For every argument there is a contrary viewpoint. And to play Devil's Advocat (sic) for a moment... I have little respect for photographers who control the light and everything else. That's not photography, it's stage management.
If you had the time you could set up the lighting and the subject and get a painter to make an image.
Absolutely if that's how you want to realise the image you had in your mind. It would be no less an image for it either.... just a different medium.
That kind of photography is all about creating an idealised image.
I disagree completely. It's about a REALISED image, as you make what you wanted to make, and not be limited by what is placed in front of you. Anyone can photograph what's just.. there... but to craft every aspect of the image and be in total control of everything, surely takes more skill than just being lucky enough to catch the light. Also, to pick up on the first point.. what's wrong with stage management any way? It's not of course.. it's photography. Creating the lighting is not stage management... it's lighting
A key Photographic skill.
Whereas photography's great strength (IMO) is it's ability to record what already exists with a (debatable) level of veracity.
It's ONE of it's strengths, but to suggest it is it's only strength is showing a very limited grasp of it's potential, surely. Plus... lighting something in a studio is not recording something that DOESN'T exist. The object exists, and once I've set up the lighting, the lighting exists. I'm not seeing your point here. You suggest that the only valid photography is the type that merely captures reality that's naturally occurring.
You know full well though that photography does not objectively record... the photographer ALWAYS influences the reading. There's still cropping, angle, viewpoint, and framing, all of which MASSIVELY and subjectively alter the subject.
I've used this Paul Reas quote before, but it's a good one: "The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
In it's subject matter, possibly, but not necessarily in any other means. You can still light, manage or interpret that reality as you see fit if you have the skill and ability to do so, and the result can be richer for it. However, that aside, yes. I shoot a great deal of documentary where more often than not I am NOT lighting things and trying to objectively record. My point is (in light of this thread title) is that I can. I'm utterly confident I could shoot anything as well as I shoot my chosen genres because I've been taught to, and have practised a wide range of photographic skills. I'll be bringing my own take and creativity to those subjects regardless.
More often than not, and this is my point... what makes someone be good at one thing, and crap when they try something else, is lack of understanding of the subjects they are are shooting as much as it is a lack of technical skill.
Also... the Reas quote is just his opinion
He has a valid point, but I think he's wrong. I think it can often be more interesting, but it's not infinitely more interesting
For a lot of 'available light' photographers photography is all about serendipity - street photography is based on it, photojournalism is reliant upon it to a degree, as are many reportage and documentary pictures.
Absolutely, and you're preaching to the choir here
What makes that work successful is an understanding of the subject. That's why Winogrand's street stuff is good, and most amateurs just snap old people looking sad with long lenses. There's no empathy or interest. They're thinking of the image, not the subject. They don't actually give a crap about the old person - they just want to objectify them to get a shot that will get likes on photo-media such as Flickr and.. well.. on here I suppose.
however.... add to this Di Corcia's documentary work, where serendipity and craft skills are brought together, and you can't deny it's effective.
There's no argument I can think of that has an outcome that suggests photographers will not produce better work if they can control lighting. It may not always be something required, or even wanted, but it's a skill that can only ever be a strength. Even if it's just simple stuff like thinking of the surroundings and appreciating the reflected light as much as the direct light (not always visible with the naked eye), or being able to understanding contrast, and being able to control it. I'm not saying all good photography is lit photography, and I think you know full well I don't mean that.... but it IS what stops people being able to diversify, and it is what traps people into genres sometimes. Add to that mix a lack of understanding of a different subject, and the result is often disappointing.
Photography can be all about what is out there already, making photos of it - particularly the things most people overlook. Making good pictures without being able to control things is as much a skill as making everything look the way you want it to.
Again, yes. And again, I know you don't think I'm suggesting it can not be. The thread, remember, is what traps people into a genre, and makes them be less able to work outside of a genre. Even with complete available light though, you can still make things look exactly as you want them to.. if you know what you're doing.
Photography doesn't have to be about control, it can also be about looking, seeing and recording things as they are, without intervention.
That doesn't mean you are not in control though. I'm in full control when I shoot documentary stuff. I choose what YOU see... I choose how I represent the subjects. I show you exactly what I choose to show you, as you do when you make your final editing choices (not processing... editing).
There's no such thing as objectivity without an appreciation of reflexivity and understanding of your subject, and even then you're still not being utterly objective. This is why ethnography is often criticised as a flawed social science.
I think this all comes down to personality. Some people like to plan things in minute detail - they are the ones who see the ability to control light as essential. There are others who enjoy being surprised by what might happen next - they are the ones who shun artificial light. To generalise, of course. But as photography is a medium which can be used in many ways, neither is more right than the other.
Just my two bob's worth.
Then there are those that can do both, and choose what is appropriate, which is my point, and answer to this thread title. A good photographer should be able to do both. If I'm shooting recording equipment for Beyerdynamic or Shure (which I used to do a great deal of) then I'm going to light it, and manage the studio set and do so much digital work it would make even most process obsessed amateur's head spin. If I'm shooting documentary... it will be me... some film, a camera.. and perhaps a speedlight... often just a camera.
! I have never had any difficulty understanding your posts, which are always 'spot on'