Great article about shooting in low light

inTempus

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
4
Location
Indiana
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
How to Take Better Low-Light Photos - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com

This is an interview with famous photographer Harry Benson and he talks about using natural light and shooting in low light. Great stuff.

I thought this might be interesting as we often see conversations about what mode should you shoot in. This article demonstrates that all modes have their uses, and you might be surprised at the mode he chooses for quick shots.
 
Great Stuff!! Thanks for sharing! :)
 
Do you adjust lighting in photo-editing programs like Photoshop?

I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film. If I manipulated the photos, I would feel that everything I did was fake. I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.

I find that interesting, and kind of silly at the same time. Just because you shot film doesn't mean you weren't making adjustments.

To be quite honest, I didn't see anything in that article that isn't posted here 50 times a month.

Low light, I prefer a 1.2 lens... no **** huh?

I did find it interesting that he liked 'P' mode, but it's not surprising. Cameras are pretty 'smart', plus you still have some manual control in P mode.
 
Last edited:
Do you adjust lighting in photo-editing programs like Photoshop?

I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film. If I manipulated the photos, I would feel that everything I did was fake. I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.
I find that interesting, and kind of silly at the same time. Just because you shot film doesn't mean you weren't making adjustments.

I too find that interesting.. since many times its a noobish idea to thing PP is unuseful.. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thanks for posting the article, it was definitely helpful on the modes section and made me realize that a faster lens is necessary.
 
I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there - I actually agree with that. I try not to use anything (except erase pimples because people feel embarassed when they see pimples on their faces)
 
that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.

Um...it's that the point of most artwork? Creating something you see in your head, something that isn't there. Wouldn't that make it more like a work of art then a photography of a scene?
 
Good article, but nothing groundbreaking. I disagree vehemently with his view on post production.


Do you adjust lighting in photo-editing programs like Photoshop?

I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film. If I manipulated the photos, I would feel that everything I did was fake. I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.

I think he'd be surprised at the results he can achieve with a little PP. For the most part it's all stuff that was done in the darkroom anyway.
 
Do you adjust lighting in photo-editing programs like Photoshop?

I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film. If I manipulated the photos, I would feel that everything I did was fake. I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.

I wonder if this means he also shoots in JPEG mode? I get the sneaking feeling that he might (just might) and a more certain feeling that whilst he has happily moved to digital cameras he has not quite yet happily come to terms with using his computer for such work. Also
I don’t take photographs for fun.

The fact that much of his shooting is work and that he works for the press probably means even if he did editing to a greater degree he would be limited in how much he can do anyway. It might even be a discouraged act and even discouraged to be mentioned in interviews factor in order to help preserve the integraty of the paper and himself.

Finally I find this wording interesting with regard to his latter statement:
I never do any [post-production] manipulation

So he makes no mention that manipulating the scene before the photo is taken is wrong and yet later he says that he does not do the post-production editing because its changing something that was not there originaly. One could take this further and say that manipulating the scene before taking is also changing something that was not there originaly.

Interesting view points for a journalist - since we all know that a photograph is always some form of manipulation - it might just be the selective use of the frame and the settings - or it could be moving a few things in the scene or just brightening it a bit to show shadow details.


I also wonder partly as to how much of this interview is edited after it was conducted - the points are very consise so I do wonder if we are not getting the whole story here and that some points might be greatly simplified which has the effect of changing what was implied without changing the words used.
 
I love how everyone has their little post-processing exceptions "I don't PP ...":

"...except to remove scratches"
"...except to remove pimples"
"...except to push the exposure"
"...except to remove stray hairs"
"...except to adjust the color balance"

Saying 'except' doesn't really absolve one from being a hypocrite. The article author even admits to pushing film exposure.

My theory on it: Here's my image, if you wanna kill yourself over figuring out what I did in-camera vs in-post: Knock. Yourself. Out.
 
I love how everyone has their little post-processing exceptions "I don't PP ...":

"...except to remove scratches"
"...except to remove pimples"
"...except to push the exposure"
"...except to remove stray hairs"
"...except to adjust the color balance"

Saying 'except' doesn't really absolve one from being a hypocrite. The article author even admits to pushing film exposure.

My theory on it: Here's my image, if you wanna kill yourself over figuring out what I did in-camera vs in-post: Knock. Yourself. Out.

Word. :thumbup:
 
I don’t take photographs for fun. If I’m going to photograph a dog I want to do it with a good camera. I’m not playing around when I go out. It’s dead serious.

why even bother then? if you dont find something fun then whats the point? i have never heard of the guy, and he may be a decent photographer, but he comes across super arrogant to basically say anything less than a 1d3 is junk. reads more like a canon advertisement than a how to.

i didn't really find the article all that interesting, and as one commenter on the article noted, he doesn't teach you "how to take better low-light photos".
 

Most reactions

Back
Top