light as the "true subject" of a photographer

aizan

aizan

Veteran
Local time
4:46 PM
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,185
does anyone else roll their eyes when someone says that a photographer's "true subject" is light? maybe it meant something for some people, but it's so overused these days that it usually doesn't mean anything. on second thought, it usually means that the writing is not that good, and the photographs either. :rolleyes:
 
The statement, like so many others, can be overused.

I do feel however, if I were to remember more often the importance of how the light is interacting with the things I can see, I would take more memorable photographs.

Just saying, you know. :D

(So much for the serious photographer)
 
It seems to me that there are different kinds of light... and cinematographers such as Bruno Delbonnel (Amélie) and Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, etc.) use the differences quite beautifully... Maybe as a group more so than still photographers (???), I don't know.

I do hear you about over used tag lines... even as they point out who to pay less attention to.
 
shoot b+w

shoot b+w

shoot black and white - it's all about light.... overused, maybe, but true!
 
Very obvious statement from technical POV. Camera takes light and convert it to the picture. To me the better light is the better picture is going to be and often not only technically...
 
If there is one thing I've learned from photographing is that any type of light can be used to make a successful photograph.
 
"Light is everything" . . . I've heard it said that way.
True, and important in the sense that new photographers need to become aware of that fact.
And, as noted by jsrockit, there is no one "perfect light".
 
jsrockit said:
If there is one thing I've learned from photographing is that any type of light can be used to make a successful photograph.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree.

I have found there is really no such thing as "bad light" in my mind, just light that might not fit a pre visualized idea that one either has to adapt or modify their vision for or just pass on entirely.

And the lower the overall levels of light there are, the more everything becomes an influence as a potential light source.
 
alistair.o said:
Never heard that phrase or read it.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've heard many references to light and why not? It is what makes our art work. But the same can be said of paintings. The difference between a well lit painting and poorly lit painting are very noticeable. But light as the true subject? I don't believe it stands by itself without qualifications.

Or, maybe I just need to get out more. :p
 
KM-25 said:
I have found there is really no such thing as "bad light" in my mind, just light that might not fit a pre visualized idea that one either has to adapt or modify their vision for or just pass on entirely.
Click to expand...

exactly! light contributes to the expression of the photographer's "true subject," which is something else, something more important, something more interesting.
 
I do not agree that light is the true subject but it is incidental and complementary to every image that we make. The ability to read light is vital to consistency in photography and once you learn to read light, you are truely in full control of the final result.
 
The quote that I remember, is most often attributed to Vernon Trent

..amateurs worry about equipment,
professionals worry about money,
masters worry about light,
I just take pictures...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom