Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I have no idea what you mean. Yes, screw it, jar or whatever? Seeing the is a skill, as it the composition. Screw that right?

(if you don't like the message, don't provide the source.)

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Why would I not like the message young Mark? Not sure I understand what its supposed to mean but if your cool I certainly am.

Regards to you my friend

Billy

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I actually am afraid I know what all of you are talking about. Not sure what that says about me tho.

Rich saw the beautiful warm light among the pines, and leapt out of his car. Like I often do. As sometimes happens to me, he couldn't find anything to take a picture of, no subject or foreground/midground/background. But the light was irresistible so he did what he could amid a stand of thinned out pine trees. The light was his reason for shooting, his "real" subject. The pine trees were just an excuse.

Mark recognizes the lack of composition. He sees the light but is disappointed that the scene does not fulfill the potential of the light. There isn't much there to build a composition from, just a stand of thinned out pine trees. (But, as we all know, sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't).

Billy lives in the tropics, and takes most of his shots in the harsh light there. He doesn't like landscape photography much anyway. He leaps from a vehicle to take pictures of people, and figures out how to battle the light to do that. He does that well. The light is not his friend, it is a force to be reckoned with, as in his most recent post, the Shade picture. He cannot fathom what would make Rich or me jump from the car and take a picture of that stand of pines.

I have taken many pictures that are indistinguishable from Rich's, and though I've ditched a lot of them, I have kept some and from a few I've harvested (for lack of a better word) respectable images. And I hope, like Linda, that Rich will start us a share thread to explore possibilities for what might be done with such circumstances, when the beauty of the light exceeds the available subject matter.

One of my own favorites of my photos is the result of a jump-from-the-car moment like Rich's. The only available "subject" was a few dead water lilies and an expanse of featureless water. The real subject was light. ]http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-164390-1.html . I recently sold this one for a magazine cover (and owe the portrait crop to St3v3M, whose version is deeper in the linked thread). I have a ton of images where subject matter is the weak link and light the magnet, so I"m hoping we can talk more about this!

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Hey now, don't blame me for selling that piece, the shot was all yours and you deserve all the credit no matter what you say! S-

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Interesting comment "when the beauty of the light exceeds the available subject matter".

In beautiful light I can always find the subject matter. Yes, I keep a macro lens with me as well as a fish-eye with me just in case. One thing about the fish eye is that it makes a wonderful, sharp wide-angle and with today's software all the distortion can be removed with a single click. And I does not have the weight of regular wides. But back to the point, light actually leads me to and defines the subject. You have to be able to think out of the box in finding perspectives, lines, shapes and patterns and it is often not at eye level.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Light is the paint, the camera our brush! S-

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Billy, you once said, "the sun and reflections were kind to me." I assume you recognized the value of the light in your composition here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-364849-1.html


Therein can make a huge difference. I believe the closer one lives to the equator, the angle and intensity of light become very different. It would be like July in my corner of the planet, not a good time to shoot the light, except for immediately after sunrise.

How about if we referred to the light on the landscape?

One of a gazillion articles of information on what we are talking about:
http://photographyconcentrate.com/make-your-photos-magical/

Hope this helps clarify the discussion for you.

edit - and check out chapter 7 of our book club :thumbup:

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

And that would be the point of developing a dedicated thread on the matter, to explore HOW to get the most out of beautiful light when the subject matter is uninspiring and really depends on the what the photographer can recruit.

Put me on the dunes of Prince Edward Island in good light and I'll find 100 compositions and come away happy. Show me a wonderful sunset when I'm in the Mississippi delta with nothing but flat featureless land on all sides and I struggle. I think sharing with each other how we approach these challenges would be interesting!

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Yes please! S-

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Right and camera "takes" the picture, the photographer "makes" the picture. (Not my quote).

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Oh Jeepers I cant wait for ol Chamins next words of wisdom. Roll on chapter 7 I say.

The problem I have with the folks who claim to capture light or take shots of light is I want to know how you set your camera to do that.
I use a pretty up to the minute Nikon and it merely reacts to the brightness or the intensity of the light. The sensor cannot differentiate between times of the day and different sorts of light. It has a light meter and measures the available light on its own scale say between 1 and 100 and sets itself up by that reading.
Folks talk of the colour of light. My Nikon recognizes colour and makes an approximation of what it feels is about right. No way can it represent what the eye can see. The camera sensor is very crude device compared to your eyes with a much smaller dynamic range so the software in our camera fills in the gaps dependent upon how its programmed and how you set it.
So we get a raw file with all that info stored in a digital fashion. We then open it in whatever program we use. All will reveal slightly different results from the same files cos their algorithms are different.
After that we cosh it over the head with Photoshop and a few filters.
Are you still telling me the image is what you saw or did you need to tweak it with software to get back to what you thought you saw?
Capturing light is a fallacy. You capture an image and the software either in or out of camera decides the finished product hopefully with you in control.
Some times in the day are harder than others to replicate but a good user of software has no need to leap out of moving vehicles cos the light looks good. Get a shot with decent light and adjust in when sat comfortably in front of your screen.

Excuse me if I do not read the article you pointed me too but your view on printed matter differs greatly from mine. Your the gal who thinks Chamin talks sense and not so long ago got convinced by a book that a human being can turn off their color vision so they view the world like a dog, in black and white! No Ill leave you to be influenced by such things Ill stick to my reading matter,The Racing Post and Hustler.

Linda I appreciate the contact but my feet are planted firmly on the earth I do not need to romantasize what is actually a pretty simple pastime ie snapping. We over complicate and make it something its not.
The day may come when technology allows us with a sensor to capture all aspects of the light we are presented with but its a long way off. That's why your Creator gave you Photoshop. Think of it as your own personal light box and the image you feed into it as the starting point.
Start a thread with min lets see someone show us a snap where the light can be separated from the subject matter. What you will get is a dull starting image and a shiny glowing one after PP has done its magic.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Perfectly correct the camera takes a base image which is then via darkrooms or software made into a picture.
No relying on or thinking it possible for a camera to capture light cos it cant. It just aint that clever.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Billy, Please! However we phrase it, we are making use of light to create an image or convey a feeling. Do we have to deal in semantics? Everyone, including you I dare say, understands what is meant.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

That we use different words to describe the various functions of cameras and photographers does not change the fact that there is good light and bad light for various types of photography, that light does have color which the camera renders according to its settings, and that the elements of capture and interpretation are within the photographer's control (with some constraints imposed by equipment used)

I'm not gonna hijack this nice OP's thread any further with my own mind-wanderings, but I'll be delighted to participate in a thread to explore these ideas. I did in fact link to a photo that is all about light, with virtually nothing for subject. I have a ton of pictures of light doing stuff, where the light is the primary subject. Some are of negligible interest, but some are pretty decent. I am convinced, though, that not everyone sees light the way I do. My husband travels with me a lot, and he is completely baffled by what makes me run off the road or yell for him to stop. When he sees the pictures, he can understand it, but he really does not see it in the field which seems so odd to me.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Billy, you once said, "the sun and reflections were kind to me." I assume you recognized the value of the light in your composition here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-364849-1.html [/quote]

Linda here is what I started with to make that picture. As you can see every bit of light was added in software.
Not trying to be a smart ass but you mentioned it and it just shows how easy it is. Makes a mockery of someone going to that beach in the early hours fiddling with the camera to do possibly a timed exposure etc.
Take it when your there and then make it what you want. Simple huh.

(Download)