It seems there is an misconception of bad light going on here. Bad light is not simply midday light or high contrast light.
Honestly, I don't see any misconceptions here. This, the conversation that is, is simply an open dialouge about the philosophical differences and approach to light, what it is, and how we define it. I don't see any absolutes or matter of facts being thrown about with regards to this dicussion. Harsh light is simple being used as an example piece in the talk, because, quite frankly, it more than other types of light is often demonized as being "bad." The simplistic idea and/or contention often made by many photographers that there is such a thing as bad light is what I question. I agree, as you have pointed to, that it depends largely on your goals. Someone looking for a beautiful sunset may very well be disappointed by a cloudless sky, or an overcast evening, and they may say "the light isn't working" or it's "bad." While somone shooting macro may look at that overcast sky and rejoice. So light in my opinion, is a relative element, as it's desired qualitites are directly related to the desire or goals of the photographer.
Which brings me to this point or idea. If someone says put your camera away midday, which let's be honest, is often preached to young photographers because it's commonly seen as "bad" light, the question becomes why. That advice is, in my opinion, simply a projection of anothers photographic goals and is ill conceived advice unless it looks at or takes into consideration the goals of the young photographer seeking understanding.
Now as if it hasn't been blindingly obvious, I have a bit of a bone to pick with the photographic establishment on a whole which is why I have been asking
why throughout many of my posts here. In the teaching of photography many concepts are taught in terms of absolutes, i.e., rules. For instance, how many times have you seen a critque where the reviewer says "that looks unnatural." That statement in of itself suggests that there is an imposed rule that certain images should look natural. To that idea I say why, black and white ain't exactly natural, unless of course you're a dog, and most would accept it. Is an image provocative, does it have intrigue, does it pull you in? Does it have 'impact'!?! Regardless of ones personal taste, that last point is the only consideration worth worrying about. The stifling nature, and elitist attitudes often seen and propagated by the photographic institution, as it relates to understanding, teaching, and acceptance, works as a disservce to all those looking to express and find their own voice/vision.
So to bring this back around, the conversation I would like to see, not that it needs to be though, is that of impact. How do photographic elements such as light, texture, focus, angle or view, framing, color,...subject?, affect an image, and how can we use these elements in our own work to better express our goals.
A question I've been wondering of late is can one element, on it's own, hold an image? Lets take light for instance. Below are two very simple photo's I've taken over the last couple days to try and answer this question for myself. Clearly the defining language of these photos is light and not much more. Light
'is' the subject, the focus, and the only real defining factor as it relates to each images impact. There is not much more holding these shots together so the question is do they work on some level? Would it be better if there were more context seen in these or does a lack of context add intrigue? I include these images as simple talking points, and not necessarily to provoke critique. What I want to know is what's happening in 'your' head when you see them?
JK. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the perception of light/color then, would I be correct in saying so? My point and question of course is simply can a quality of perceived light, be it intesity, color, direction etc, stand on it's own as seemingly the only distinguishable element in a photograph? Michael, I know you already answered this, kinda, so I guess the next logical question would be if it can, what makes certain types of light more or less suitable for a situational goal? I'd love to hear others thoughts on this. I've already spent too much time yaking. Why would someone want dark shadows or not as the case may be? What is it about certain light that trasforms the poo into a thing of a thing of beauty?