Poll: Should I give up photography?

[fjrabon]

It's not so much that I am trying to make a big stink out of things; honestly, I don't understand this vocabulary. If I see an overly contrasty, punchy image I react negatively to it.

My point was, I think you've admitted several times that you think what are generally accepted as 'standard' levels of contrast and punch, to you, look bad. Which is fine, but you tend to say "this is overly contrasty" instead of "hey, I tend to like really flat lighting, and I personally don't like this." And normally, I don't think most people have to qualify, but your tastes are often so far off the beaten trail (nothing wrong with that), that newbies get highly confused, about what is, in general, too contrasty.

You've stated several times that you hate the lighting that people like Zack Arias and Joe McNally use. I think most people could say they're 'lighting masters' and if they could get that type of lighting, most people would be very happy.

It's one thing to have your sort of 'vision' of what you like. It's quite another to criticize newbies based on a highly non-standard set of aesthetic principles.

 

[unpopular]

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I think you're completely wrong. It's not that my aesthetic is non-standard, it's just not commercial. It's just that kind of pro-idolization which is really annoying to me. I can point to several examples of muted palettes in photographs found in museums or selling for what these guys make in a single workshop.

Zack Arias, Joe McNally - whatever. They're just run-of-the-mill technical photographers; after they're dead, nobody will think of them as "masters" or really as anything else. In fact, I'd venture to say most people don't already.

---

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.

 

[rexbobcat]

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I think you're completely wrong. It's not that my aesthetic is non-standard, it's just not commercial. It's just that kind of pro-idolization which is really annoying to me. I can point to several examples of muted palettes in photographs found in museums or selling for what these guys make in a single workshop.

Zack Arias, Joe McNally - whatever. They're just run-of-the-mill technical photographers; after they're dead, nobody will think of them as "masters" or really as anything else. In fact, I'd venture to say most people don't already.

---

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.

It depends on how you're viewing the photograph, whether you're just enjoying the experience or if you're really "appreciating" the piece.

Light is the most basic factor that comes into play in photography, so people are usually going to notice good light.

Under the logic that it's a distraction, then saying anything specific could be a distraction.

IE:

"Nice composition."
"Wonderful depth of field."
"I like your processing."

It's how all of these elements work together. Noting a specific technical detail that you enjoy does not necessarily make a photo any less "good"

Now if the light unintentionally overpowers the main subject then yeah, I could see it as a distraction.

But since you said you're carrying your opinion to your grave then....w/e lol

 

[MLeeK]

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.

Yes, and no. You are right in that it should be an unobtrusive element (in almost all cases-sometimes it IS about the light.) However when things really CLICK together for most photographers they realize it is ALL about light. When you no longer have problems with exposure and can instinctively set your exposures you will find that you are seeing in terms of LIGHT and not the pretty picture. Yes, then light is an unobtrusive element-however it's all about seeing that "good light" or "bad light" as the case may be. I can see my dog sitting on the sofa like she's human right now. However-the lighting is HORRIBLE and I'd have to fix that in order to have a decent image of her. Otherwise she'd be partly well lit where the window is falling across her and partly black as pitch where it's not. It IS about light and seeing it.
When you ignore good and bad light and your abilities is when you end up with the hollow eyed people, poorly exposed skies or subjects in relation to the sky, etc.

 

[The_Traveler]

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.

Yes, and no. You are right in that it should be an unobtrusive element (in almost all cases-sometimes it IS about the light.) However when things really CLICK together for most photographers they realize it is ALL about light. When you no longer have problems with exposure and can instinctively set your exposures you will find that you are seeing in terms of LIGHT and not the pretty picture. Yes, then light is an unobtrusive element-however it's all about seeing that "good light" or "bad light" as the case may be. I can see my dog sitting on the sofa like she's human right now. However-the lighting is HORRIBLE and I'd have to fix that in order to have a decent image of her. Otherwise she'd be partly well lit where the window is falling across her and partly black as pitch where it's not. It IS about light and seeing it.
When you ignore good and bad light and your abilities is when you end up with the hollow eyed people, poorly exposed skies or subjects in relation to the sky, etc.

Saying 'it's all about the light' puts the emphasis incorrectly I think. One could just as easily say 'it's all about the air'; without either the picture wouldn't work.
They are both enabling tools photographers use to capture what they see.
If the light is difficult then the photographer needs to use what he/she has to make a picture.

Yes, it's nice to have nice light, and nice lenses and nice camera bodies and lots of interesting subjects.

But to emphasize the light as the determining factor put too much emphasis on one issue - and, in some ways - is like looking for the perfect lens.

 

[MLeeK]

And also, about light: it's a tool to convey the subject. If you see a photograph and think "good light" then it's a distraction. I'll maintain that position to my penniless grave. Light should be an unobtrusive element.

Yes, and no. You are right in that it should be an unobtrusive element (in almost all cases-sometimes it IS about the light.) However when things really CLICK together for most photographers they realize it is ALL about light. When you no longer have problems with exposure and can instinctively set your exposures you will find that you are seeing in terms of LIGHT and not the pretty picture. Yes, then light is an unobtrusive element-however it's all about seeing that "good light" or "bad light" as the case may be. I can see my dog sitting on the sofa like she's human right now. However-the lighting is HORRIBLE and I'd have to fix that in order to have a decent image of her. Otherwise she'd be partly well lit where the window is falling across her and partly black as pitch where it's not. It IS about light and seeing it.
When you ignore good and bad light and your abilities is when you end up with the hollow eyed people, poorly exposed skies or subjects in relation to the sky, etc.

Saying 'it's all about the light' puts the emphasis incorrectly I think. One could just as easily say 'it's all about the air'; without either the picture wouldn't work.
They are both enabling tools photographers use to capture what they see.
If the light is difficult then the photographer needs to use what he/she has to make a picture.

Yes, it's nice to have nice light, and nice lenses and nice camera bodies and lots of interesting subjects.

But to emphasize the light as the determining factor put too much emphasis on one issue - and, in some ways - is like looking for the perfect lens.

No, it really is about the light. You may have very little or a whole lot, but a camera doesn't record anything but the light that is reflected into it. It uses light-whether it is a lot or a little-to create the image. If you don't have any light-you cannot make a picture. There isn't one to make.

 

[unpopular]

You can use exposure and processing to "place" light and shadow. We're still limited by the practical dynamic range of the gear, but that's more of a technical thing than a quality thing.

I still maintain that the only reason I can't cope with certain lighting situations is due to my own abilities, and nothing intrinsic to the light itself. This is kind of what the Zone System is about...

 

[Overread]

It's important to remember that in any scene where there is light there is the potential to use that light for a photograph. However that light itself will restrain what is and is not possible; furthermore each photographer has their own vision and personal style of working. If you're in a situation, and you don't have the means to add more light to the scene and you want to take a kind of picture a certain way to show a certain thing - then you need a certain amount of light in the right places to do that.

If you don't have the light for it - you can't take the shot you want to. This means some might see a scene and say "Yep ain't no point getting the camera out, the lights too dim I'll never get the shutter speed fast enough to get a clear shot of the flying bird." Whilst another will say "Yep just the right amount of light for a great shot of the stars". (or possibly in that case cloud cover )


So yes light is both an enabler and a limiter on any given situation. Just like the camera, lens, photographer and all the other parts of the photographic setup are.

 

[The_Traveler]

No, it really is about the light. You may have very little or a whole lot, but a camera doesn't record anything but the light that is reflected into it. It uses light-whether it is a lot or a little-to create the image. If you don't have any light-you cannot make a picture. There isn't one to make.

You keep on saying that as if the answer is somehow obvious - it's a belief not a self evident fact.
Why isn't a trumpet solo all about the air or the instrument?

None of the elements work without the artist and his/her vision.
Physical elements are important and have their relative rank in how they affect the possible output but they only constrain the artist's ability.
Without the artist, they are nothing, like a trumpet in the hands of a non-player or a pencil in the hands of a nincompoop.

Saying its all about the light is a kind of pseudo-mystical mantra that is really nice to hear and implies some mystique that we should buy into - and gives everyone hope that they'll find that time and place.

What it really is about is having the time, patience, talent and skill to create something with what one has.

 

[unpopular]

MLeek - you do everything in camera, right?

 

[jpo_tx113]

Oh I have an idea I drove across the state on my way to Washington and it was the longest drive I can say I have ever had..

You've obviously never driven from Dallas to El Paso....

That's what airplanes are for!

 

[bhop]

I haven't read through the thread, but the way I see it is this..

If you enjoy photography, keep doing it.
If you don't enjoy photography, quit.