ku # 549 ~ shedding some light on the subject
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 11:51AM 
Birch • click to embiggenThere are picture makers who think that photography is "all about the light" which, to my way of thinking, is about the same as thinking that writing is all about the ink. IMO, that's about as dumb as it gets.
Those who make pictures that are "all about the light" tend for the most part to use that phrase as a code which translated actually means the "right" light and the "right" light is almost exclusively limited to dramatic, hyper-saturated, end-of-the-day, golden light. On occasion they'll sneak in a little beginning-of-the-day drama and a smidgen of stormy-sky impending-doom one act play but those are mere diversions from their true fetish.
I, on the other hand, tend to agree with these 2 notions from Brooks Jensen:
There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light.There is just light.
A good photograph is never "about light". Good photographs are about feelings.
And then there's this from Philippe Halsman
The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light.
That said, consider today's pictures (made about 25 minutes apart). IMO, neither picture is "better" than the other. Neither quality of light is better or worse. If, for example, someone requested that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like, either picture would serve the purpose quite well without, I might add, any caveats or reservations.
Each picture is equally "true".
Now, without a doubt some might prefer one picture over the other because of the feeling(s) imparted by the differing quality of the light found in each picture. It is on this note that I can start to think of light as "good" or "bad" in as much as light that has one specific quality or another - soft, hard, warm, cool, etc. - is better suited to conveying some feelings than others.
IMO, a picture maker who wants to "write" with light as opposed to "draw" with light understands that light has a rich and diverse "vocabulary" that can impart rich and diverse meaning(s) and feeling(s) in a picture. Instead of chasing / following / pursuing "the light", they tend to embrace the light that is present at any given moment / location and use it to tell us something other than "about the light".
That said, tonight I am going to chase the light - I am going to picture the bark on the tree in my front yard after dark just in case someone requests that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like after dark.
BTW, I'm curious - which picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like do you like (and why)?
Reader Comments (9)
IMO the one of the left with the "softer" light.
It all depends on the mood, but before I go further into my thoughts, I want to know how you got that tree to throw a shadow in two directions. As an overall image the “blah” light image far outshines the direct sunlit one. It shows me the entire “scene” The soft subtle shadows/highlights point out your subject and the image melts in my mind. There are no harsh contrasting highlight/shadows to interrupt the flow of the image, or the feeling of a winter’s day. I can almost smell the crisp cold air.
Ok, , so I know the double shadow is from something else, but it did make me look twice. that tree can’t be casting it front and back. The light on the sunlit shot highlights some of the grand texture on the tree, but at the same time masks my view of it. The image it is not smooth and flowing. The dark background aids in breaking the picture apart also.
I am very curious about how I would look at the two images if they had been shot from the same spot. I wonder if the slightly different perspectives are adding to my thoughts about the light more than I realize.
Interesting bark btw.
The one on the left. Its about the bark i.e. the subject - not the light.
Another vote for the left one, with its more subtle, yet still attractive, light.
I went through an 'only photograph at dawn and dusk' phase. In fairness, it did improve my work at the time, since early/late light creates a harmony for you when you're not sure how to find it for yourself. But, once I started learning how that harmony occurred, I was able to find it elsewhere, in all sorts of light.
In other words, by shooting only at dawn and dusk, I learned enough about light that I no longer had to shoot only at dawn and dusk!
Call me cynical, but I suspect the "votes" for the left image are heavily influenced by your post (they think that's the "right" answer). If you asked 100 photographers with some level of experience which image they'd most likely take (without any upfront bias), I think at least 3 of 4 would say the one on the right.
Why? Because the one on the right contains the most contrast, the most depth, the greatest amount of three dimensionality (if there is such a term!). They know that this is what will catch a viewer's eye first. If the stated purpose of the image is - as you say - to show someone what the bark looks like, then the one on the right is probably better suited. More contrast, more texture (in this case, anyway).
There is, of course, no correct answer. There never is. It's all up to the person behind the camera. I'm simply attempting to quantify what a majority would likely do. It doesn't make them right and it doesn't make them wrong.
On a very light note, I'd hate like hell for you to be the one setting up the questions in what's supposed to be an "unbiased" opinion poll!
I like both of them. First off, that bark just makes the palms of my hands and my fingertips tingle. There is a tree (river birch?) like this in my neighbor's yard and I have a hard time restraining myself, when I am out walking my dog, from stopping and feeling up the thing! ;-) It is so wonderfully textural. Both of these images, regardless of the light, evoke a physical reaction in me.
I like both qualities of light too, actually. The relative flatness and quietness of the left one conveys a feeling of being under a blanket or something, sitting and looking at the tree in very close quarters. Sort of a "hush" quality to it. The one on the right speaks a little bit more of actual time (a bit more loudly), with the shadows being cast, and I find that interesting too.
Interesting post Mark. Gets you thinkin'. Like a good photoblog ought to.
Call me different, but I didn't much notice the trees or the bark until reading the posting.
Instead, I looked at the snow, especially the right-hand side photo. We have so little of snow here in Finland, and you have so much.
I like them both too. I like the subtlety of tone and color on the left, but I believe the one on the right is a stronger image.
On the right, the color contrast between the coppery bark and the blue band of background gives a nice presentation. Also the background is broken up into three horizontal to slightly diagonal bands that adds and interacts with the trees.
One thing I would have done differently is the color of the snow highlight is a little too yellow to work well with the rest. Perhaps +B or -G would do it. Not much though.
I'll write this as if my opinion matters...
To start, I'd have been quite happy with the right hand picture if that was the only one presented, but you wanted comparison.
The important thing about the light is how it presents the context. On the right, the higher contrast and the sunlit versus shaded parts clearly put the birch in its environment. On the left the flat light serves to subdue the background and enhance the birch as the subject - it is almost like a portrait in that sense.
Taking that your title represents intent, I prefer the one on the left. This is a picture of the birch, isolated as a subject from its surroundings. Had there been a preposition in there, then the one on the right would have got the vote.