Hi guys,
it would be most interesting to hear your opinions and views on what I post below. I always wondered what is the most important aspect of a "good" photograph or in what order and weight do seperate variables contribute to a "good" image. Is there is a rating or subsequent order of certain basic elements? Or if it "always" has to work equally together to create the whole (that is more than the sum of its parts - Aristotle )
Here's my ranking and I think for intimate and mid-intimate scenes it is true (i.e. my subjective opinion,haha)
1. Composition > 2.Processing > 3. Subjectmatter > 4. Light (Yes light comes last but not least, but read below my arguments)
1. Composition: Composition defines patterns, lines, symmetries and directs the viewer to that what the photographer wants the viewer to see. After all, composition defines the image in a closer sense and what's within the frame. Human mind responds to harmony,curves, symmetry and patterns. Mankind loves ornaments and designs. Light and subject-matter are not really in the equation yet. It is just about the visually appealing arrangement of elements and about abstraction.
2. Processing/Darkroom work: We have number one in place - a very good basis - the composition/image appeals already to us due to the above mentioned properties, but emphasising things, correcting technical flaws, adding mood and how an image is percieved by choosing color- temperature, saturation, contrast etc, can strongly affect and enhance what we like about 1.
3. Subject matter: We already have something that works well to the eye of the observer AND it is enhance by step two, but since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the kind of subject matter we view can stimulate additional emotional response - depending on personal preference, experience etc. It can evenmore enhance the effect 1. and 2. have.
4. Light/Quality of light: Ok, we are pretty impressed by an image because of 1. 2. and 3. and very far progressed in our "appealing" process. I may tend to count the light to the composition as light and shadow stongly define pattern and structure, but if the basic set up is not well done, then good light cannot save what's doomed from the beginning. I have seen countless images, with non-ideal light, but everything was in place (1, 2,3.) so I rate light as of lowest importance, but don't get me wrong here there has to be light in order to reflect from objects to make them visible for us, the film or the sensor. "Sweet" light can ehance 1. and 3. or be part of 1. but I think it has not as much influence as 1. 2. and 3. Because for our mind to be stimulated - the patterns (1.) have to be in place.
I think for the grand vista it is different, in fact more difficult: I think 1. 3. and 4 have to be in place at the same time and by statistics, events and their probability have to be multiplied so their probability decreases since their probability never 100% (or 1). Ok, sorry now it gets nerdy...
No seriously: For the grand vista, light and composition form a unity and so two things have to be right at the same time. Then comes processing and then subjectmatter.
What do you guys think? Do you think I am crazy?
Best Regards and please share your views on this, and your own views.
Dietrich
Posted by Richard Wong on September 26, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Reason being that without a significant subject matter then the image is pointless.
Posted by dan elster on September 26, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I put processing as least important. You can get by with so-so processing skills, but there are no shortcuts in composition, subject matter or light.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on September 26, 2008 at 7:07 PM
1. Light 2. Composition 3. Subject 4. Processing
Subject's strength is dependent on 1 & 2.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on September 26, 2008 at 9:21 PM
I agree with Kah Kit Yoong.
Light and composition are closely related, if they're both good the subject is relatively unimportant. I put processing last because I shoot film most of the time so processing is mainly about getting the scan to look like the film.
I mostly shoot landscapes, I suspect for others, avian or wildlife shooters for example, the subject becomes much more important.
Cheers,
Posted by Peter Carroll on September 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM
1. Subject 2. Composition 3. Light 4. Processing
A photograph to me is like a present. The subject is the gift inside. If the subject is not interesting to the viewer then it doesn't matter how you wrap it. The subject of course can be light or even composition (abstracts) but that's a discussion for some other time. The subject is the reason why I take photographs anyway. It's the story I wish to tell and the reason I decide to push the shutter. The comp can be compared to the container in which the gift is placed. A good comp is like a box filled with those peanut packing things to protect the contents. Without a good comp the gift breaks - or the photograph doesn't work for the viewer. Light is the wrapping. Good wrapping can really make an impact but it's still a gift (just not as much wow factor) with ho hum wrapping. It works and it's nice but not enough effort was put into everything to really leave an impression. One could rewrap (return for better light) and have a whole different impact. Finally the processing of a photograph is like the way the gift was given. Lots of pomp and ceremony leaves a great impression but without it it's still a nice gift just not at the level it could have been. Yeah the analogy won't work for some and will break down in parts for others but I hope it gets across my reasoning for the order I chose.
Great thread Dietrich. I'll bet there will be lots of different opinions on this one.
Pete
P.S. Given my ordering of the above, I think sometimes ES&S commenting and critiquing is swayed by fancy wrapping when the gift was ho-hum. Just to highlight - I said sometimes not all the time.
Posted by Anil Rao on September 26, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I like what Peter Carroll has said above. It matches my own line of thought.
Posted by David Senesac on September 26, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I just watched the presidential debate tonight so this topic looks to be a useful exercise to get my mind on something else haha.
There are a large number of types of landscape subjects and it would be a mistake to value a single type of approach within the divisions you mention. And there are many different styles of landscape photographers that in large part determine the types of subjects they attempt to capture. Thus opinions given would be comparing apples and oranges.
#1 is arguable most important and one could sub-divide it several ways that would still be more important than the other divisions.
#2 My own approach is rigid here, to end up with best fidelity to the experience so none of the creative and manipulative aspects apply. Thus personally it is rather mechanical and thus a given. If someone is creative and manipulative and the result is believable to me personally, then I can understand and appreciate the result, much like looking at a painter's work. However if what I see is not something I could imagine seeing in nature, then even if the result is aesthetic, I probably won't feel positive about the image, in part because there is so much today being manipulated that in my opinion is hurting the artform.
#3 Not that clear of your intent here so will merely consider subject matter. There are a lot of aspects of how this might come out and a great deal has to do with one's audience and what moves and interests them. Someone might hang a striking print of some Utah sandstone formation in a distant urban area where the audience has rarely seen such an image, that receives raves and applause while hanging the same print in Moab or Sedona would receive ho hums. Another landscape print may have a deer covering 5% of an image at midground beside some trees that may excite the animal lover while another person that lives in the mountains would simply look at the rest of the print to base their value on it. Then there are the mature icon subjects versus the unknown new subjects. Someones print of of Delicate Arch may be from a structural perspective more aesthetic than one of another rarely visited arch. However the bar on Delicate Arch is way high to be exceptional while the rarely visited one might have higher value if shot without exceptional conditions. Much more here to expand on.
#4. For a shot per my above paragraph on Delicate Arch, light, clouds, weather have a great deal to do with ending up with an exceptional image whereas the rare arch shot might work on just a nice sunny blue sky day. I have a few exceptional prints on my webpage homepage gallery of famous icons and it is the case that I came to shoot those same locations many times before over the years before I captured something I knew was exceptional enough to exhibit in public. As for light, it seems a fair number of photographers have a myopic perspective of what can be good light. They have so focused on early and late light that other times of the day are repulsive.
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 27, 2008 at 1:15 AM
My priority list:
1. light, 2. light, 3, light, 4. everything else.
Kent in SD
Posted by Carol Hyman on September 27, 2008 at 2:26 AM
Subject and hopefully the image tells it's own story.
Composition
Light
Processing
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 27, 2008 at 2:43 AM
An excellent topic Dietrich, thanks for posting this.
Considering all the variables and <opinions> involved it would be difficult if not impossible to rank them, let alone agree that those four general topics are the only ones on the list.
Even before attempting to answer, I first took notice that you emphasized "good" images. And I'm going to base my thoughts on "good" images as well as "great" images, "fantastic," or "incredible," etc. etc. As I think that really matters in how to answer the question.
For example, I believe you can take an "average" image and make it "good" with processing. Conversely, and in general, I don't think you can take a "good" image and make it "great" with processing (excluding photo art and gross manipulations.) A great image should stand on it's own straight out of the camera. Now I can only speak from a film perspective, but my personal favorites that I consider better than "good" all lay on the light table as is, no processing necessary other than transferring from film to print or web. So personally, processing is at the bottom of the list for me. I can make my average images look "good" with proper processing, but I can't make them "great."
Without light, there would be no photographs. It can be debated what "good" light is, but I think most would agree that all the different kinds of light can produce great images. Soft, diffused, overcast light might not be flattering at Mesa Arch, but the same light might be perfect in the depths of a redwood forest and a little foggy mist. Most of us might comment about harsh, direct, midday lighting casting heavy shadows or blowing out highlights, yet that same light might produce a spectacular sun burst in a grove of autumn apsens. It's understanding how to recognize and use the light that will help take an image from "good" to "great."
Composition has to rank near the top. But "good" composition doesn't necessarily mean you will have a "good" image or even a "great" image if you don't have the other components. I'm a big believer in strong compositions; the "rule of thirds," balance, focal point, selective focus and telling a story. All of these can produce "good" images. Having said that, some of the most powerful and successful images don't necessarily follow the standard guidelines and stepping out of the box can often times allow a photographer to produce compelling work. Just like with light, the key is recognizing when standard rules will make your images better or when stepping outside the box will make your images great.
As far as subject matter goes, that is the most "subjective" of the four. For starters, a subject could be very literal; a mountain, clouds, a rock, tree, leaf, etc. etc. A "subject" can also be "chaos," abstract, patterns, color, lines, texture or even emotional such as mood, tension, calm, glory or gloom. ANY subject can make for an image that's good, bad, or ugly. :-)
So, what does it all mean? Heck if I know. But I do know that all these things are interrelated. Here's my pick
Posted by Andreas Resch on September 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Great thread, Dietrich. Reading through all the arguments is very interesting. My ranking is diffenrent from yours as well. I definitely have to put "Light" on number one. From experience I have learned that I can only go to a certain point with mediocre light. Most of my hiking shot from early this year and before were taken in bright daylight and on sunny days. There are some really good ones amongst them, but "good" was as far as they got. Since I recently changed my attitude towards photography and hiking by forcing myself to stay in the mountains over night, my quality has greatly improved and I don't have to hear "harsh light" so often any more.
Second comes "Composition" for me. That's always been a great concern of mine and I still have much room for improvement to cover here. I'm talking to the right guy here, as I always admired your composition skills. So often a "cut off" something or a "sticking in" something can greatly decrease the appeal of an image.
Third and fourth are on par for me. I'm quite good at processing images and often this saves a lot in a shot for me. That's a good and a bad thing though. I have to force myself to get the shot to look better in the camera and to use less processing. Especially now with my LF gear ready to start off. Subject matter is important too, but I find myself in quite a niche of motives at the moment while I hike through the mountains. It's mostly peaks, creeks and lakes. Not that I don't like to shoot other things, but at the moment I'm just enjoying the time in nature and the opportunities I've got there.
So for me ... 1. Light, 2. Composition, 3./4. Processing and Subject
We can talk more about that next weekend, where maybe "Beer" will rank somewhere between composition and processing ... :)
Thanks for a great subject here ... Andreas.
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Hi Thanks for the replies so far. I feel the need to clarify that I *do not* think an image can be made great by processing. I only know from my own experience that proper skills in processing can have large effect on how the image looks like (ok, that sounds a bit dumb now). What I try to say is that film or sensors simply do not care for what they record, but we do so we have to correct their care-lessness a bit.
@Andreas, thanks for your input! Yes, next weekend we have a lot of time for that! Oh yes, beer, you are so right about that! Remember my story to my Cavell-Image? I had a Beer(more than one) with Darwin in Jasper an you see the outcome of that!
David, I agree further on the processing side, that over-processed images do not work for me either. It is more drawing the viewer to certain areas in a compo we want them to go. That classical dodging and burning process. I know you work analog, but a raw-file from a digicam looks like crap sometimes although there was good light, good colors and a composition is recorded. Processing is crucial to match at least what was there, and or to add personal vision of the photographer. It's not about trying to cheat at least not for me. It is about trying first off all match the actual conditions and then finetune to personal preference and appeal. My recent post in ESS, (Cavell Morning) is an example. I am still convinced the image looks pretty close to what I saw (or wanted to see for that matter. The human mind is never objective), because I was so impressed by it that this pink glow happened. I never saw that before so I soaked it in and tried to remember it . The rawfile looks different - the pink is more a washed out orange and I had to pull down highlights and change color-balance to get back to the colors I saw. But I could have easily gone further with contrast and saturation. I think this is still ok because Velvia, slight under-exposure, also increases saturation. And these are accepted means to add flavor to a landscape photograph. This now goes again into the digi vs. analog discussion or the cheating-thing and I stop here.
It is maybe impossible to name what makes a good or great image and ranking the ingredients is maybe also not possible. My ideas above are just a "try" and should stimulate thoughts and the sharing of ideas. Maybe it is based on how I do my photography - trying to find appealing elements, no matter what the subject-matter is as long as it all comes together in an harmonic manner. Maybe that's what differentiates various photographers - how we personally judge these things and what guides us in finding and creating our images. Some go more for the light, some for the grand vista as a basis, some look for objects and wait for the light. Some adapt and try to capture what is most appealing in the given conditions. Or maybe that is the same approach just descibed with different words.
Processing makes it then effective. Light however guides me in what patterns or subject matter I try to assemble, so light is maybe more important than I rated it above. Of course I also agree that without light there is nothing to see so rating light the highest also makes perfect sense.
I also agree that processing simply cannot make a messed up image good, but I see it as very important to take advantage of all the potential that's contained in a good compo - see above. After all the processing adds flavour and is the second creative part of image-making, like trad. darkroom work and print making and it can have a large influence how an image comes across. Ok, I am repeating my self now, sorry
Maybe my rating comes from classical landscape painting: In my opinion (Subjective!) the painter creates a composition and his processing actually is the way he paints it - choice of brush, use of certain colors of his pallette. Light in a way does not really exists in a painting since it is created by composition and processing (painting it), hence in my above light rating it comes rather late.
Man that is just too confusing...
Mind you this is me just thinking loud!
After all that is why it is an art to come up with an appealling, good, great or exceptional image because there's no recipe... how to do it.
Thanks for reading!
Dietrich
Posted by Larry Lynch on September 27, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Thought to add my 'two cents worth'... light, light & shadow, subject, composition, processing...
Posted by Richard Ditch on September 27, 2008 at 11:05 AM
A lot of interesting views, but I think this overlooks some important considerations and makes many assumptions.
1. It all depends on what you are trying to do.
2. It all depends on who the audience is supposed to be.
3. What about the basics of photography (exposure and focus)?
4. I know many people believe in "shoot the light," but I always start with "shoot the subject." For some people the light is the subject, but for me it is just one of the conditions when I photograph my subject.
Sometimes the light is the subject matter, as Richard Ditch mentioned.
I find it very hard to lay down a specific ranking of factors because it really does seem to me to depend on a number of unstated variables. Depending on the location, the time the photograph is captured and the conditions under which it is captured, I can easily imagine shuffling the rank order of the various components.
For example, a particularly (would-be) image captures my attention and I prepare to set up to photograph it. What is is that captured my attention in the first place? It probably depends. I'm sure we've all found ourselves in situations where the only reason the subject matter appeals to us is the light falling on a given scene. In that case, light would have to be #1 on the pecking order. But in other situations it may be the raw subject matter that's so appealing. In that case, the subject matter takes precedence, with light probably second (or possibly third). In other instances, intense study may reveal a particularly compelling composition out of what had otherwise seemed to be an uninteresting scene. In that case, composition is top dog...with subject matter probably second and light possibly third.
So, I'll straddle the proverbial fence and say "it depends."
Didi, although I agree with Subject>Light>Composition>Processing, it seems to me a lot of stock is taken into consideration along the lines of processing. For example: even though the image was stunning and field work was excellent, the post processing was too saturated. The comment: "too saturated does not look real". What about the other aspects of the image, or just a simple, turn down the saturation a bit and this will be fine. So, not to open up a whole new subject line here, but is it good photography or just darn good processing that gets the nod in the end?
Posted by David Senesac on September 27, 2008 at 4:16 PM
One of your best communicated reflections from your fine mind, Lon.
I'll make some more comments about light. One thing I have always done is a great deal of hking about seeking subjects and perspectives to capture them. And much of that time what I see may be in totally wrong light much less even good light. Thus colors are weak, shadows prominent, and the atmosphere useless. For example exploring a landscape during periods of a day where primary subject elements are drably backlit. Instead of laying around reading a book or napping back at camp I am more apt to survey subjects. Our Western natural areas are so vast as long as one embraces areas beyond roadsides, there are always never ending places to explore in most any region.
Despite poor light conditions, due to long years experiencing similar places when the light is good and how that renders on the film I use, I can imagine what may look exceptional in better conditions. Thus when I explore about during poor lighting, I am continually evaluating landscapes for what they might look like with light coming in at different times of day, from different directions and altitudes, at different seasons, and during different weather. And all this conceptualizing is greatly complex and over three decades I have continually gotten better at it. After being a photographer intensely nearly 20 years I thought I was maybe plateauing out in my ability to do so, but nope the scale of Earthly nature secrets is well beyond that of any one human, so the last decade I have pushed that up a few notches more. Of course many younger photographers only are evaluating what they are currently looking at plus maybe some imagination for really early or late light.
One of the more difficult elements to understand is vegetation and that simply takes years of experience over many seasons. Seeking even wildflowers can be a lifetime of study. And the way they reflect and translucently transmit light varies greatly. For instance, in winter I may walk down a trail and see leaves and features of merely small green plants that I recognize as specific wildflower species. Thus might know returning to such a locale in June during the bloom may be rewarding. Arctic willow in early September is one of the only species in the High Sierra that can provide a red foreground. It forms dense mats mixed in with turf at heights of less than two or three inches. For much of the summer it simply looks like green turf so few would recognize it as something special to return to in season. Shallow areas of many high country lakes have rather dark bottoms due to sedimenting organic matter that poorly reflect up light that makes their usual mid day waters appear ho hum. But have you ever seen the fabulous aquamarine light rising up from the corral sand shores of a tropical island corral reef? Well that same condition may occur in high mountain lakes IF the area geology is white rock like limestone or some quartzy granites and the lake bottom is that rock. Then one needs to know to return at a particular direction and sun altitude when the effect is best. There is a truly long list of such natural science understandings that one might learn. Simply understanding early and late light is just small facet of that skill set.
Hi David, thanks as always for your thoughtful but (sometimes) lengthy posts. There are a few re-occuring themes in many of your posts, the threads you participate in and in the commentary you give when you post a photo: You very often post images taken in light that are considered not to be ideal for photography and you get comments like - nice compo but the light is not ideal. I for my self have gave commentary to your images like that - and because I think some of your scenes could have been done in "better" light. And very often you explained why you like it that way and that younger less experienced photographers seem to be too hung up on that "sweet" light early morning and evening - hence they have no clue (ok, my interpretation now). I admit I am a bit bugged by it.
Since I now started this thread I now I feel have the right to oppose you on that whole concept. Not that I disagree on your view on light. I also do not disagree that there is light between sunrise and sunset. But I do not understand why you have to stress many times that it takes 20 years of experience and miles of hiking with 60 pound of LF-gear and the scientific study of nature and seasons to understand that. All it takes are curious eyes and a bit of out of the box-thinking. Your statement here finally triggered it:
"Of course many younger photographers only are evaluating what they are currently looking at plus maybe some imagination for really early or late light".
And
"Simply understanding early and late light is just small facet of that skill set."
Two questions:
- Do you think you are the only one doing that?
- I do not quite understand why you feel obliged to state that? Let photographers chose their own favourite light - why trying to convince them that "their" light is not the right one?
So I am 30 years old, I was a full time student until a year ago, I am a full time employee since a year ago, and I am doing landscape-photography as a leisure-activity since 3 years. In a first rough estimation, I have 1/10 of your experience or much less
And now check out this image above. I am not saying that this is my best one, but I like it for the compo and the light. And it was done at 1:30pm in late may in Croatia.
All it took me here was an early afternoon walk in the mediterranean - and I do not even know the name of the plant, the time of their bloom and what kind of insects are responsible for that flower to live on.
I'm actually more interested in why there is a desire to attempt a categorization. It seems to me that all aspects of an image have to simply work towards the desired end - and that desired end is different for everyone. This especially seems the case for images that are intended to elicit a specific emotional response from the viewer. Furthermore, while I obviously can't speak for anyone else, I'm not that interested in images that I simply perceive as "good". "Good" images are easy, "great" images are elusive. The goal is always to strive towards "great" images - and honestly, "great" images typically aren't compromised on any level. There is inevitably a great amount of flexibility in all of the elements you listed, and many of the previous respondents have delved into reasons and examples as to why such is the case. I tend to agree with St. Ansel's statement, "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." While this quote is often associated with compositional rules, I believe it can also be applied to "rules" about light, processing and subject with ease.
A couple questions back at you: Where does "personal vision" fit into this whole equation? What about "originality"? Typically, images on NPN are judged from a fairly commercial lens (no pun intended). As such, the expectations of golden-hour light, impact, drama, immediacy, and accessibility are typically quite high. These things aren't bad, but there are many valid approaches within the larger world of photography. Is it simply all about "The Light"? Hmmm, I think there's just a little bit more to it. "Great" photographs are never about the blunt application of an equation.
Posted by David Senesac on September 27, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Dietrich >>>"You very often post images taken in light that are considered not to be ideal for photography and you get comments like - nice compo but the light is not ideal. I for my self have gave commentary to your images like that - and because I think some of your scenes could have been done in "better" light. And very often you explained why you like it that way and that younger less experienced photographers seem to be too hung up on that "sweet" light early morning and evening - hence they have no clue (ok, my interpretation now). I admit I am a bit bugged by it. ...Two questions: - Do you think you are the only one doing that? - I do not quite understand why you feel obliged to state that? Let photographers chose their own favourite light - why trying to convince them that "their" light is not the right one."
First please note the usual relative intent of my comments so "only one" is out of context. It is true that with some web posted image like bright snow and rock, we can indeed obviously see blown out highlight, poorly captured subjects.
The threshold with some few seems to be images captured with sunny light after early morning or before late late afternoon are necessarily harsh. Harsh is really not the correct term to use and when it is used, I tend to pick up on an underlying agenda so have reason to respond. And one that I expect to read occasionally again after future postings and will likely add short responses to explaining in terms of light why I might feel it is not so. One way or another it is a small matter eliciting a small smile. With specific images given specific comments by others about light being harsh, it is futile to trying arguing beyond a simple response about how an image really looks so I tend to let such lie quietly at that. Downsized detail of compressed images displayed to fit the web often punish highlights that are actually captured well within the dynamic range of film such that they otherwise appear excellent looking at a transparency on a light table or a resulting large print. Ordinary people of course tend to visit our wonderful natural areas not during dawn sunrise, sunset, and dusk but rather well into a day when the sun is up at higher altitudes and readily respond to prints that remind them of their own experiences.
Now my comment that some others are overly focused on early and late light shooting and don't seem to appreciate light at other times of day follows from my own experience around others and years reading such in magazines and commenting on the web. Its an old photography controversy going way back to Usenet and Compuserve days before what people see as The Web today. Part of the controversy of sunny midday light versus warm, diffuse, early, late light style, comes from the many workshop teachers and pro magazine writers that after Velvia and saturated films dominated, taught and promoted the latter while ignoring the classic rendering of Kodachrome. Not surprising a few pros I'd speculate, mostly in a period several years ago before the current digital camera revolution with its better dynamic range came on the scene, didn't like seeing work that grated against what they preached. That philosophy is much more moderated today by pros but still rears up among users. And so there are many experienced photographers that best enjoy shooting early and late light, that also work other higher altitude sun periods of the day. And conversely sometimes when I read a comment that someone would have rather seen something I shot in diffuse light, I have commented that I fully agreed and had hoped to have been so lucky haha. That is especially true of those many photographers of the Sierra Nevada mountains, because summer sunny weather dominates, so a photographer is forced to discover what works. One can even see many such sunny Kodachrome images in Galen Rowel's earlier books that shows the person that most promoted that Velvia diffuse warm light style also had a sunny side to his vision.
Thanks for your contributions!
@Joel, I perfectly agree with you when you speak about the flexibility of the elements mentioned. In the field I do not exactly follow the approach 1. 2. 3. 4. I react to what is given, I go for what appeals most to me, and that is subjectmatter, arrangement and light at the same time, with no order. Please remember that statement of mine a bit earlier:
"Man that is just too confusing...
Mind you this is me just thinking loud!
After all that is why it is an art to come up with an appealling, good, great or exceptional image because there's no recipe... how to do it. "
I am sure there is no equation!
David, thanks for your answer! I now understand much better where you are coming from!
Posted by Brad Mangas on September 28, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I'm a little late getting in on this subject, but find it very fascinating and interesting so far. Very compelling reasons that everyone has given for their order of importants.
This very thought crosses my mind every time I go out on a photo excursion, and did again yesterday as I was out most of the day doing much exploring and being very particular in what I chose to photograph.
This is my natural direction that I seem to take each time I'm out. I don't give this any extra thought it just seems to be what I naturally consider when photographing.
1. Light: If there is harsh light ( dark shadows, bright areas) or numerous other conditions causing poor light, why bother taking a photograph. I don't. Light makes the difference and can bring out many favorable conditions that normally do not exist.
2: Subject: I base this on one thing 90% of the time. If I like it, I will photograph it. When I have camera in hand I am in a very relaxing comfortable place. I photograph because I truly enjoy it, not to intentionally please others.
3: Composition: I put this after subject because I have come to realize that nature has it own composition. A unique composition that I can not change. I am not stuck on the rule of thirds. I think many photographers follow this rule so strickly that it make images look too set up and unnatural. I believe it should always be considered but not an absolute necessity for every shot. Natures composition is always set and forever changing. It can be impossible at time to apply a man made composition.
4: Processing: The least needed the better, imo.
Thanks Didi for a great question, and to all who have given their opinions.
Well I haven't been around for awhile (I’m fulfilling my destiny as the world's oldest student ). I still drop in to admire the amazing work and thoughtful opinions of the people who contribute so much to this special place.
I, of course being the stubborn person I am, have a slightly different take on this. I always felt a little disconnect to what I perceived to be the majority way of thinking on these types of topics.
I don't view light as being poor or bad. And, I judge photography from the viewpoint that every picture tells a story. If the story is about the heat, the hard light of day, then that light, what some might call "bad" or whatnot, is perfect in its purpose. I think a photograph is like a container that carries a message (as someone else describes graphic design). I really like that description.
I'm not trying to downplay the techniques being described. I know what they are for and a little bit about how they work. I'm just suggesting that worrying about the process in those terms is a little like worrying about how to build the most wonderful , beautiful bucket and not really considering what's inside, if the bucket can hold water - Or, in photography's case, a message. Thanks, Tim
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 28, 2008 at 9:34 PM
1. Light: If there is harsh light ( dark shadows, bright areas) or numerous other conditions causing poor light, why bother taking a photograph. I don't. Light makes the difference and can bring out many favorable conditions that normally do not exist.
I've come to think there is no "bad" light, but rather only bad USE of the light. If you try to take the same kind of photo on a bright sunny day as you would on a foggy day, most likely the photo will fail. There are good uses for the hard light of mid day. That's when I like to photo inside the concrete canyons of downtown Chicago for example. The AZ slot canyons are the same principle. Another trick is to shoot macro with a white fabric diffuser over a flower etc. which acts like a giant softbox. Another thought is to take photos in tall forests with the light beams dancing between the trees. There are many uses for most kinds of light if you are creative and understand it.
I would put light first. Composition a close second. But it is hard to seperate them with one "superior" to the other. A poor composition in great light may have the initial impact but it would not have the staying power if the comp was a good one in great light. A good composition in ordinary light usually leaves me wondering what this scene would be like if the light had been better.
But you are missing a very important "5th" element, Dietrich. Atmospheric conditions. Storms add drama to any landscape shot. Mist and fog gives mood. Calm winds create crystal clear reflections and lend a tranquility to a scene. Breezes brings many scenes to life. Clouds make for grand sunrises and sunsets. Dew makes necklaces of webs and scatters beads on petals. I could go on... Combine any of these atmospheric conditions with the best use of the other four, especially light, and you should have a very memorable shot.
Discussion
26 repliesit would be most interesting to hear your opinions and views on what I post below. I always wondered what is the most important aspect of a "good" photograph or in what order and weight do seperate variables contribute to a "good" image. Is there is a rating or subsequent order of certain basic elements? Or if it "always" has to work equally together to create the whole (that is more than the sum of its parts - Aristotle
Here's my ranking and I think for intimate and mid-intimate scenes it is true (i.e. my subjective opinion,haha)
1. Composition > 2.Processing > 3. Subjectmatter > 4. Light (Yes light comes last but not least, but read below my arguments)
1. Composition: Composition defines patterns, lines, symmetries and directs the viewer to that what the photographer wants the viewer to see. After all, composition defines the image in a closer sense and what's within the frame. Human mind responds to harmony,curves, symmetry and patterns. Mankind loves ornaments and designs. Light and subject-matter are not really in the equation yet. It is just about the visually appealing arrangement of elements and about abstraction.
2. Processing/Darkroom work: We have number one in place - a very good basis - the composition/image appeals already to us due to the above mentioned properties, but emphasising things, correcting technical flaws, adding mood and how an image is percieved by choosing color- temperature, saturation, contrast etc, can strongly affect and enhance what we like about 1.
3. Subject matter: We already have something that works well to the eye of the observer AND it is enhance by step two, but since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the kind of subject matter we view can stimulate additional emotional response - depending on personal preference, experience etc. It can evenmore enhance the effect 1. and 2. have.
4. Light/Quality of light: Ok, we are pretty impressed by an image because of 1. 2. and 3. and very far progressed in our "appealing" process. I may tend to count the light to the composition as light and shadow stongly define pattern and structure, but if the basic set up is not well done, then good light cannot save what's doomed from the beginning. I have seen countless images, with non-ideal light, but everything was in place (1, 2,3.) so I rate light as of lowest importance, but don't get me wrong here there has to be light in order to reflect from objects to make them visible for us, the film or the sensor. "Sweet" light can ehance 1. and 3. or be part of 1. but I think it has not as much influence as 1. 2. and 3. Because for our mind to be stimulated - the patterns (1.) have to be in place.
I think for the grand vista it is different, in fact more difficult: I think 1. 3. and 4 have to be in place at the same time and by statistics, events and their probability have to be multiplied so their probability decreases since their probability never 100% (or 1). Ok, sorry now it gets nerdy...
No seriously: For the grand vista, light and composition form a unity and so two things have to be right at the same time. Then comes processing and then subjectmatter.
What do you guys think? Do you think I am crazy?
Best Regards and please share your views on this, and your own views.
Dietrich
Reason being that without a significant subject matter then the image is pointless.
Subject's strength is dependent on 1 & 2.
Light and composition are closely related, if they're both good the subject is relatively unimportant. I put processing last because I shoot film most of the time so processing is mainly about getting the scan to look like the film.
I mostly shoot landscapes, I suspect for others, avian or wildlife shooters for example, the subject becomes much more important.
Cheers,
A photograph to me is like a present. The subject is the gift inside. If the subject is not interesting to the viewer then it doesn't matter how you wrap it. The subject of course can be light or even composition (abstracts) but that's a discussion for some other time. The subject is the reason why I take photographs anyway. It's the story I wish to tell and the reason I decide to push the shutter. The comp can be compared to the container in which the gift is placed. A good comp is like a box filled with those peanut packing things to protect the contents. Without a good comp the gift breaks - or the photograph doesn't work for the viewer. Light is the wrapping. Good wrapping can really make an impact but it's still a gift (just not as much wow factor) with ho hum wrapping. It works and it's nice but not enough effort was put into everything to really leave an impression. One could rewrap (return for better light) and have a whole different impact. Finally the processing of a photograph is like the way the gift was given. Lots of pomp and ceremony leaves a great impression but without it it's still a nice gift just not at the level it could have been. Yeah the analogy won't work for some and will break down in parts for others but I hope it gets across my reasoning for the order I chose.
Great thread Dietrich. I'll bet there will be lots of different opinions on this one.
Pete
P.S. Given my ordering of the above, I think sometimes ES&S commenting and critiquing is swayed by fancy wrapping when the gift was ho-hum. Just to highlight - I said sometimes not all the time.
There are a large number of types of landscape subjects and it would be a mistake to value a single type of approach within the divisions you mention. And there are many different styles of landscape photographers that in large part determine the types of subjects they attempt to capture. Thus opinions given would be comparing apples and oranges.
#1 is arguable most important and one could sub-divide it several ways that would still be more important than the other divisions.
#2 My own approach is rigid here, to end up with best fidelity to the experience so none of the creative and manipulative aspects apply. Thus personally it is rather mechanical and thus a given. If someone is creative and manipulative and the result is believable to me personally, then I can understand and appreciate the result, much like looking at a painter's work. However if what I see is not something I could imagine seeing in nature, then even if the result is aesthetic, I probably won't feel positive about the image, in part because there is so much today being manipulated that in my opinion is hurting the artform.
#3 Not that clear of your intent here so will merely consider subject matter. There are a lot of aspects of how this might come out and a great deal has to do with one's audience and what moves and interests them. Someone might hang a striking print of some Utah sandstone formation in a distant urban area where the audience has rarely seen such an image, that receives raves and applause while hanging the same print in Moab or Sedona would receive ho hums. Another landscape print may have a deer covering 5% of an image at midground beside some trees that may excite the animal lover while another person that lives in the mountains would simply look at the rest of the print to base their value on it. Then there are the mature icon subjects versus the unknown new subjects. Someones print of of Delicate Arch may be from a structural perspective more aesthetic than one of another rarely visited arch. However the bar on Delicate Arch is way high to be exceptional while the rarely visited one might have higher value if shot without exceptional conditions. Much more here to expand on.
#4. For a shot per my above paragraph on Delicate Arch, light, clouds, weather have a great deal to do with ending up with an exceptional image whereas the rare arch shot might work on just a nice sunny blue sky day. I have a few exceptional prints on my webpage homepage gallery of famous icons and it is the case that I came to shoot those same locations many times before over the years before I captured something I knew was exceptional enough to exhibit in public. As for light, it seems a fair number of photographers have a myopic perspective of what can be good light. They have so focused on early and late light that other times of the day are repulsive.
1. light, 2. light, 3, light, 4. everything else.
Kent in SD
Composition
Light
Processing
Considering all the variables and <opinions> involved it would be difficult if not impossible to rank them, let alone agree that those four general topics are the only ones on the list.
Even before attempting to answer, I first took notice that you emphasized "good" images. And I'm going to base my thoughts on "good" images as well as "great" images, "fantastic," or "incredible," etc. etc. As I think that really matters in how to answer the question.
For example, I believe you can take an "average" image and make it "good" with processing. Conversely, and in general, I don't think you can take a "good" image and make it "great" with processing (excluding photo art and gross manipulations.) A great image should stand on it's own straight out of the camera. Now I can only speak from a film perspective, but my personal favorites that I consider better than "good" all lay on the light table as is, no processing necessary other than transferring from film to print or web. So personally, processing is at the bottom of the list for me. I can make my average images look "good" with proper processing, but I can't make them "great."
Without light, there would be no photographs. It can be debated what "good" light is, but I think most would agree that all the different kinds of light can produce great images. Soft, diffused, overcast light might not be flattering at Mesa Arch, but the same light might be perfect in the depths of a redwood forest and a little foggy mist. Most of us might comment about harsh, direct, midday lighting casting heavy shadows or blowing out highlights, yet that same light might produce a spectacular sun burst in a grove of autumn apsens. It's understanding how to recognize and use the light that will help take an image from "good" to "great."
Composition has to rank near the top. But "good" composition doesn't necessarily mean you will have a "good" image or even a "great" image if you don't have the other components. I'm a big believer in strong compositions; the "rule of thirds," balance, focal point, selective focus and telling a story. All of these can produce "good" images. Having said that, some of the most powerful and successful images don't necessarily follow the standard guidelines and stepping out of the box can often times allow a photographer to produce compelling work. Just like with light, the key is recognizing when standard rules will make your images better or when stepping outside the box will make your images great.
As far as subject matter goes, that is the most "subjective" of the four. For starters, a subject could be very literal; a mountain, clouds, a rock, tree, leaf, etc. etc. A "subject" can also be "chaos," abstract, patterns, color, lines, texture or even emotional such as mood, tension, calm, glory or gloom. ANY subject can make for an image that's good, bad, or ugly. :-)
So, what does it all mean? Heck if I know. But I do know that all these things are interrelated. Here's my pick
1. Light 2. composition 3.&4. subject & processing.
Lon
Second comes "Composition" for me. That's always been a great concern of mine and I still have much room for improvement to cover here. I'm talking to the right guy here, as I always admired your composition skills. So often a "cut off" something or a "sticking in" something can greatly decrease the appeal of an image.
Third and fourth are on par for me. I'm quite good at processing images and often this saves a lot in a shot for me. That's a good and a bad thing though. I have to force myself to get the shot to look better in the camera and to use less processing. Especially now with my LF gear ready to start off. Subject matter is important too, but I find myself in quite a niche of motives at the moment while I hike through the mountains. It's mostly peaks, creeks and lakes. Not that I don't like to shoot other things, but at the moment I'm just enjoying the time in nature and the opportunities I've got there.
So for me ... 1. Light, 2. Composition, 3./4. Processing and Subject
We can talk more about that next weekend, where maybe "Beer" will rank somewhere between composition and processing ... :)
Thanks for a great subject here ... Andreas.
Larry
@Andreas, thanks for your input! Yes, next weekend we have a lot of time for that! Oh yes, beer, you are so right about that! Remember my story to my Cavell-Image? I had a Beer(more than one) with Darwin in Jasper an you see the outcome of that!
David, I agree further on the processing side, that over-processed images do not work for me either. It is more drawing the viewer to certain areas in a compo we want them to go. That classical dodging and burning process. I know you work analog, but a raw-file from a digicam looks like crap sometimes although there was good light, good colors and a composition is recorded. Processing is crucial to match at least what was there, and or to add personal vision of the photographer. It's not about trying to cheat at least not for me. It is about trying first off all match the actual conditions and then finetune to personal preference and appeal. My recent post in ESS, (Cavell Morning) is an example. I am still convinced the image looks pretty close to what I saw (or wanted to see for that matter. The human mind is never objective), because I was so impressed by it that this pink glow happened. I never saw that before so I soaked it in and tried to remember it . The rawfile looks different - the pink is more a washed out orange and I had to pull down highlights and change color-balance to get back to the colors I saw. But I could have easily gone further with contrast and saturation. I think this is still ok because Velvia, slight under-exposure, also increases saturation. And these are accepted means to add flavor to a landscape photograph. This now goes again into the digi vs. analog discussion or the cheating-thing and I stop here.
It is maybe impossible to name what makes a good or great image and ranking the ingredients is maybe also not possible. My ideas above are just a "try" and should stimulate thoughts and the sharing of ideas. Maybe it is based on how I do my photography - trying to find appealing elements, no matter what the subject-matter is as long as it all comes together in an harmonic manner. Maybe that's what differentiates various photographers - how we personally judge these things and what guides us in finding and creating our images. Some go more for the light, some for the grand vista as a basis, some look for objects and wait for the light. Some adapt and try to capture what is most appealing in the given conditions. Or maybe that is the same approach just descibed with different words.
Processing makes it then effective. Light however guides me in what patterns or subject matter I try to assemble, so light is maybe more important than I rated it above. Of course I also agree that without light there is nothing to see so rating light the highest also makes perfect sense.
I also agree that processing simply cannot make a messed up image good, but I see it as very important to take advantage of all the potential that's contained in a good compo - see above. After all the processing adds flavour and is the second creative part of image-making, like trad. darkroom work and print making and it can have a large influence how an image comes across. Ok, I am repeating my self now, sorry
Maybe my rating comes from classical landscape painting: In my opinion (Subjective!) the painter creates a composition and his processing actually is the way he paints it - choice of brush, use of certain colors of his pallette. Light in a way does not really exists in a painting since it is created by composition and processing (painting it), hence in my above light rating it comes rather late.
Man that is just too confusing...
Mind you this is me just thinking loud!
After all that is why it is an art to come up with an appealling, good, great or exceptional image because there's no recipe... how to do it.
Thanks for reading!
Dietrich
1. It all depends on what you are trying to do.
2. It all depends on who the audience is supposed to be.
3. What about the basics of photography (exposure and focus)?
4. I know many people believe in "shoot the light," but I always start with "shoot the subject." For some people the light is the subject, but for me it is just one of the conditions when I photograph my subject.
I find it very hard to lay down a specific ranking of factors because it really does seem to me to depend on a number of unstated variables. Depending on the location, the time the photograph is captured and the conditions under which it is captured, I can easily imagine shuffling the rank order of the various components.
For example, a particularly (would-be) image captures my attention and I prepare to set up to photograph it. What is is that captured my attention in the first place? It probably depends. I'm sure we've all found ourselves in situations where the only reason the subject matter appeals to us is the light falling on a given scene. In that case, light would have to be #1 on the pecking order. But in other situations it may be the raw subject matter that's so appealing. In that case, the subject matter takes precedence, with light probably second (or possibly third). In other instances, intense study may reveal a particularly compelling composition out of what had otherwise seemed to be an uninteresting scene. In that case, composition is top dog...with subject matter probably second and light possibly third.
So, I'll straddle the proverbial fence and say "it depends."
I'll make some more comments about light. One thing I have always done is a great deal of hking about seeking subjects and perspectives to capture them. And much of that time what I see may be in totally wrong light much less even good light. Thus colors are weak, shadows prominent, and the atmosphere useless. For example exploring a landscape during periods of a day where primary subject elements are drably backlit. Instead of laying around reading a book or napping back at camp I am more apt to survey subjects. Our Western natural areas are so vast as long as one embraces areas beyond roadsides, there are always never ending places to explore in most any region.
Despite poor light conditions, due to long years experiencing similar places when the light is good and how that renders on the film I use, I can imagine what may look exceptional in better conditions. Thus when I explore about during poor lighting, I am continually evaluating landscapes for what they might look like with light coming in at different times of day, from different directions and altitudes, at different seasons, and during different weather. And all this conceptualizing is greatly complex and over three decades I have continually gotten better at it. After being a photographer intensely nearly 20 years I thought I was maybe plateauing out in my ability to do so, but nope the scale of Earthly nature secrets is well beyond that of any one human, so the last decade I have pushed that up a few notches more. Of course many younger photographers only are evaluating what they are currently looking at plus maybe some imagination for really early or late light.
One of the more difficult elements to understand is vegetation and that simply takes years of experience over many seasons. Seeking even wildflowers can be a lifetime of study. And the way they reflect and translucently transmit light varies greatly. For instance, in winter I may walk down a trail and see leaves and features of merely small green plants that I recognize as specific wildflower species. Thus might know returning to such a locale in June during the bloom may be rewarding. Arctic willow in early September is one of the only species in the High Sierra that can provide a red foreground. It forms dense mats mixed in with turf at heights of less than two or three inches. For much of the summer it simply looks like green turf so few would recognize it as something special to return to in season. Shallow areas of many high country lakes have rather dark bottoms due to sedimenting organic matter that poorly reflect up light that makes their usual mid day waters appear ho hum. But have you ever seen the fabulous aquamarine light rising up from the corral sand shores of a tropical island corral reef? Well that same condition may occur in high mountain lakes IF the area geology is white rock like limestone or some quartzy granites and the lake bottom is that rock. Then one needs to know to return at a particular direction and sun altitude when the effect is best. There is a truly long list of such natural science understandings that one might learn. Simply understanding early and late light is just small facet of that skill set.
Since I now started this thread I now I feel have the right to oppose you on that whole concept. Not that I disagree on your view on light. I also do not disagree that there is light between sunrise and sunset. But I do not understand why you have to stress many times that it takes 20 years of experience and miles of hiking with 60 pound of LF-gear and the scientific study of nature and seasons to understand that. All it takes are curious eyes and a bit of out of the box-thinking. Your statement here finally triggered it:
"Of course many younger photographers only are evaluating what they are currently looking at plus maybe some imagination for really early or late light".
And
"Simply understanding early and late light is just small facet of that skill set."
Two questions:
- Do you think you are the only one doing that?
- I do not quite understand why you feel obliged to state that? Let photographers chose their own favourite light - why trying to convince them that "their" light is not the right one?
So I am 30 years old, I was a full time student until a year ago, I am a full time employee since a year ago, and I am doing landscape-photography as a leisure-activity since 3 years. In a first rough estimation, I have 1/10 of your experience or much less
And now check out this image above. I am not saying that this is my best one, but I like it for the compo and the light. And it was done at 1:30pm in late may in Croatia.
All it took me here was an early afternoon walk in the mediterranean - and I do not even know the name of the plant, the time of their bloom and what kind of insects are responsible for that flower to live on.
A couple questions back at you: Where does "personal vision" fit into this whole equation? What about "originality"? Typically, images on NPN are judged from a fairly commercial lens (no pun intended). As such, the expectations of golden-hour light, impact, drama, immediacy, and accessibility are typically quite high. These things aren't bad, but there are many valid approaches within the larger world of photography. Is it simply all about "The Light"? Hmmm, I think there's just a little bit more to it. "Great" photographs are never about the blunt application of an equation.
First please note the usual relative intent of my comments so "only one" is out of context. It is true that with some web posted image like bright snow and rock, we can indeed obviously see blown out highlight, poorly captured subjects.
The threshold with some few seems to be images captured with sunny light after early morning or before late late afternoon are necessarily harsh. Harsh is really not the correct term to use and when it is used, I tend to pick up on an underlying agenda so have reason to respond. And one that I expect to read occasionally again after future postings and will likely add short responses to explaining in terms of light why I might feel it is not so. One way or another it is a small matter eliciting a small smile. With specific images given specific comments by others about light being harsh, it is futile to trying arguing beyond a simple response about how an image really looks so I tend to let such lie quietly at that. Downsized detail of compressed images displayed to fit the web often punish highlights that are actually captured well within the dynamic range of film such that they otherwise appear excellent looking at a transparency on a light table or a resulting large print. Ordinary people of course tend to visit our wonderful natural areas not during dawn sunrise, sunset, and dusk but rather well into a day when the sun is up at higher altitudes and readily respond to prints that remind them of their own experiences.
Now my comment that some others are overly focused on early and late light shooting and don't seem to appreciate light at other times of day follows from my own experience around others and years reading such in magazines and commenting on the web. Its an old photography controversy going way back to Usenet and Compuserve days before what people see as The Web today. Part of the controversy of sunny midday light versus warm, diffuse, early, late light style, comes from the many workshop teachers and pro magazine writers that after Velvia and saturated films dominated, taught and promoted the latter while ignoring the classic rendering of Kodachrome. Not surprising a few pros I'd speculate, mostly in a period several years ago before the current digital camera revolution with its better dynamic range came on the scene, didn't like seeing work that grated against what they preached. That philosophy is much more moderated today by pros but still rears up among users. And so there are many experienced photographers that best enjoy shooting early and late light, that also work other higher altitude sun periods of the day. And conversely sometimes when I read a comment that someone would have rather seen something I shot in diffuse light, I have commented that I fully agreed and had hoped to have been so lucky haha. That is especially true of those many photographers of the Sierra Nevada mountains, because summer sunny weather dominates, so a photographer is forced to discover what works. One can even see many such sunny Kodachrome images in Galen Rowel's earlier books that shows the person that most promoted that Velvia diffuse warm light style also had a sunny side to his vision.
@Joel, I perfectly agree with you when you speak about the flexibility of the elements mentioned. In the field I do not exactly follow the approach 1. 2. 3. 4. I react to what is given, I go for what appeals most to me, and that is subjectmatter, arrangement and light at the same time, with no order. Please remember that statement of mine a bit earlier:
"Man that is just too confusing...
Mind you this is me just thinking loud!
After all that is why it is an art to come up with an appealling, good, great or exceptional image because there's no recipe... how to do it. "
I am sure there is no equation!
David, thanks for your answer! I now understand much better where you are coming from!
This very thought crosses my mind every time I go out on a photo excursion, and did again yesterday as I was out most of the day doing much exploring and being very particular in what I chose to photograph.
This is my natural direction that I seem to take each time I'm out. I don't give this any extra thought it just seems to be what I naturally consider when photographing.
1. Light: If there is harsh light ( dark shadows, bright areas) or numerous other conditions causing poor light, why bother taking a photograph. I don't. Light makes the difference and can bring out many favorable conditions that normally do not exist.
2: Subject: I base this on one thing 90% of the time. If I like it, I will photograph it. When I have camera in hand I am in a very relaxing comfortable place. I photograph because I truly enjoy it, not to intentionally please others.
3: Composition: I put this after subject because I have come to realize that nature has it own composition. A unique composition that I can not change. I am not stuck on the rule of thirds. I think many photographers follow this rule so strickly that it make images look too set up and unnatural. I believe it should always be considered but not an absolute necessity for every shot. Natures composition is always set and forever changing. It can be impossible at time to apply a man made composition.
4: Processing: The least needed the better, imo.
Thanks Didi for a great question, and to all who have given their opinions.
Well I haven't been around for awhile (I’m fulfilling my destiny as the world's oldest student
I, of course being the stubborn person I am, have a slightly different take on this. I always felt a little disconnect to what I perceived to be the majority way of thinking on these types of topics.
I don't view light as being poor or bad. And, I judge photography from the viewpoint that every picture tells a story. If the story is about the heat, the hard light of day, then that light, what some might call "bad" or whatnot, is perfect in its purpose. I think a photograph is like a container that carries a message (as someone else describes graphic design). I really like that description.
I'm not trying to downplay the techniques being described. I know what they are for and a little bit about how they work. I'm just suggesting that worrying about the process in those terms is a little like worrying about how to build the most wonderful , beautiful bucket and not really considering what's inside, if the bucket can hold water - Or, in photography's case, a message. Thanks, Tim
I've come to think there is no "bad" light, but rather only bad USE of the light. If you try to take the same kind of photo on a bright sunny day as you would on a foggy day, most likely the photo will fail. There are good uses for the hard light of mid day. That's when I like to photo inside the concrete canyons of downtown Chicago for example. The AZ slot canyons are the same principle. Another trick is to shoot macro with a white fabric diffuser over a flower etc. which acts like a giant softbox. Another thought is to take photos in tall forests with the light beams dancing between the trees. There are many uses for most kinds of light if you are creative and understand it.
Kent in SD
But you are missing a very important "5th" element, Dietrich. Atmospheric conditions. Storms add drama to any landscape shot. Mist and fog gives mood. Calm winds create crystal clear reflections and lend a tranquility to a scene. Breezes brings many scenes to life. Clouds make for grand sunrises and sunsets. Dew makes necklaces of webs and scatters beads on petals. I could go on... Combine any of these atmospheric conditions with the best use of the other four, especially light, and you should have a very memorable shot.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada