Seeing the light

[Sanders McNew]

It was in LensWork Feb-Mar 2002 page 82

Eisenstadt died in 1995 so if he's speaking in 2002 it's via Ouija Board. He started shooting in the late 1920s, made his name shooting available light with the revolutionary Leica miniature camera, and was an icon by WWII. I am sure the comment you quoted is accurate -- it's vintage Eisenstaedt -- but he didn't say it in 2002.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Never said he did say it then. But it is true whenever he said it. Many can't see light today. They just can't because they have never learned to see it.

 

[andyturk]

Last Supper by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

That's a fantastic portrait.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Never said he did say it then. But it is true whenever he said it. Many can't see light today. They just can't because they have never learned to see it.

Interesting that Eisenstaedt said that, as 'light' isn't necessarily the first thing that comes to mind when I think of his images. I think of more the 'moment' and the 'personality' than anything - like the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square, the puppet theatre in Tuileries, or the drum major with the little children marching behind him. Not that every shot with available light needs to be dramatic, but it's not something I personally think about in terms of his photos.

But here's a question -- can one really 'learn' how to see light (and how does one go about 'learning' it? Reading books? Taking a class?), or is 'seeing' light perhaps some innate quality that you either have it or you don't? Or maybe a bit of both?

 

[Vince Lupo]

That's a fantastic portrait.

Many thanks Andy -- that was really a quick grab shot of sorts. I was just about to take his picture (he was 'smiling for the camera') when my wife said something to him. He turned his head for an instant I took the shot (literally one shot). Light from an open door on the left is what's illuminating him.

 

[steveyork]

There's an old saying in photography, and I'm sure most have heard some form of it along the. way, but it goes something like this: Beginners talk about equipment, amateurs about composition, but experts talk about light. Never that simple, and we probably all merge through all those categories, and no one can control the light outside a studio set up, but some truth to it.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Never said he did say it then. But it is true whenever he said it. Many can't see light today. They just can't because they have never learned to see it.

Well, yes but. The wording suggests that in the longago people did see light, but have lost the talent. There are only so many talents in a generation. I don't think it's that we've lost the skill. Rather, it's that a billion people now have access to cameras in their pockets that in Eisenstaedt's day required a month's pay and years of training to work. So now there is an explosion of "photographers" because the technology has put professional-quality cameras in the hands of everyone with an iPhone.

I think it is arrogant to think that we are the keepers of a hidden skill that has been lost over time. (And it was arrogant when Eisenstaedt said it, whenever he said it.) Ultimately, photography is about seeing, and about communicating the seen experience to others. It is self-evident that many never stop to see. But it was always so.

 

[Sanders McNew]

There's an old saying in photography, and I'm sure most have heard some form of it along the. way, but it goes something like this: Beginners talk about equipment, amateurs about composition, but experts talk about light. Never that simple, and we probably all merge through all those categories, and no one can control the light outside a studio set up, but some truth to it.

Which in turn begets the old saw, The best camera is the one you have with you. Because you cannot control the light, but you can have a camera handy when the light bestows an unexpected gift.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Hey Vince,

I know that you know all of this but I think understanding what light looks like when it is good is a great place to start. For me it was college and photography and art classes but ultimately it is best learned by doing. But you have to know when it looks right to know when you've done it right. Learning how to use artificial light can help in understanding when it looks right. Learning to use artifial light like strobes takes time but I think learning to see light is far more difficult.

Years of working with strobes (still do) and understanding light ratios, intensity and really important quality of light also helps. Learning how to use artificial light can help in understanding when it looks right. Learning to use artificial light like strobes takes time but I think learning to see light is far more difficult.

Some think if someone prefers available or natural light over strobes its just because they never learned to use strobes. And maybe for some that might true. I prefer available/natural light when I can use it and it's not because I don't know how to work in the studio or don't know how to use that type of light. I do totally understand what Eisenstadt was getting at.

Heres some of my strobe/artificial light work for those that haven't seen it

1935 Auburn Boattail.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well, yes but. The wording suggests that in the longago people did see light, but have lost the talent. There are only so many talents in a generation. I don't think it's that we've lost the skill. Rather, it's that a billion people now have access to cameras in their pockets that in Eisenstaedt's day required a month's pay and years of training to work. So now there is an explosion of "photographers" because the technology has put professional-quality cameras in the hands of everyone with an iPhone.

I think it is arrogant to think that we are the keepers of a hidden skill that has been lost over time. (And it was arrogant when Eisenstaedt said it, whenever he said it.) Ultimately, photography is about seeing, and about communicating the seen experience to others. It is self-evident that many never stop to see. But it was always so.

And all of that money and modern equipment can't buy vision and/or the ability to see light.There are few carpenters today that can do what many in the past could do because it is becoming a lost art. So it is not just in photography. And many of those very skilled carpenters are arrogant because they could do something many today can't do and say just that? I say it would be honesty not arrogance. Proof is alwyas in the work.

And I'm not sure he ws saying modern photographer suck just many can't see light because they don't work at it because they only use strobes. If there is a red car out in the drive and I say its a red car would that make me arrogant? It's just the truth.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Hey Vince,

I know that you know all of this but I think understanding what light looks like when it is good is a great place to start. For me it was college and photography and art classes but ultimately it is best learned by doing. But you have to know when it looks right to know when you've done it right. Learning how to use artificial light can help in understanding when it looks right. Learning to use artifial light like strobes takes time but I think learning to see light is far more difficult.

Years of working with strobes (still do) and understanding light ratios, intensity and really important quality of light also helps. Learning how to use artificial light can help in understanding when it looks right. Learning to use artificial light like strobes takes time but I think learning to see light is far more difficult.

Some think if someone prefers available or natural light over strobes its just because they never learned to use strobes. And maybe for some that might true. I prefer available/natural light when I can use it and it's not because I don't know how to work in the studio or don't know how to use that type of light. I do totally understand what Eisenstadt was getting at.

Yes -- I was referring more to natural/available light. Can one learn/be taught to 'see' that kind of light, or is it innate? Or can it be a bit of both? I remember in some of my art history classes we'd talk about Rembrandt light or Caravaggio light etc, but I don't recall if it was discussed specifically in photo classes (I'm sure it was, though my mind is surely getting foggier over time to recollect!).

Sometimes I'll point things out to people, light-wise, and it goes right over their heads. But then again, someone might point something out to me that I hadn't noticed or even considered.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think it can be taught and learned. When I was in school we learned lighting ratios, quality of light like when to use an umbrella vs when a soft box might be more appropriate etc. Short light, broad light, butterfly light, Rembrandt lighting etc. It was all kinda basic but it was a good foundation.

I really learned when I worked worked for a photographer after I got out of school. But I think to learn how to work in available/natural light once one knows what it should look like someone just has to do it.

I tend to learn more from my mistakes than my successes so there was PLENtY of that. To many times people confuse low light with bad light. Many times the quality can be very good when it is low. Just like the quality of bright light can be awful for some situations. But learning to understand things like quality of light and when it is right, for what I am trying to say visually, took me a long time and I am still working on it ha ha.

I think learning how to use strobes and artificial light is much easier and far less ambiguous.

I guess what i am trying to say is the way to really figure it all out is to do it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

John,

I tend to think of (in this hemisphere, northern hemisphere) a north window because only few months of year, late May, June and early July and then only early and late in day, does the light come in as direct light. So I think of a north window being like a big soft box. Only one you can't move. So I would say move the subject in the reverse way you would move the soft box. Use a reflector for fill. Move the subject and it can be either broad or short light. Get the triangle on the check away from the light and then fill in the shadows that may be going to dark with a reflector.

 

[Vince Lupo]

John,

I tend to think of (in this hemisphere, northern hemisphere) a north window because only few months of year, late May, June and early July and then only early and late in day, does the light come in as direct light. So I think of a north window being like a big soft box. Only one you can't move. So I would say move the subject in the reverse way you would move the soft box. Use a reflector for fill. Move the subject and it can be either broad or short light. Get the triangle on the check away from the light and then fill in the shadows that may be going to dark with a reflector.

Good suggestions! And learning from mistakes -- as important as your successes.

 

[tbhv55]

Heres some of my strobe/artificial light work for those that haven't seen it

All excellent, @airfrogusmc. However, the car shots are simply outstanding.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

My niece just graduated with a BFA. In her entry-level Basic Photo course, she was told to "just leave the camera on auto" and concentrate on seeing. Sounds great in theory, but what happens when you need to understand how to control the light through the mechanics of the camera? I see an awful lot of photos posted on-line that clearly show that someone was responding to the light, but had no understanding of how to translate that response into a coherent photographic statement. I do wonder if that's still being taught.

 

[airfrogusmc]

All excellent, @airfrogusmc. However, the car shots are simply outstanding.

Thanks..........