srt101fan

Ah...mirabile dictu! Had to look it up () Thanks for adding to my vocabulary!

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Have visited this section a couple of times already. I have checked the "Subscribe" box.

Don

anotherview Loc: California

Thanks for taking on this aspect of photography and its governing expression.

Let me please suggest you include links to other Web-sites that present lighting techniques. For example, Neil van Niekerk has mastered flash lighting. See https://neilvn.com/tangents/

His presentation of this lighting developed a practical understanding of it for my lasting benefit. As a result, I find myself comfortable with using flash lighting.

Good luck with bringing the subject of lighting to others for improving their practice of photography.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Ed, I am sure you will bring both insightfulness and kindness to this site. For myself I seem to work more with light than I do with lighting. Sunshine and shadow as opposed to strobe and a shade. Still I enjoy and appreciate the work done by people who are masters in their field. One of my favorite photographers was O. Winston Link who through the use of large scale lighting arrangements (and a great deal of skill and love of his subject) produced wonderful images of trains in the twilight of the steam railroads.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I am not much of a theologian or philosopher, however, I know that Dr. Harold E. Edgerton (AKA Papa Flash) the inventor of modern-day electronic flash, did not invent LIGHT. Seems to me, the sun and the sky had a different inventor. I also believe that old Lous Daguerre, Niepce, William Fox Talbot and even George Eastman, aesthetically and artistically speaking, did not "invent" imaging with light. The Old Master painters like da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Vermeer, and that crew all saw the light first. Those are the folks that somewhere along the timeline, changed cave drawings and stick-figure into dimension and emotional images.

Light and shade are there for the taking- you can make it or take it, in a studio, alongside a railroad track, or just about anywhere that is not in total darkness. SEEING and appreciating it comes first. In order to record it on paper or a screen, we need to employ some science, apparatus, and technology- that can be simple or complex- that is up to the individual artist or maker.

I hope this section will emphasize the appreciation and use of light. Science is important as well but even those who are very advance in the art of photography need NOT worry about photons, wavelengths, and much beyond the visible spectrum unless the event into IR and UV special effects, etc. Nonetheless, I do invite and welcome the "scientists, computer gurus and, and lighting gearheads" into the second as well as long as things have to do with light and lighting. Me? I'll just be the less complicated guy !

Besides "Pasta Fazool" my favorite Itialan word is "Chiarosocro". Check it out!

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thanks Ed, Chiarosocro is one of those effects that I knew (and appreciated) when I saw it, but didn't know the name of the effect. This brings to mind another thought and that is when you are "on the job" you need to know what you are doing for purposes of finances and keeping your clients happy. However back in the studio, I can see all sorts of opportunities for experimenting. By changing the position and power and other aspects of the lighting, by moving the reflectors and making innumberable other changes, completely different results could be obtained from shooting the same subject. This seems like it could be great fun and a very useful opportunity to learn by doing. Now if I could just remember the name of the fellow who did the wedding column for either Modern or Popular Photography. I always enjoyed reading his column, not so much for the technical aspects, but for the joy and respect he had for his craft .

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I don't recall Modern or Popular Photograhy Magazines having a wedding column, but it is quite possible. There were some great weddg photography columnists in Shutterbug, The Rangefinder, and The Professiona Photograher Magazines. Here are a few names you may remember, some of these were my teachers: Monti Zucker, Bill Stockwell, David Ziser, Gary Fong, Fred Marcus, and there are many others. These are the old-timers back in the day of those aforementioned publications. Nowadas there is a new wave of popular wedding shooters. When you metion folks that were really into the job with artistry and enthusiasm, these are the name that first comes to mind.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thanks Ed. It was Monte Zucker I was trying to remember. Maybe he was in Shutterbug, but wherever it was I always enjoyed his columns.