Join the conversationon Joe Cornish – Reader’s Questions
These interviews and Q&A podcasts are not only very enjoyable in their own right (like listening to a radio discussion), but also excellent to listen to while scanning or post-processing images. Thanks Joe for introducing the two wildlife photographers you mentioned: they produce different but equally inspiring and unusual work. Adam [...]
- Adam Pierzchala, 22:12 11th Febon Put Your Questions to Hans Strand
Yes, medium format will have a tough future. Though there are still people (including myself) who think it is worth the extra cost to get an extra edge. The difference is more obvious when you make large prints. A one meter wide print from medium format will convince you about [...]
- Hans Strand, 20:37 1st Febon Samantha Gibbons
Hi Samantha, it was great to see your images and to read how you feel about photography! I like what you say, "how beautiful the landscape around us really is.. It’s almost religious", as I feel almost the same! Your vistas have this subtle but intriguing light but I also like [...]
- Beata Moore, 10:09 30th Jan
Which is the most critical?
Tim Parkin
Your humble editor, ex-mathematician, A&R for U2, web developer to the Queen, guitarist and general geek-boy.
Other articles by Tim Parkin
I’ve read a few times in the past months that ‘light’ is always the most important thing in photography. Every time I read this I’ve felt a little more uncomfortable. This week a colleague pointed out another occurence in the popular press and as I was in the process of writing a couple more articles I thought I had to respond.
The only way to really address this is to look at potential permutations of these three aspects of photography that are repeatedly mentioned and I’ll try to come up with examples.
Good Light, Good Composition & Good Subject
Obviously this is the goal, we don’t really need to dwell on this – get everything working together and you’ve made it. Here’s a Joe Cornish picture that ticks all of the boxes for me…
Good Light, Good Subject & Poor Composition
Many beginner photographers work in this area as they’ve made the effort to go somewhere special or have found a beautiful subject be it a tree, dry stone wall etc.
What they haven’t worked out is how to compose a picture yet and so the result, whilst being something that could satisfy the undiscerning viewer, is ultimately unsatisfactory beyond the observation of a moment.
Here’s one of my early efforts to demonstrate what I mean
Good Light, Poor Subject & Good Composition
Well we have to ask ourselves here “What is a poor subject” – in fact in landscape photography, I’m not sure I can completely define subject. Subject makes sense in portrait photography, it’s the person isn’t it? And architecture you could say it’s the building. However, in landscape photography, the subject is whatever we point the camera at. Again, I suppose that you could say that there are certain pictures where there is a focal point or icon that is itself intrinsically beautiful. This would make ‘The Storr’ a subject and also a beautiful tree or wall.
Could a definition be … ‘that which a member of the public would point at and say ‘that is beautiful’? If so then here are a few photographs that show ‘poor subjects’.
Clachaig, Scotland – Tim Parkin
Joe Cornish
David Ward
Poor Light, Good Subject & Good Composition
So, according to the established truth, these photographs shouldn’t work. The lack of great light should produce sub-standard pictures.
However, in my eyes there is no such thing as poor light – only an inflexible photographer. Even bright sunshine on a blue sky day can be used (supposedly the worst sort of light) and as for those ‘flat light days’, well, just take a look below at a couple.
Joe Cornish
Joe Cornish
Tim Parkin
Now we’ll take a look at each of the variables on their own to see if they can be used ‘individually’ to create good photographs.
Good Light, Poor Subject & Poor Composition
Can good light on it’s own provide a good photograph? Well, I’ll cut to the chase here – can it hell… I’ve yet to see a picture that would be considered ‘great’ with just light. Even pictures that are all about the light have to have some form of balanced composition of clouds or shape to support them. Any suggestions for this section??
Poor Light, Good Subject & Poor Composition
An a good subject on it’s own? Well – it would have to be an inherently beautiful subject and then a bad composition would detract from the subject which means the photographer has reduced the intrinsic beauty of the subject through poor composition.
I had quite a problem finding these – I have bad pictures but when I started I was mostly going out in good light. However here’s a photo of the Rumps in Cornwall that was pretty bad and I’ve cropped it badly too.
Tim Parkin (ahem! a long time ago, really!)
Poor Light, Poor Subject & Good Composition
Given poor light and poor subject we should have real problems. And yet the amount of great pictures here is remarkable. A great photographer can go out at any time and come back with a satisfying image and quite often a great one – regardless of intrinsic, iconic beauty or ‘great’ light.
David Ward
Tim Parkin
Alistair Haimes
Poor Light, Poor Subject & Poor Composition
Hmm…. I think we can agree that this wouldn’t be good 
Conclusion
Well, my conclusion is that it’s all about the composition. Without composition, photographs can only be representation of what was before the camera – a documentation of a scene with the photographer’s skill reduced to camera craft and the finding of subject and the luck or calculation of the right time for the ‘right’ light (and maybe some photoshop talents at the end).
I won’t say that light is unimportant, complementary light is essential – however ‘warm sunset/sunrise’ light can be bad if it doesn’t match the subject. Take the following examples.
Joe Cornish
David Ward
Tim Parkin
So, it doesn’t matter what light you have as long as it complements the subject. Doesn’t matter what subject you have as long as you compose it well.
It’s composition that is the photographers skill, the core attribute that lifts a photographer from craftsman to artist.
Let me suggest a scenario that I hope highlights my thoughts. I sign on to a Joe Cornish course and he takes us all to a great location and, knowing the weather well, he has brought us at just the right moment.
Each photographer takes a picture – who’s photographs are they?
Well, if it’s all about the light or the subject then they are Joe’s pictures. If they are about the composition then they are the workshop participants.
And….
A colleague Rob Hudson took a look at this article and pointed out that the whole Light/Subject/Composition triumvirate was missing a while dimension. That dimension can be called concept or narrative – it’s a function of the way the photographer communicates through the picture. This needn’t be conscious, a photograph can communicate emotions as a concept and these may be a subconscious reaction by the photographer. It may be better if the photographer is aware of what they are trying to communicate though.
A photograph may also work as part of a sequence, in which case we could have a photograph with poor subject, poor (or no apparent) composition and poor light and yet as part of a sequence of pictures it has inherent meaning.
He also pointed out the redundancy of good/bad and the fact that there is really no such dichotomy – however the article is responding to a received vocabulary and grammar of the photographic community as represented by the popular press. I would agree with Rob that it doesn’t really matter about light, subject or composition as long as the photograph is creating a reaction that the photographer wanted. However that would make a boring article
Print 
PDF
If anything, your piece is a sound debunking of the myth that the only light of value to landscape photographers is twilight or ‘golden hour’ light, given how few of the example images were made in these conditions.
I think the conclusion that composition is king can be drawn (perhaps in not quite such a straightforward way) by even a casual perusal of the work of the master photographers already featured in LGB (as well as many who have not (yet?) been featured). Unerring composition is the unifying element in any collection of photography that aspires to greatness.
Composition allows the photographer to make connections between objects which the casual observer might not; it also allows an image to be read as a kind of ‘narrative’. At its best, composition rewards the viewer for spending time with an image and allows the measured discovery of individual elements of a wider scene. Given its importance, one can only wonder why it’s given such cursory coverage in the popular photographic press…
Anyway, thanks for this article, Tim. It’s crystallised some thoughts I have recently been having in this direction.
Julian.
I remember David Ward, who has probably taught me more about photography than anyone else over the years, urging his workshop participants to match the light to the subject (and presumably vice versa). Great advice, I think. But there is also a practical side to this, especially for the majority of us who have to fit photography around work, family, etc. In my case, for example, there is almost no opportunity for me to photograph in the golden hours. I am just too busy working, getting the children off to school, cooking the dinner, etc, etc. Most of the time I just have to take the opportunities as they arise and the light as I find it.
Pingback: 220. Chuffed « Alistair Haimes's Blog
Interesting thoughts here but I am not sure that we can separate out the three and home in on the composition so starkly: all three are closely integrated and I suppose my conclusion is that all three have to work together for us to make a good image. That’s not very incisive really
(1) without good composition you cannot make a unique or great image: almost everyone recognises a good composition even if they don’t know that they have done so.
(2) given a type of light it is a question of finding a subject which will be rendered well: almost everyone appreciates a photo taken in dramatic light. “Poor” light can only be poor if the subject cannot be shown to best effect.
(3) as to subject, well that is tricky and I believe very subjective (pardon the pun). I happen to like rocks but to many viewers they are just that – rocks. So what to me is a subject to others is a non-subject as they have no appreciation of the textures, colours and shapes that fire me up when I look at rocks. But my rocks would be hopeless in the wrong light.
Rgds., Adam
Agreed – effectively it is difficult to separate but to the emphasis on light or subect instead of composition is a red herring that leads many a photographer astray..
I’m not sure it’s something that leads people astray. It’s more like different phases of development. We all start out by photographing subjects – usually family and friends – without much regard as to light or composition; snapshots, basically. Then, as we learn more, we begin to realise how important light is and, at the same time, we might pick up some ‘shortcuts’ to making a good (good enough?) image: RoT, golden light, leading lines, etc., etc. The subtleties of good composition cannot be so easily explained within the constraints of a pithy magazine article (although LGB has made a couple of valiant attempts!), so a lot of budding photographers decide that their images are of a ‘good-enough’ standard. They get lots of votes and praise on sharing sites (good subject, good light, acceptable composition) so why change a winning formula?
To go further needs a bit more effort. It requires a measure of introspection and the seeking out of famous photographers’ work to study and that in turn needs a certain amount of motivation. Perhaps even some tuition. If everyone is already telling you how good your (probably clichéed) compositions are, where’s the drive to improve? Not only that, there’s also the fear of trying something new and potentially failing.
Perhaps so – I just wonder whether the emphasis on ‘light’ in many writings stop people investigating composition as much?
OK, I can see how “light” can be taken as the most important factor in photography. Can we really photograph “great light”? I don’t think we can, as unless the light is falling on some sort of subject then it is just photons hitting the sensing medium. I have seen some wonderful sunsets recently, the light in the clouds was fantastic but the urban roofs that I see from my window just don’t make a subject (at least, not to me). Not only that but there’s virtually nothing that I can do about composition. So subject and composition play a big part. But a colleague at work who is a typical point-and-shoot snapper enthuses about her photos of such sunsets and sees only the light in the clouds. To her, that is the subject and composition plays no part.
For the more discerning, composition is certainly hugely important in landscape photography and I would imagine that most beginner photographers get this wrong unless they have an innate understanding of design. But for really good images it does need to be supported by the right light and make use of a good subject.
So if I may take a few examples from the selection, Tim’s “dancing birches” is wonderful and takes the right subject for the available light – and structures the composition to match. David Ward’s “embers” from Yellowstone is one of my all-time favourites of his. This image has to have flat light to work, the composition contrasts the structured upright trunks against the chaos after the forest fire while the subject, though in a sense ugly and brutal (but not “poor” in my opinion), is beautifully rendered with colour opposites. And though I really admire Joe’s sunset photo at the head of the article, it is the cloudy loch and the JCB in dramatic light that really inspire me – here again it is about using the available light to best effect and arranging the subject in the frame.
Rgds., Adam (on a rainy Sunday when neither light, nor subject work – and so I haven’t bothered to try composition!)
I was wondering about one particular way of identifying the role of light: take a photo of pure bokeh, such as the light falling through trees a handful of yards away, intentionally completely out of focus.
It’s not quite `only light’, in that it’s possible to favour some compositions more than others, but it is subject-free.
Super article – very relevant and interesting to me. Composition is the thing I struggle most with and seeing the level of detail you guys put into a picture has inspired me to try harder and think more.
One of the photos presented as an example of “poor light, poor subject, good composition,” that of the rope with severely rusted chain, is one that I find extremely effective and would love to have a print of. To my eye, everything in it works to produce a picture of great power. (I think I can properly make that assertion as one who has seen more than his fair share of pictures – good and bad – in a long life.)
This, to me, illustrates the fact that we just can not predict which of our photographs will have great effect upon some in our audience. If we cared enough to click the shutter, there probably was something that needed saying, and someone else may well be listening. (Poor subject, indeed, Tim!)
One other thing that I’ve been noticing – ‘good composition’ in landscapes seems to often involve shooting an expansive vista with a wide-angle lens at small aperture, rendering everything from near to far in sharp focus, with, of course, an object of interest placed prominently in the foreground. Some might say that likelihood of success is increased by really looking, and seeing, then getting close to what one has seen – just as was done with the rope and chain.
I really appreciate that you like the Chain picture, it’s a composition I worked on for quite a while. If you would like a price, just drop me an email and I’ll see what I can do..
I think one of the great abilities of photography is to show the world that other people do not see and for me this means the overlooked or aspects of the larger view that only appear through a photograph point of view. etc.
I liked this article… one that definitely could be expanded on.
I think as a beginner of only 4 years doing photography, I think ive come to the conclusion that the composition is made of up light and subject is it not? Rather than just thinking about composition in terms of s cruves, colour juxtapositions, near and far comps, balance, diagonals etc.. And is it not one of statement, narrative, story telling, however you want to say it…. it’s what the photographer has to say that is core in shooting what we shoot in the first place. Isn’t that the driver behind the choice 3 of composition, light and subject? Could we then argue that is more important than what we actually shoot… its how we see?
I’m still learning this very much every time I go out (when I can which is very rare now with a 6 month old) and even more so now I have slowed up in my eagerness to get out, and rather think think think, and wait wait wait until what I really want to say about a place can be shot the way I really want it. Especially now I am starting to shoot 4×5.
Those with more experience than me , Im really looking forward to hearing your views.
Interesting comment, Steve: I was broadly agreeing with Tim’s thesis and conclusions, in particular the very last line that ‘it doesn’t really matter about light, subject or composition as long as the photograph is creating a reaction that the photographer wanted’, but felt a little uneasy about including composition as one of the three things which make up a photograph, along with light and subject.
I can’t argue against the fact that the word ‘composition’ is used in the photography press to mean something distinct from light and subject – it clearly is – but I think you’ve identified a very pertinent point: to me, light and subject are part of a composition, not on the same level as it. I tend to think of balance/flow/diagonals/etc. as being the ‘structure’ of the image, with composition being the USE of all these elements, including light and subject, to make an image.
Possibly a merely semantic argument, and I’m certainly a relative beginner, but I’m going to stick with thinking of ‘composition’ as something above light/subject/structure for the time being. Conveniently, that last statement would explain why ‘good’ composition is more critical than ‘good’ light or ‘good’ subject, arguably.
Mike
Structure is quite a good way of describing the formal devices used in composition. However, typically the structure and balance of a scene is changed by the light and so they are coupled, as is the subject.
However, I think it is worth thinking about them separately when considering a view until such a time as they all come together instinctively for you (I’m a *long* way away from that point).
I was thinking of something along the lines of…. .hmmmmm….. need a diagram here really :-\
Failing that:
the set of things which interact could be light / subject / structure, and the way those things are collectively used is composition.
I totally agree that those three things interact and affect each other; I’m really just suggesting that ‘composition’ is a combination of those elements of the image, thus ‘higher’ and ‘more important’ than any one of them, but /formed/ by their combination and arrangement. After all, a bright patch of light could be both a part of the structure and a subject in itself.
So, yes; I’m agreeing that they’re worth considering separately, but musing about the way they are thought about. I’m most certainly waaaayyyyyyy off thinking of this stuff instinctively
Mike
It is of course illusory to separate composition from the arrangement of light and subject; as Yeats said, “How can we know the dancer from the dance”?. In terms of improving our technique, though, I think it is valid to focus on each element individually; certainly when I look at some of my photos from a while back I would give anything to be able to go back and slightly shift my viewpoint to have made a better photo given the scene in front of me.
Surely everybody has had that experience?
And when we have found a subject that we find arresting, in light that shows it off to good effect, surely it is an unreservedly good thing to put effort into arranging the scene as best as we’re able? And surely as we develop as photographers it is good to try and refine our eye so that this arrangement “in the field” becomes more decisive, faster and more instinctive, and also hopefully so that we are stopped in our tracks by a scene that, perhaps because of light that we would otherwise think uninspiring, we would otherwise have passed by?
Certainly I find that the more effort I put into composition the more I enjoy every element of photography, and perhaps perversely the more I study and think about composition away from the camera the more instinctive it becomes on the scene. Talking to others it seems this is a common experience.
Thoughts?
We don’t all agree universally as to what constitutes good light, subjects, and compositions. I’ve found exceptions in each of your examples. Even further – using this article as example, and looking at the Minor White article for comparison – many of White’s images could be/would be regarded as “poor” in all three categories dependent upon who is looking and grading.
While good for the novice, I’m not fond of the “rules of photography” because they are often perpetrated by photographers whose bias or interests infects their teachings. If it feels right, then it is right. It doesn’t matter what the good book says…
I’ve reread the last paragraph and see that Hudson agrees…
Hi Michael,
I’m not disagreeing that there are exceptions – the thing is that they are, typically, exceptions.. and as I mention at the end, both Rob and I agree that narrative can trump everything.
I’d be interested in the successful picture that has just light with poor subject and composition though
(and the successful photograph with none of any of them)
And like I said at the end – if we look at photography and say ‘Well anything goes’ then there is very little to teach?
As for rules, I try to avoid them also however if you want to provide ‘help’ to people by giving ‘guidance’ it has to be subjective – this doesn’t make it irrelevant. As long as the advice is given as ‘subjective’ then I don’t see an issue in even talking about guidance or even rules for that matter (I’m sure some photographers work wholly by rules and if that works for them then I don’t have an issue with that unless they start telling people it is the *only* way to work and that if anybody does anything else then they’re wrong).
Minor white though, what a great case where narrative, mood and message were equally or more important than formal devices, complementary light or subject (although I find every one of Minor White’s photographs featured exquisitely composed)
Thanks for taking part in the conversation – much appreciate it!
I’m quite glad to see a debunking of the myth about “good light” and golden hours; I recently rebelled against that and started thinking in terms of “appropriate light”. (It’s good to read of David Ward advocating that.)
There are so many other dimensions to consider, too. Impact aka “wow”, atmosphere, message, … The bit where we flip that into a recipe for making a photo becomes: see beyond looking.
Interesting article Tim but, in my opinion, you completely miss the mark in characterizing the light and subjects in some of your examples as “poor”. The chain image is a very nice image made more enjoyable by nicely even, soft light. I would characterize that condition as being excellent for that specific subject and situation and estimate that a stronger light source, even warm, golden hour light, would diminish the image through harsh contrast and reduction in the great colour and tone. (I think the only potential issue in that example is what I find to be a slightly too narrow DOF but that is another matter entirely.) The Quirang image is another example of nicely reflected light and dramatic sky that adds a good deal of drama to the composition. Landscape photographers in the US love reflected light such as this for landscapes as it can bring out the best in colour. That said, try this same Quirang viewpoint with a completely flat, grey, featureless sky and it would offer far less impact than the nicely moody offering you show here. To be honest, I also fail to see why you characterize some of the subject matter as “poor” such as with David Ward’s brunt forest image. David Ward has it right (as ever) when he asserts that it is best to match the subject with flattering light (and that is not limited to the golden hours). So to me this statement seems to contradict itself:
“…it doesn’t matter what light you have as long as it complements the subject.”
In my opinion the light DOES matter in that it should complement the subject. That meets the definition of good light for the specific photograph you will make.
I have to admit that I get just as bored by well-composed yet dull and dark looking images as I am of wonderful “golden hour” light trophies.
I think we’re saying the same thing Bob – my initial definition on ‘poor’ and ‘good’ are based on the typical use in the popular press and on most forums i.e. “You should have seen the great light” and “No the light was a bit poor today”. Like you say, you can’t say whether light is good or poor without reference to the subject.
The same goes for ‘poor’ or ‘good’ subjects. Show David’s burnt woodland to Joe Public and ask them if this is a good or poor subject for photography….
Are you saying that “Dull, dark” light is poor light here? Why are you fed up of them? Surely you find the picture poor because of the light then it doesn’t complement the subject?
Anyway – my conclusion is that there is no such thing as good or poor subject or light. In my eyes there is such a thing as poor composition though and a picture can suffer for it. Hence I think composition is probably the most important attribute a photographer can learn (especially as it’s the one aspect they are fully in control of – anyone can be lucky with the light or go to the right place for a great subject. Not anyone can create a great composition).
I agree that composition is a discernable control point for a photographer but that, to me, doesn’t not in any way diminish the “importance” of the other two attributes of a good photograph. Even if the light is beyond your control, subject choice remains in your hands as well as how you choose to compose it in 2 dimensions.
What I lament is something I refer to as “target fixation syndrome”. That’s where people go out with a preconceived image in mind and make it regardless of the light conditions. They come home and find it less than adequate and then try to salvage the moment using Photoshop kung fu or take refuge in the fact that there is a diagonal composition or an s-curve…job done. Rather than adapt their vision to what the landscape offers they succumb to tunnel vision and end up missing the mark. I can appreciate (from experience) that one often feels compelled to make an image. Maybe you’re on holiday at a once in a lifetime location or you’ve just driven 3 hours to be somewhere. You simply can’t go home without trying something right? It’s ridiculously hard to go away empty handed. One of my mentors (William Neill) once told me that learning when NOT to press the shutter is perhaps as hard as learning to identify the right moments, conditions and compositions.
In my opinion we should be out there seeking to make images that tick all three boxes and anything less is simply a compromise that is 1/3 to 2/3 less of an image than it could be had we adapted, waited or returned on another occasion. We need to be developing our senses of composition but we also need to study the various nuances of light in the areas we photograph so as to be able to adapt our approach to the situations we encounter. We also need to be developing our abilities to isolate interesting subject matter and to not just settle on reflexively positioning a big rock or stick in the lower third somewhere (There’s my rock…bish, bash, bosh….look out David Muench!).
For my money light conditions are far less likely to thwart my photographic intentions these days as are the flippin’ Yorkshire winds. I haven’t quite yet learned to adapt my vision to make strong imagery in those conditions and repeatedly come home empty handed or with images that end up in the bin. I’ve seen Joe and David do it so maybe there is hope for me. I need to get better at identifying the right subject matter for these conditions and then to strongly compose them in my viewfinder on a day when the light will bring out the amount of colour and shadow I want to achieve. Fingers crossed…
On the facing page for this article it says, “Light, composition or subject – Which is the most critical”.
If we go back to the 1900′s I found this quote from Leonard Misonne which I think backs up the thrust of this topic.
“Light glorifies everything. It transforms and ennobles the most commonplace and ordinary subjects. The object is nothing; light is everything.”
Many people would assume that it’s referring to ‘golden hour’ light, but surely not.. take a look at Leonard’s shots and he’s more of the David Ward camp.. matching subject to light brilliantly (mind you they are B&W so no golden hour as such. but you get my gist).
Absolutely! I hope nobody gets the impression that I don’t care about light. For a single subject there may be multiple light ‘types’ that provide a complementary match. Some of these light sources will give different impressions in the viewer. Great quote by the way!
I think anyone who comes away from this thinking TIm Parkin cares naught for light is not fit to be reading this.. it’s obvious you care passionately about images and have a keen interest in understanding the ‘genetic’ makeup that causes one image to excite a viewer more than another image!
The quest to produce strong pictures is a path strewn with obstacles and challenges. Successfully overcoming these is I suggest one of the reasons which motivates us to go out at silly and sensible O’Clock.
Milestones are passed on our photographic journeys, the ability to images in certain lighting of certain subject matter. Initially this may well be emulation of photographs which we have admired by other photographers. But soon as our confidence grows, we start to make pictures which have elements of ourselves in them. At this point some seem to become set of creating a definitive style for their photography.
As we continue on our way, some prefer to keep blinkers on and restrict their vision and output to making the same type of images, others are more inquisitive and seek to explore new (to them) pathways. Satisfaction is to be gained from both of these approaches as hopefully the photographer is making pictures which they deem are successful.
Personally, I go out in a wide range of conditions and these do dictate the subject matter which I make images from. In grey, wet and drab conditions, my images are predominantly detail studies, or if wider, exclude the sky as Vistas tend not to look good to my eyes. In contrast the ‘fine art’ community seem to favour this look accompanied by earnest text explaining just how much toil/attitude has been undergone by the photographer – another hornets nest)….
So I suggest that finding an effective solution, melding light and subject with strong composition is done more frequently by skillful photographers. If they choose to pursue this pathway, they almost certainly will need to be prepared not to believe what they are reading. It will involve asking questions of themselves and others and probably at a deeper level than ‘stunning pic’ which predominates in some circles – this shape seemingly describing the path in which some are running.
Hopefully GBL will grow and become a photographic GPS to help us all find our way on our own adventures.
Very thoughtfull comment Bax, thanks! I looked up “composition” in the dictionary just to see what it says: to put together, to place together. Yet I think that in photography the word could denote more: not only do we com-pose the various physical elements in the scene, but we also mix in the other key ingedients i.e appropriate light and a choice of subject. That is the real composition using the word in the more abstract sense – going back to the music analogy: good images are a symphony of the three factors working in unison – though I think I see where Tim is coming from. Rgds Adam
Yes in a wider sense that is what composition is Adam. I was restricting it to the placement and arrangements within the frame. I’m not arguing with where Tim seems to be coming from, just indicating that we individuals all have different ways of floating our boats. Being versatile with our vision when out making images is likely to produce more strong pictures. One of my most successful images was made when I’d set out to do some B&W detail shots in the Forest. Having struggled on this mission and decided to pack in, I’d got back to about 150m from my car when I saw a wide angle colour scene. This has been a best selling image both on card and as a print. And yes, it was approaching midday. Many subsequent return visits to recreate something similar have all been unsuccessful!
In summary:
One out of three ain’t good.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
…but it ain’t great either.
I have taken many shots without light (mostly when I forgot to take the lens cap off) And let me assure you they each lacked a certain something. The statement “light the most important thing in photography” has to be taken in it’s simplest form. Without light there is no photography; without light there is no subject; without light there is no composition (well not unless you’re trying to recreate the photographic equivalent of 4’33″). I’ll move on before anyone cries out “negative space”. Once you accept the presence of light as a given, that the image is light, whether direct or indirect, reflected, refracted, colour or monochrome, (African or European, laden or unladen) then surely the placement of that light (ie composition) defines the image. Whether or not that forms a discernible shape (subject) is completely secondary.
Nice article, Tim, loved the argument about “who’s photographs are they?” as well as Rob’s insightful addendum.
Good thought provoking article Tim. However I don’t agree that a good image can be obtained without good light. With good composition and subject yes a “reasonable” shot that portrays the feel of that moment can be obtained, but without good light it is nothing to my eye. The example offered as poor light of the Quirang by Joe does in fact have good light surely, lots of mood and atmosphere, so works despite the cloudy laden skies, but as Bob G says in flat dull light it wouldn’t work.
Perhaps because of my long years photographing steam trains in the landscape I am very much in the camp of you must have good light – not necessarily “golden hours” light, although that is without doubt very desirable – to make a good landscape shot. If you don’t have good light for a “steam in the landscape” shot it simply doesn’t work. That “rule” has taught/forced me onto a path where without good light I say to myself “don’t bother, not today – come back another time and try”.
I think the general non photographer public also appreciate good light in a picture, images that I sell at fairs and shows throughout the year taken in “nice light” far outsell those taken in more “ordinary” conditions and you only have to hear the comments made when people are browsing the displays to realise this. Perhaps with realising it many people also have a good eye for composition, the stronger the composition in my pictures the better they sell.
So in summary, good composition, light and subject are important/essential in landscape photographs I believe.
Hi Don – Not trying to disagree here but I would be intrigued as to what you consider would be bad enough light not to go out?
Hi Tim, if I look out and see flat grey skies with no possibility of the sun appearing somewhere or indeed today I’m planning a shot of steam in the landscape but the middle of day light in June is of less interest to me so I’ll wait until late afternoon/early evening and cover it on its return journey. Same would go for a landscape (i.e no steam train!) shot at this time of year, I do prefer to follow the “golden hours” theme – won’t call it a rule!
Regards, Don.
Here are a few grey sky pictures 1, 2, 3 from Joe Cornish and if you look at the home page of my personal site, all of these were taken in awful light (for the rowan it was totally overcast with occasional rain, the Glencoe sisters was overcast with hardly discernable shape to the clouds and the Stonecrop was 100% bright blue sky at midday using an umbrella).
Thanks Tim, the Bedruthan one doesn’t “float my boat” (sorry Joe) but the Glen Brittle and Thomason Foss ones are great images. Perhaps I should’ve qualified my feelings by adding the exception of waterfalls and fast flowing rivers (and Bluebells when in season!) which often work better in poor light – that’s where I head when out and the weather refuses to brighten up, and I’ve got a number of “keepers” from such conditions! The other images from your site show good composition and subject of course, but I wouldn’t make the Glencoe one myself in those conditions, the close up’s yes I probably would try them. Its a personal thing I guess but I much prefer good light for my images, and sales from our displays and exhibitions seem to indicate that the buying public prefer that too.
Regards, Don.
Hi Don – I know where you are coming from. If you really want to include the sky as a feature in the picture then you need some shape and drama in it. However, that isn’t really the ‘light’, more the type of sky?
Hi All, I think we are back to whether light is poor/bad or appropriate. If we are out to take a specific pre-visualised image, then light can indeed be bad if our image demands a particular direction, colour temperature, low angle etc. However, if we are out with a camera having fun, then we need to match the subject to the available light. I suppose that light can only be bad if it isn’t right for the particular picture we had in mind. Rgds. Adam
Yep, I think I agree with that Adam. I had a classic instance last evening – nice subject (Cherhill, Wilts), good composition available but rubbish light so no shot taken! Rgrds Don.
Tim,
Interested in the last paragraph, particularly after your thoughts on the time you spent at the Photographer’s Place. Far from being boring, isn’t this reaction crucial as it is this that keeps the viewer returning?
Patrick
Thanks – yes it is, I suppose I was saying if I wrote an article about Light Subject and Composition that said ‘It doesn’t really matter what you do’, it wouldn’t really be particularly interesting. The fact that it doesnt matter and what *does* matter is something I plan to write about in the future..
Excellent article Tim. I have a problem, however. At the risk of being terribly picky, and at possibly being extradited from this community, the first image in this article appears to have a slanted horizon.
I have read this article twice and am in agreement with the three major factors proposed. Like many, I am a great admirer of Joe’s work and wish to cause no disrespect to this mater craftsman, but I cannot reconcile myself with the horizon in his beautiful image. Does this, therefore, fall into the category of, dare I say it, ‘poor composition’, or is it something that can be overlooked without detriment to the image?
The fact is that this image is not poorly composed. Far from it, it’s practically perfect. So what is my issue, and does it really matter that much? In much of the past month’s editorial press I have seen a fair few slanted horizons on show, some minor, some way off the mark. I concede that on occasion, lens distortions can produce seemingly bowed and curved lines and I am fully aware of this and can tell the difference. From what I have seen in the press, the slanted horizons appear to have been overlooked, perhaps not noticed by editors and designers under deadline pressure. If this is the case, are we, as photographers, responsible for ensuring our images are all neat and tidy?
In terms of what it means to the image (any image), when I have fixed my eye on a slanted horizon I find it terribly difficult to get over it! I can’t ignore a slanted horizon. It matters to me, as it would matter that my tie was correctly knotted for a big business meeting. In my view, the final image is as much a representation of the scene as it is a representation/projection of ourselves, our attitudes and approaches to making a ‘perfect’ image. Why let yourself down by turning up to that business meeting with scruffy shoes?
Photographers dedicate so much time being at the right place, in the right conditions at the right moment to capture an image that stands out. In post processing, great care is spent removing dust spots, correcting colours and tweaking levels. Ensuring flat horizons, for me, is a big part of this. Perhaps it is just me, I am being too picky, maybe I have OCD?!
No you don’t have OCD (at least not by this evidence, I’d have to get to know you a bit better for a clinical opinion). I’ll hold my hand up and say that I chose some images supplied by the gallery (not by Joe directly) and I’ve noticed that, on occasion, they have not aligned their scans particularly well. Since then, Joe is scanning his own pictures (although I’m scanning a few ‘difficult’ ones on my drum scanner). I should have checked the shot myself but time pressure means that a few things slip through gaps.
I know I am a bit late posting but I have just discovered the site and am exploring past articles.
I take the view that the first thing you need to think about is the light, the type and quality of light will guide you in creating your photograph. I believe you can almost always make a pleasing photograph whatever the light but the light will often lead me to make particular type of photograph, one that suits the light I am given to work with. So from that respect I feel light is still probably the most important aspect of photography.