It's all about the light

Ed Sutton

Ed Sutton

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,556
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
I've read this a load of times, but is it really all about the light? What if the subject's crap, or the composition, or you miss the 'decisive moment'?

Surely light is only one element of making good pictures?
 
Of course.
What makes an image IMO is:
Composition
Lighting
The story

A very strong one of those can carry the missing 2 (can!), get 2 of them and you could have a great shot, all 3 will definitely make a great shot.

I use the phrase frequently to show the importance of the gear*.

* I do appreciate that some genres require specialist equipment. I'm mid gear upgrade because the goalposts have changed due to rising technical standards.
 
simonbarker said:
It's trite to say but without light you have nothing.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to the other point that ties newbies up:

The first thing they get pounded into them is 'exposure triangles' and correct exposure, this means they start out thinking 'good' light is simply 'enough' light.

As always though, I'm interested to see examples of awesome photographs where the light is 'crap'. Though last time I said that a load of people posted beautiful images where the light wasn't 'contrasty' :banghead:
 
Phil V said:
The first thing they get pounded into them is 'exposure triangles' and correct exposure, this means they start out thinking 'good' light is simply 'enough' light.

As always though, I'm interested to see examples of awesome photographs where the light is 'crap'. Though last time I said that a load of people posted beautiful images where the light wasn't 'contrasty' :banghead:
Click to expand...

Yep - as with most things in photography... it's not "one type is better than others" its that "one type is more appropriate for the particular use"...

So, a soft, flat light can be wonderful for certain moods, other moods need more contrast, or "blue hour" or Sunset/Sunrise goldens...

It's all about what you want to SAY with the picture.
 
It has become a running comment when I meet bird watchers out and around the places I go with my camera - they need to be in the right place at the right time - I (ideally) need both of those and the right light as well.

Although that wouldn't stop me taking photos of anything interesting that turns up :)

Here are a couple of shots taken a few days apart:

Snow / grey sky
Red Kite by davepsemmens, on Flickr

Early morning sun
Let's go fly a ... by davepsemmens, on Flickr

The poor light didn't stop me getting the shots - but I planned to go back for better when the light improved :)

Dave.
 
but Dave, your "poor light" for that shot could have been the PERFECT light for a different type of shot... that's what I'm getting at, there's no such thing as good or bad light, just appropriate or not appropriate... and if the light's not right for one type of shooting... hell - shoot something different that day.
 
I don't disagree - what I was trying to say with the first picture was "WHOOOOOP - this is my first ever picture of a Red Kite". I was over the moon with the shot and would not have missed taking it.

I knew that for that type of shot I needed different light though. Not sure if the snow / grey light can be much use for anything wildlife related though. It does suck the colour from things and make you push ISO / slow shutter speeds a bit too far at times.

Dave.
 
TheBigYin said:
but Dave, your "poor light" for that shot could have been the PERFECT light for a different type of shot... that's what I'm getting at, there's no such thing as good or bad light, just appropriate or not appropriate... and if the light's not right for one type of shooting... hell - shoot something different that day.
Click to expand...

My problem is I can be quite inflexible at times. I know what I want to shoot and if the lights not correct for that I don't always adapt quickly. This is a personal failing and an aside from the quality of the light.
 
And I don't know what I want to shoot. I just wander around aimlessly looking to see what attracts me... Though to be honest the things that really attract me are usually better in flat light.
 
When going out after wildlife I try to plan for the light if possible. Some large nature reserves have quite a few hides and I try to look at all of them and have a plan for which hides will give the best direction of light at each time of the day. Not much point going in a hide if the sun is coming straight into your face for a few hours. I may just be a bit OTT though :) It helps keep the wife annoyed at me though :D
 
steveo_mcg said:
My problem is I can be quite inflexible at times. I know what I want to shoot and if the lights not correct for that I don't always adapt quickly. This is a personal failing and an aside from the quality of the light.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, as a complete control freak, why do you think I shoot so much tabletop and still life stuff - it's the only "for sure" way to get the light I want - to make it happen...

It's often a good idea to keep 3-4 different "projects" on the boil - all of which have different "moods" and light requirements (for hobby/non-pro shooters obviously - as a pro, you have to work with what you get on the day - and knowing how to work with it and still make a good job of things is what makes the difference between a good pro and a bad 'un...)
 
Dave Semmens said:
Not sure if the snow / grey light can be much use for anything wildlife related though.
Click to expand...

oh, I don't know... there's a few interesting images here for inspiration - okay, some of 'em are in bright sunlight on snow, but there's a few in grey, flat that work well...
 
TheBigYin said:
oh, I don't know... there's a few interesting images here for inspiration - okay, some of 'em are in bright sunlight on snow, but there's a few in grey, flat that work well...
Click to expand...

I am sure you can get good results in most conditions - it will just depend more on the subject to bring the image to life. I wouldn't specifically go out on a dull, grey day but in this country the day can turn dull and grey at the drop of a hat :)
 
TheBigYin said:
I know what you mean, as a complete control freak, why do you think I shoot so much tabletop and still life stuff - it's the only "for sure" way to get the light I want - to make it happen...

It's often a good idea to keep 3-4 different "projects" on the boil - all of which have different "moods" and light requirements (for hobby/non-pro shooters obviously - as a pro, you have to work with what you get on the day - and knowing how to work with it and still make a good job of things is what makes the difference between a good pro and a bad 'un...)
Click to expand...

Aye, table top is next on my list of things to attempt to get to grips with.

One of the reasons I've liked my night architecture/cityscape shots this last few months is that the light is consistent and as long as it's not hosing it down I can get out any evening I feel like and get the conditions I'm after. With spring, erm, springing I'm going to want to get back out to the rather less predicable hills.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I am sure you can get good results in most conditions - it will just depend more on the subject to bring the image to life. I wouldn't specifically go out on a dull, grey day but in this country the day can turn dull and grey at the drop of a hat :)
Click to expand...

Finding time for photography is my issue and quite often at this time of year my free time coincides with flat dull light and as I have thousands of flat dull pictures of my local area I've got to the point that if I'm fee and heading out for the day I'll only take pictures which I think will still be different from those I already have and interesting in their own way and if I don't think it's possible I just don't bother.

You can strangle a dull flat image in post capture and try and make it into something different and you can play with perspective and distance and DoF to try and get some drama and interest but sometimes (I at least...) just struggle and decide not to bother.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
You can strangle a dull flat image in post capture and try and make it into something different and you can play with perspective and distance and DoF to try and get some drama and interest but sometimes (I at least...) just struggle and decide not to bother.
Click to expand...

I agree - I will make the effort if the image is something new to me. I can take 150 shots and delete all of them after a trip out. But it only takes one great image to make my week :)
 
TheBigYin said:
but Dave, your "poor light" for that shot could have been the PERFECT light for a different type of shot... that's what I'm getting at, there's no such thing as good or bad light, just appropriate or not appropriate... and if the light's not right for one type of shooting... hell - shoot something different that day.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Each subject works well with its own type of lighting, and often different types of light depending on the way you want to show your subject. I just posted this shot in the landscape section and I think it proves the point; I went there hoping for a dramatic sunset but arrived to an overcast evening with no direct sunlight at all. Luckily I managed to get a photo out of it that I thought was half decent, by shooting it in a way that suited the conditions.

 
Ed Sutton said:
I've read this a load of times, but is it really all about the light? What if the subject's crap, or the composition, or you miss the 'decisive moment'?

Surely light is only one element of making good pictures?
Click to expand...


Many images with poor lighting make for great photographs due to the subject matter, or story, or importance. However... with something like landscape, or formal portraiture, or commercial photography... then obviously the saying "great photography needs great light" becomes so much more important.
 
All in all, it's like all the other sayings about photography -sometimes it applies, and sometimes it doesn't! :)
 
The point's probably already been made: but what do we mean by "good light"?
I was tempted to say that there's no "good light", only appropriate light. But even that is too simplistic. Any one scene may benefit from many different kinds of light, depending on the photographer's intentions. Striking, dramatic light providing a range of tones is often "preferred" intuitively by most casual consumers of photography; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's "good" light. It might be "good" if you want to get to the top of 500px or something, where you will generally find all of the uprated images quite similar in terms of lighting (or at least fitting into a few narrow categories - often quite tightly tied to the subject). However, there's nothing intrinsically "bad" about, let's say, a flatly lit, low contrast landscape.

I don't know what people really mean by "good light". "Bad light" is surely just lighting conditions that don't fulfil the photographer's objectives.
 
ghoti said:
I don't know what people really mean by "good light". "Bad light" is surely just lighting conditions that don't fulfil the photographer's objectives.
Click to expand...

Possibly, yes, and your choice of word "appropriate" was a clearer way of putting it. Some light just doesn't work. Portraits on a brilliant sunny day at noon for example.... they just don't really work (unless you just over power it with flash) due to contrast and heavy down lighting. There is such a thing as "bad light"... you just know it when you see it really. It becomes more important if the image does nothing... if it's just an aesthetic exercise. This is why Landscape is one of the genres to have it's light criticised the most, because without it, it's just a tourist snapshot usually. When the subject matter becomes dominant, we pay less attention to it (so long as it's not terrible). I think this is why many amateurs get turned off by documentary, as they've no interest in the subject, and only engage with the formal values,
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I think this is why many amateurs get turned off by documentary, as they've no interest in the subject, and only engage with the formal values,
Click to expand...

I think documentary photography is the most interesting of all. :)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think documentary photography is the most interesting of all. :)
Click to expand...


Me too... unfortunately, it's not always pretty, so the eye candy brigade rarely see value in it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
This is why Landscape is one of the genres to have it's light criticised the most, because without it, it's just a tourist snapshot usually. When the subject matter becomes dominant, we pay less attention to it (so long as it's not terrible).
Click to expand...
This popped up in the landscapes forum a while back: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/index.php?threads/581960/

I thought it was a very aesthetically pleasant capture of a typical British overcast day. I found it interesting that a lot of the comments were of the sort: "needs better light". I'm left thinking, what the hell is wrong with the light?
I just think that when people talk of "good light" they're often thinking in a very narrow and specific way.

Also, I've seen harsh, directional, overhead light used to good effect in portraiture (of a sort). Not in "aesthetic" portraiture; but, for example, when it is important to show that the subject is in oppressive sunshine and uncomfortable dry heat. That shadowless, high-key, overhead glare look can - if it is the photographer's intention - call to mind in the viewer that feeling most of us know of being somewhere like the the Mediterranean in high summer, unbearably hot, eyes struggling with the light and desperate for shade and water. It's an effect used often in movies - the lost and disorientated in the desert trope.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think documentary photography is the most interesting of all. :)
Click to expand...

I really like it,done a few stories years ago as a pro,i think what make it more difficult for most amateurs is the time you have to devote to the subject,good commutation skill & making contacts,and sometimes it might a while before you even get your camera out and start taking photos :)
 
simonblue said:
I really like it,done a few stories years ago as a pro,i think what make it more difficult for most amateurs is the time you have to devote to the subject,good commutation skill & making contacts,and sometimes it might a while before you even get your camera out and start taking photos :)
Click to expand...

Agreed that documentary can be difficult for amateurs to get involved in - in some ways, but easier in others as they may already be photographing something they could document. Documentary photography doesn't have to involve people. It could be a record of a landscape or town undergoing change. A bird photographer could record a year in the life of a particular species instead of the same species on different twigs...

But (I think) Pookeyhead's point was that amateurs aren't interested in looking at documentary photography beyond the formal qualities of the pictures. Not really surprising as when some amateur guitarists listen to a son, they can only listen to what the guitarist is playing.
 
ghoti said:
I thought it was a very aesthetically pleasant capture of a typical British overcast day. I found it interesting that a lot of the comments were of the sort: "needs better light". I'm left thinking, what the hell is wrong with the light?
I just think that when people talk of "good light" they're often thinking in a very narrow and specific way.

Also, I've seen harsh, directional, overhead light used to good effect in portraiture (of a sort). Not in "aesthetic" portraiture; but, for example, when it is important to show that the subject is in oppressive sunshine and uncomfortable dry heat. That shadowless, high-key, overhead glare look can - if it is the photographer's intention - call to mind in the viewer that feeling most of us know of being somewhere like the the Mediterranean in high summer, unbearably hot, eyes struggling with the light and desperate for shade and water. It's an effect used often in movies - the lost and disorientated in the desert trope.
Click to expand...


I always thought an overcast day looks good too in some cases. I think the landscape crowd equate "bad light" to anything that's not the "golden hour".
 
there was an interesting article by lee frost in a photo mag ( i forget which one) on this last month - basically making the point that theres no such thing as bad light, anymore than there is bad weather... you may not be able to make the image you were intending to make in a given light, but theres always the potential to make something.

Personally i love over cast for macro and long exposure
 
For me it's actually all about emotion and how the image feels. I don't need perfect light to feel something from a photo or for one of my own photos to feel how I want it to, so I don't quite go along with the idea that light is the single most important thing there is in photography. In fact I think it's plain wrong, at least in some circumstances.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
For me it's actually all about emotion and how the image feels. I don't need perfect light to feel something from a photo or for one of my own photos to feel how I want it to, so I don't quite go along with the idea that light is the single most important thing there is in photography. In fact I think it's plain wrong, at least in some circumstances.
Click to expand...
Whilst no one actually believes 'it's all about the light' is the whole story, I've got a question regarding the above.
How do your photos 'feel' if the light is inappropriate to your motive?

IMO a massive part of how an image 'feels' (your criteria) is due to the light.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst no one actually believes 'it's all about the light' is the whole story, I've got a question regarding the above.
How do your photos 'feel' if the light is inappropriate to your motive?

IMO a massive part of how an image 'feels' (your criteria) is due to the light.
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying light isn't important and I didn't imply that either, I'm saying it doesn't always have to be what's widely considered technically perfect for a photo to work for me.
 
PMN said:
Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying light isn't important and I didn't imply that either, I'm saying it doesn't always have to be what's widely considered technically perfect for a photo to work for me.
Click to expand...
I don't think we're aiming for 'technically perfect', in fact I suspect the reason for the thread stems from people concentrating on the technical side of photography IRO equipment, and my flippant response that it's not about gear its about light. Which I might change to 'cameras don't take photographs, people do'.

You're bang on, photography should be a communication medium, and we should be aiming for communicating a 'feeling'.
 
Phil V said:
I don't think we're aiming for 'technically perfect', in fact I suspect the reason for the thread stems from people concentrating on the technical side of photography IRO equipment, and my flippant response that it's not about gear its about light.
Click to expand...

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment. :D
 
I think a particularly good picture creates an emotional response in the viewer. This could be an aspirational "I want to be there" or a feared "OMG look at that horrendous blood soaked thing".

That response can be garnered regardless of the light situation, though it's obvious that some genres of photography benefit from dramatic or interesting lighting whereas for others it's often less important. But, if you can get that emotional response you're onto a winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top