or not.

One thing you really need to do is use the resources that are out there. Whenever I am heading to a location I have not seen before I do some research. Not only for necessities like nearest town, places to stay, routes (both hwy and dirt road), but I also do an extensive search for images.

Search Google Images
Go to Smugmug's home page and search for the location
and one of my favorites is Google Earth!!

If I am traveling from say Flagstaff to Moab. I will plug in both cities to Google Earth for directions. Then adjust the view so elevation is around 131km and follow the highlighted route. This elevation gives you a good 50 mile or so view and will pick up all the hot spots for photos. All the little blue squares are images posted by someone. :victory: You can then zoom in closer revealing more images by more people and get an idea of the location. North is to the top of the screen- on the header bar there is an icon with a sun and mountains on it. If you click that you can adjust the time of day and reveal how shadows are cast across the terrain throughout the day.

Example: Along the drive from Flagstaff to Moab you drive through Bluff, UT. In Google Earth "Fly to" Bluff, UT. It will put you at 10.58km altitude. Back out until you are around 58km altitude and look toward the top left corner. There should be two blue dots. A fantastic photo stop only shortly out of your way. If you zoom into that location more blue squares show up ad you can begin to get an understanding of the location.

Using the available resources will allow you to find new places as well as hae an idea of how to successfully shoot them when you get there.

 

[photoman]

Both in my opinion work on some level, but neither of which would have worked had the light been soft and even.

Exactly- these shots were dependent on light that would make most shots difficult, and others impossible. Everything is relative and dependent of the circumstances.

I think one general rule applies though: You can still shoot in 'bad' light- however you are limited in size of the scene you can shoot.

 

[Lost Canadian]

That's funny Aaron, I do the same thing, as far as using the net for scouting in advance. What I've come to find though, is no matter how much preplanning I do, nothing ever turns out the way I had envisioned. I usually go out with a few previsualized shots in mind but when I get home I almost never have the shot I thought I was going to get, sometimes I come back with something better, sometimes it's something totally unexpected, sometimes it's crap, but almost never do I return with what I set out to get. It's strang, but I continue to scout, my curiosity keeps me going I guess.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I think one general rule applies though: You can still shoot in 'bad' light- however you are limited in size of the scene you can shoot.

I don't know, some of Ansel Adams better shots were taken midday. Of course aided by the use of heavy red filtering to make the northern sky black as black. Not to mention his time in the dark room...

 

[Lost Canadian]

The other set has a lot of post process work with many of those shots being composits. This can be seen by the hard edges, unnatural textures, and negative space without tones. Still very awesome work to look at but more digital art than photography in my view.

I thought perhaps you're right, so how about the work by Lucien Hervé as a better example,? Same idea as before.

 

[Overland Hadley]

Michael Slade made a great comment in another thread about being able to step back from your image, for a couple days if necessary, and try to look at it with an open and objective mind.

I will wait between six months and two years after a big trip to begin work on an image. (The last couple of weeks I have been working with some images I made in 2003.) This time of separation between exposing the film and working with the image is very important, it clears my vision. And if nothing else it makes me forget the "work" involved in making an image.

 

[Overland Hadley]

Is there boring light, yes. Is there bad light, well not really. It might not be the light you want, but that does not mean it is bad for all things.

Harsh noon sun with not a cloud in the sky? Go into a deep canyon, if the canyon is deep enough that will be the only light that will work. (Craig Blacklock's work in sea caves was done in harsh light, but inside the cave it is magical.)

This can be a hard thing to work by. I have hauled a sixty plus pound pack through harsh light more times than I would have cared to, but a couple of times it has been golden. The other times it was just a hard workout.

 

[Overland Hadley]

That's funny Aaron, I do the same thing, as far as using the net for scouting in advance. What I've come to find though, is no matter how much preplanning I do, nothing ever turns out the way I had envisioned. I usually go out with a few previsualized shots in mind but when I get home I almost never have the shot I thought I was going to get, sometimes I come back with something better, sometimes it's something totally unexpected, sometimes it's crap, but almost never do I return with what I set out to get. It's strang, but I continue to scout, my curiosity keeps me going I guess.

It is good to not pre-visualize compositions when you have not been to a location. If you have been to a location, yes, pre-visualize every last detail, but that is because you know what is there. But if you do not know a location, then go with a open mind, it will help you have an open eye to what a place has to offer. (If you are going to a new waterfall, do not plan for a tall wispy waterfall when what you might find is a huge mass of roaring whitewater.)

But once you know a location, plan, plan, plan. And never stop scouting.

Also compare your images from locations you know and from new locations. See what difference there is.