I always liked this
"The beginner thinks it's all about the camera
The enthusiast thinks it's all about the lens
The photographer knows it's all about the light"
I have no idea where I heard or read this or who wrote it originally, but I think it says a lot. As Phil stated earlier, good photographers just know, through experience, how best to manipulate the light no matter the subject.
Every time the 'it's all about the light' thing gets questioned someone comes out with the 'if there was no light there'd be no photograph' smart-arse b*****ks.None of which matter if there's no light, that's the point
Occasionally they tell us what was on their mind, as in David Hurn's excellent On Being a Photographer. Here he's discussing Miners' Week, Barry Island, which you can see here:
https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchDetail&IID=2S5RYDZUKYE5&FRM
'Let me first say that this image is part of a major series on the changing culture of Wales. A section of the Wales project is on coal mining. A subsection of coal mining is the one time of year when all the mines close together for the annual summer holiday. I was at the beach for a specific purpose: to depict a miner at play with his child during his vacation at the seaside. Everyone on that beach was a miner or a member of a miner’s family. So I already knew what I was looking for. That’s important. Having seen this miner with his daughter I was struck by the warm relationship between them. My initial reaction was to choose an angle of approach, to move into position from which I could clearly see the relationship - isolated from the confusing background, lit effectively so that the faces were revealed, and forming an interesting shape in and of itself. The next decision was: how far should I move towards or away from them? Too close and I would eliminate the idea that they were playing on a crowded beach; too far away and they would lose dominance and become just another small element. So the correct distance was quite precise. Then I looked for another element in the background which I would call a “significant other”; some small object or person or something, anything, which had visual appeal. I am now watching the relationship between father and daughter, and at the same time keeping an eye on the background element. I shoot pictures when a gesture, expression or whatever in the foreground is balanced by a shape in the background. I can barely control these two factors, especially if the secondary element is moving. I might have to shift six inches sideways or back and forth, shooting several frames in order to keep the elements in balance. What I cannot do is keep track of every element in the background. My eye is making rapid flips across all these details to check on the overall pattern but basically I’m centered on the foreground/background element relationship. I have to see the contact sheet to know what has happened. I know that the foreground is fine because that is what I have concentrated on but my choice of image to enlarge will depend on the geometry or pattern of the general background, which I cannot predict. A painter can compose the main elements and then add the significant details in precisely the right places. In photography, you cannot do that. You are hoping, almost by instinct, that the small details which make or break the picture are going to be in the right positions.'
Every time the 'it's all about the light' thing gets questioned someone comes out with the 'if there was no light there'd be no photograph' smart-arse b*****ks.
'It's all about the light' refers to the quality and direction of light, and it's wrong because it implies that the light is the most important element in a picture. It's not.
What making photographs is 'all about' is everything you can see in the frame/screen/viewfinder. Light, shape, gesture and more.... And each element is as important as the next. That's what a Photographer knows.
Saying that without light you wouldn't see any of that is just being silly.
There's nothing smart arse about it, it's very simple , like the little ditty I quoted. Sadly every time I do some smart arse b*****ks has to try twist or upstage it. Arguing against it is what's silly, what's the point? It's a simple saying that I like, now I have to defend it because some uppity know it all on here wants to argue? I'll stick to my original post. You can pick whatever defensiveness about it out of your hole all you desire.
It is, very much, all about the light. I swear only on here would someone try to argue against light
I loved this saying the first time I saw it, and I was always thinking of 1 & 2 for me. Years later I`m still learning but now try my best to watch and read how the light falls on the subject before I take the image.
It doesn’tand it's wrong because it implies that the light is the most important element in a picture. It's not.
An essential read IMO.
One of my favourite quotes from it being: "...a photographer only really has two controls – where they stand and when they release the shutter..."
It doesn’t
That’s an extrapolation made purely for the sake of point scoring.
Without a subject there’s nothing to point the camera at. It’s utterly ridiculous to take a photograph without the assumption that the subject already exists.
Nothing's changed, it was just the same when I first found the place.Sadly there will always be those who have to p*** on anything that wasn't their idea. This what this place has become, dare anyone post something a little positive.
Nothing's changed, it was just the same when I first found the place.
The "it's all about the light/all about the subject" just suggests that we see things we photograph in different ways, even when they're the same thing. However I also wonder if one wants to shape the light to fit the subject while the other wants the subject to fit the light?
It's just a simple way to put it, it's how we manipulate available light that helps us form the image - People can consider it hogwash or whatever they like, but they require light, any form of light or lighting, to produces images. It's as simple as that for me, but I'm not one of the "big boys" I guess
The "it's all about the light/all about the subject" just suggests that we see things we photograph in different ways, even when they're the same thing. However I also wonder if one wants to shape the light to fit the subject while the other wants the subject to fit the light?
What is in the mind of great photographers?
We lie in bed thinking of opportunities ... mist, rainbows, shadows, no shadows, long shadows, lone trees, lone people, cheese. Then we get up to face the world.
Lord, what happened?.....and photograph a red ceiling.
Granted!There are many things that each contribute to the final image, including the camera body, the lens, the light falling on the subject and the subject and its surroundings. All have varying levels of importance depending on the image.
A fine speech, but what do you mean by quality? Please define your terms.... photography is a multidisciplinary craft form. If this were not so then we could use the most rudimentary of equipment like a camera obscura and get the same quality of results.
A fine speech, but what do you mean by quality? Please define your terms.
In image-making there is technical quality and what could be called cultural quality, with often little link between them, in that a technically 'perfect' image can be quite sterile emotionally.
For photography to work as a communication medium, we should be considering gutsiness, intuition, an eshewing of mere aesthetics ...
There are many things that each contribute to the final image, including the camera body, the lens, the light falling on the subject and the subject and its surroundings. All have varying levels of importance depending on the image. Phil's 3 line phrase is useful in isolation for giving some perspective, especially to novice photographers, but it's un-defendable because photography is a multidisciplinary craft form. If this were not so then we could use the most rudimentary of equipment like a camera obscura and get the same quality of results.
But it's a cool quote.
The bit was between my teeth.And then go ahead and do it for me.
That reads as gibberish. Are you on intoxicants?In this case I used the phrase quality to mean characteristics, rather than whether it meets a numerical specification.
The communication of what, though?Aesthetics are a part of the communication
Yes, possibly (laughter).Would Rhein 2 work if it had been shot using a disposable camera?
Is it possible to shoot pinhole images with high-quality lenses? But of course you're right ...Would Bill Brandt's pinhole images communicate the same message if they were shot using a modern digital medium format camera and top quality lenses?
Yes of course I do - my issue is the depth of expressiom.You understand I'm sure, that expression generally makes choices about the tools used for expression.
It is a cool quote, that's why it stuck with me. Maybe I'm seeing things more B&W here, but without any light, doesn't matter what gear you use, you're not getting the image without the light. It's got to start some place.
It's amusing to me that people on a photography forum are arguing against light 'photography' literally means, drawing with light
Nobody is arguing against light, they are arguing that photography isn't ALL about light (well, I am). That's always been my gripe with the trite little three-liner. As other replies in this thread have pointed out, there's a whole lot to making pictures than light - or gear.
There isn’t.
Nobody is arguing against light, they are arguing that photography isn't ALL about light (well, I am). That's always been my gripe with the trite little three-liner. As other replies in this thread have pointed out, there's a whole lot to making pictures than light - or gear.
Pitch black?
That's not photography, it's thermal imaging.
still light though
That reads as gibberish. Are you on intoxicants?
Electromagnetic radiation, yes - light? Not so convinced, although it's sometimes (mis)called infrared light.
Well either it’s ‘light’ and it’s therefore a photograph, or it’s not light and therefore it isn’t.Electromagnetic radiation, yes - light? Not so convinced, although it's sometimes (mis)called infrared light.
That's fair enough given that...or it’s not light and therefore it isn’t.
The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing",[ together meaning "drawing with light".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography#Etymology