Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that this post is probably just going to turn into a rant, please feel free to ignore me
I’m getting increasingly frustrated by the approach of many people to photography in general and lighting in particular. A lot of people seem to be obsessed by gear, and to overlook the simple fact that gear is very secondary to the things that really matter – vision, care, knowledge, experience and thought.
Up to a point, this has been accelerated by improvements to technology, we can tell a camera and/or a flashgun to make all of the decisions for us, without any understanding of the process, and we can also, to a large extent, correct faults in post-processing, but technology has its limitations and cannot replace the things that actually matter. We still need to understand basic physics, we need to know that perspective is controlled entirely by lens position and lens-to-subject distance and that the focal length of the lens is completely irrelevant. We also need to understand that (acceptable) depth of field is completely controlled by distance, lens aperture, magnification, sensor/film size. The focal length of the lens and/or the f/number is irrelevant.
In terms of lighting, we light in 3 dimensions and look at our finished results in 2 dimensions, but try to introduce the 3rd dimension, depth, to make the photos more interesting. That’s physics.
Every type of light creates shadow, and also loses power rapidly over distance, following the immutable laws of physics and especially the Inverse Square Law. The make, model, specs and cost of the light is irrelevant.
The reality is that everything in photography, except for the very important creative aspects, is all about physics. If we don’t understand physics then we can only produce really good work by accident, and won’t know how to get really good work in the future.
Now, physics is just a posh word for mechanics, and we all understand it, whether we’re into science or not – without a very basic understanding of physics we couldn’t even walk through a doorway without hitting the door frame!
I play pool, badly but I enjoy it, and everyone in the pool teams has a brilliant understanding of the physics involved, because pool is all about physics as well. All that we do is to hit the white ball with a stick, and make the white ball go where we want it to, all controlled by physics. Many of these very good players are drunk, many can barely string a sentence together and many of them probably can’t spell the word physics, but they understand it perfectly. Most of us buy one decent cue (stick), which lasts for a lifetime if we don't drink too much, we don't kid ourselves that buying an expensive new one will improve our results.
I also shoot, both shotguns and rifles, and again it’s all about physics. With all of these activities, there’s a large element of experience and hand and eye coordination too, as with photography, but it’s still all based on physics.
In terms of lighting gear, people of my generation didn’t have any lighting modifiers, they simply didn’t exist. The only flash that we had was flashbulbs, which cost a fortune and which couldn’t even be adjusted for power. All studio lighting was continuous light, and that couldn’t be adjusted for power either, so if we wanted a softer light we moved it closer to the subject, if we wanted it harder then we moved it further away, and in the absence of light meters we used the inverse square law to calculate the exposure. If we wanted to reduce the effective power then we put as many layers of scrim as we needed in front of the light, and hoped that the heat from the light wouldn’t set the scrim on fire . . .
I’m not knocking technology, it’s great, and it not only makes life a lot easier for us, it also allows us to produce much better photos than in the past. But it has its limitations, chief of which is that it encourages us to rely on it too much, but another downside is that they are often so complicated to actually use that it can take our minds off of the creative aspects.
In terms of lighting equipment, all that we actually need in terms of a flash is consistent colour temperature and consistent power output. We don’t need and normally don’t even use any of the fancy features that manufacturers add to increase their sales.
In terms of modifiers, all that we actually need is a choice of large and small modifiers, a standard reflector is the smallest that most people actually need, and a decent softbox is the largest that most of us actually need, most of the other bits and pieces are largely just expensive gadgets that will either never be used or which can be replaced by thought, care and bits of gaffer tape, string or whatever.
End of rant, but please feel free to tell me that I'm wrong
I’m getting increasingly frustrated by the approach of many people to photography in general and lighting in particular. A lot of people seem to be obsessed by gear, and to overlook the simple fact that gear is very secondary to the things that really matter – vision, care, knowledge, experience and thought.
Up to a point, this has been accelerated by improvements to technology, we can tell a camera and/or a flashgun to make all of the decisions for us, without any understanding of the process, and we can also, to a large extent, correct faults in post-processing, but technology has its limitations and cannot replace the things that actually matter. We still need to understand basic physics, we need to know that perspective is controlled entirely by lens position and lens-to-subject distance and that the focal length of the lens is completely irrelevant. We also need to understand that (acceptable) depth of field is completely controlled by distance, lens aperture, magnification, sensor/film size. The focal length of the lens and/or the f/number is irrelevant.
In terms of lighting, we light in 3 dimensions and look at our finished results in 2 dimensions, but try to introduce the 3rd dimension, depth, to make the photos more interesting. That’s physics.
Every type of light creates shadow, and also loses power rapidly over distance, following the immutable laws of physics and especially the Inverse Square Law. The make, model, specs and cost of the light is irrelevant.
The reality is that everything in photography, except for the very important creative aspects, is all about physics. If we don’t understand physics then we can only produce really good work by accident, and won’t know how to get really good work in the future.
Now, physics is just a posh word for mechanics, and we all understand it, whether we’re into science or not – without a very basic understanding of physics we couldn’t even walk through a doorway without hitting the door frame!
I play pool, badly but I enjoy it, and everyone in the pool teams has a brilliant understanding of the physics involved, because pool is all about physics as well. All that we do is to hit the white ball with a stick, and make the white ball go where we want it to, all controlled by physics. Many of these very good players are drunk, many can barely string a sentence together and many of them probably can’t spell the word physics, but they understand it perfectly. Most of us buy one decent cue (stick), which lasts for a lifetime if we don't drink too much, we don't kid ourselves that buying an expensive new one will improve our results.
I also shoot, both shotguns and rifles, and again it’s all about physics. With all of these activities, there’s a large element of experience and hand and eye coordination too, as with photography, but it’s still all based on physics.
In terms of lighting gear, people of my generation didn’t have any lighting modifiers, they simply didn’t exist. The only flash that we had was flashbulbs, which cost a fortune and which couldn’t even be adjusted for power. All studio lighting was continuous light, and that couldn’t be adjusted for power either, so if we wanted a softer light we moved it closer to the subject, if we wanted it harder then we moved it further away, and in the absence of light meters we used the inverse square law to calculate the exposure. If we wanted to reduce the effective power then we put as many layers of scrim as we needed in front of the light, and hoped that the heat from the light wouldn’t set the scrim on fire . . .
I’m not knocking technology, it’s great, and it not only makes life a lot easier for us, it also allows us to produce much better photos than in the past. But it has its limitations, chief of which is that it encourages us to rely on it too much, but another downside is that they are often so complicated to actually use that it can take our minds off of the creative aspects.
In terms of lighting equipment, all that we actually need in terms of a flash is consistent colour temperature and consistent power output. We don’t need and normally don’t even use any of the fancy features that manufacturers add to increase their sales.
In terms of modifiers, all that we actually need is a choice of large and small modifiers, a standard reflector is the smallest that most people actually need, and a decent softbox is the largest that most of us actually need, most of the other bits and pieces are largely just expensive gadgets that will either never be used or which can be replaced by thought, care and bits of gaffer tape, string or whatever.
End of rant, but please feel free to tell me that I'm wrong
) is slightly unfair... the way aperture is most commonly described is as a fraction of the focal length, so focal length and f/number are relevant.