Two pictures to illustrate a point:
Before sundown
After sundown
Same camera, same lens, same scene, same framing (or close). The Celestial Assistant suggested a setup change and kindly moved the main light a little—just 15 or 20 degrees, not a huge change. But not subtle either—in the second picture there's a planetary gobo impinging and all the light is ambient.
I've always loved watching how different light changes things. Whether I take a picture of it or not.
It begs a more subtle conceptual problem: is a photograph a picture of the thing in the picture, or the light on the thing? Mostly, I think good pictures are usually of light, whether "what the picture is of" is important or not. Learning how to pay attention to light instead of sorting everything in your field of view into its solid structure is a crucial step in photography if you ask me. In one sense, this didn't need to be a pickup truck...the pickup truck just serves to clarify what the light looked like. Light creates the composition, the mood, the structure of the picture, the color of the picture, on and on.
You can have a perfectly serviceable photograph without good light, of course. Many photographs just show things—places, objects, people, animals. Most of the important aspects of a good photograph, however, a successful photograph, are created by what the light's doing. It's at least half the battle.
You could look at it the other way around as well, of course. That the meaning of the picture is usually in the things it shows, and the light is just a means of revealing it. In the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher, for instance, they insisted on flat, overcast light for every picture, specifically to remove the light from being part of the subject and concentrate visual attention more completely on the structures they were photographing.
It fascinates me how pictures come and go. I took a picture of a farmland scene once that I put up on the blog a couple of years ago. (I didn't do a very good job of capturing it. Wrong equipment.) Since then I've passed that place perhaps as many as forty times and I've never again seen it look like anything. I look at it every time I go by. The light was just right that one time, that's all. There's never been a photograph there since then.
One of the ways to improve your photography is to give yourself an idea. Identical views in very different light would be an idea the right photographer could build a project on, I think, if they had the visual chops and sensitivity.
Back soon
As I do every Monday morning, I'm off to the Moose now to play pool with the guys—Loyle, Jerry, Lyle, Norm, and Tom. Back later to hear what you have to say. I might sneak over early to get a little practice in, too...Jerry's been coming outta nowhere lately and tearing up the joint, and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with buckshot.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Walter Glover: "This post of yours brings two axioms to mind for me, Mike: 1.) My commercial days of making photographs of things are well and truly behind me and, in my personal work the pursuit is to make photographs about things. All the qualities of varying light form a huge component in the vocabulary and grammar of conveying the spirit or essence of a motif. 2.) To achieve such ends the notion that light reveals and shadow gives form is forever emblazoned in my photo consciousness."
Mark Sampson: "Subject and lighting are inextricably linked. In the best photographs they combine to make a 'good' photograph a 'great' one. Chicken or egg?"
Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Light, and its strategic conceptual usage is the tool that hobbyists tend to overlook or misuse most in their photography. Light sculpts form. Light sculpts mood. Light manages the focus of attention. Light, not the camera, is the photographer’s tool."
Mike replies: Couldn't have said it better myself (and, in fact, I didn't).
Ernest Zarate: "John Szarkowski wrote a terrific book, The Photographer’s Eye. In it, he detailed the specific choices photographers make, consciously or accidentally, each time they press the shutter button: the frame, vantage point, time, the thing itself (i.e., raw material), and the detail. Great primer and one of my foundation books. Yet, brilliant though Szarkowski was, I’ve always felt the book missed a big one: light. It’s true most photographers can’t choose their light. It is as you say the Celestial Assistant in control. Give that, though, the photographer has the choice whether to use the light being offered. Your point about the farm lit in glory that one time, and never again (the fickle Photo Gods at their devilish best) illustrates the point exactly."
Mike replies: Excellent insight into the great Szarkowski title and one I've never heard or thought of before. But I think you're right.
Jan Kwarnmark: "Henri Cartier-Bresson: 'I go for form, much more than light. Form First. Light is like a perfume to me.'"
Arg: "Lighten up, Mike!"
Ah yes. An old friend of mine, Jørn Toxsværd who was a name in Danish photography for decades, once talked about how in a quiet evening manning an international competition (“The Golden”, I was prepresented myself), he decided to figure out what would be the common denominator for the photos which had made their way into this censored exhibition. He found that they all had The Light.
It’s an odd thing, isn’t it? Sure, photography means “draw with light,” but by definition all photographs are made with light, so why are some kinds of light so much more aesthetic to us?
Posted by: Eolake | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 09:23 AM
Yes Mike, its all about the light.
Posted by: James | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 09:24 AM
I would imagine that this is why sunrises and sunsets are popular amongst photographers of every skillset, but especially amongst the aspirant.
As JMW Turner is reputed to have said on his deathbed, and as admirably conveyed to the modern world by Tim Spall in the film "Mr. Turner"...
"THE SUN IS GOD!" ha ha....
... and he stopped breathing.
Posted by: Stephen J | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 09:45 AM
By definition, photography is a process of recording “light”. If that light happens to be bouncing off (or blasting from) stuff in interesting ways, so much the better.
Light, and its strategic conceptual usage is the tool that hobbyists tend to overlook or misuse most in their photography. Light sculpts form. Light sculpts mood. Light manages the focus of attention. Light, not the camera, is the photographer’s tool.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 10:07 AM
St. Ansel would sit for hours waiting for the light to be like he wanted. No surprise there.
One of the reasons I never was any good at tabletop stuff was I am a dunce about lights.
Posted by: Herb Cunningham | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 11:44 AM
Mike
Send us a nice image at the pool table.
Dan K
Posted by: Dan Khong | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 12:05 PM
That's a fallacy; it only means that they preferred that particular type of light. Since photography is, by definition, capturing the light reflected off objects in the frame, light is, in essence, the only subject of a photograph.
Each photographer, for each photograph, chooses to use what light is reflected back to their camera. Some choose to ignore the type of light, be it from artistic or technical goals, or from the need to document what is in front of them, whatever the light may be. All of those are choices about how the photographer will work with the reflected light coming to their camera.
Be it studio photography (and its close cousin, cinematography), landscapes, reportage, street, documentary, travel, scientific, etc... the light determines, and is ultimately, what is being photographed.
Posted by: Maggie Osterberg | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 12:06 PM
Kinda related topic.I guess lots of people will know about and use this - https://www.photoephemeris.com/ - just putting it here for anyone who doesn't. (I have no connection BTW)
I've found it a great planning tool if you need to organise the light for a particular shot ( hehe ) , and also endlessly fascinintaing just from your armchair
Posted by: Richard Tugwell | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 12:26 PM
Did I really say fascinitatining.. or something? Been listening to US presidents too much
Posted by: Richard Tugwell | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 12:27 PM
The light from above-

Posted by: Herman Krieger | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 12:36 PM
Over the course of several years Richard Misrach photographed the Golden Gate Bridge from the same location (his porch), but under different lighting and weather conditions.
Posted by: Globules | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 01:28 PM
"To be master of photography means to be master of light."
Joseph von Sternberg
(from his autobiography "Fun in a chinese laundry"
Posted by: Lothar Adler | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 02:19 PM
Did you know Monet had his kitchen painted “yellow?
YB Hudson III
Posted by: Y.B. Hudson III | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 03:11 PM
> is a photograph a picture of the thing in the picture, or the light on the thing?
Well, since the word photograph comes from the Greek words 'phos' en 'graphê', meaning 'light' and 'drawing', respectively, it literally means 'drawing with light', or perhaps even 'drawing of light'. So I'd guess the second.
Posted by: Bernard | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 04:02 PM
Clyde Butcher, he of large format/Everglades (sort of) fame, has stated he has no magic. He uses bog standard film, metering and developing. He just looks for the right light. Whether one likes his work or not, that's a pretty compelling methodology.
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 05:45 PM
'You can never stand in the same river twice'
My house is inland (Bucks County Pennsylvania), and even though I spend most of my time there I take far more pictures at my house near the ocean. I probably have more time when I am there but there is an element of 'going to school' when I am there.
In places where land and sea, and sky meet the light seems to change more often. So much so that if you see picture you need to run and get it, because in two minutes it won't be there. But if you are patient another different picture will come along.
You can just sit on a bench and watch the changes.
Now I understand that it is true everywhere but it seems concentrated there. In fact, my 'school' has made me a better photographer everywhere.
So while all our pictures are pictures of light, some are also about other stuff too.
Posted by: Michael Perini | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 07:25 PM
Without light we wouldn’t even have the term ‘photography’.
To Ken’s ‘enlightened’ statement, I’d add that light reveals texture, often an important tactile quality to a picture.
And, as I keep repeating myself, the key tools for the photographer are between the ears.... but not everyone sees the light.
Posted by: Jeff | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 07:38 PM
It's true that good pictures are usually of light, but the best pictures IMHO are of emotions, specifically, an interaction between those of the photographer and the viewer.
Posted by: TC | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 09:23 PM
Glasses for pool. Seriously!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8JXK59zpJY
Posted by: Jeff Thompson | Monday, 17 September 2018 at 09:23 PM
Check out the poem Light, at Thirty-Two. by Michael Blumenthal.
Posted by: Kirk Decker | Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 12:50 AM
If anyone is as much of a slugabed as me ....and happens to live somewhere the landscape has very simple lines and form ...ie moorland .. in my case Dartmoor UK .. then they would know the joy of winter
Now at last the light starts casting its spell at a sensible time of the morning
Magic!
Posted by: Tom Bell | Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 04:14 AM
This is all well and good, but time and light wait for no man; do it whilst you can.
Of course, like Walter, my pro days are in the past tense, but I find it works slightly differently for me: I am not a pre-planner sort of soul. I wander around and allow whatever catches my eye to be the determinant of whether I click or just walk on by (old songs never die); it's up to them, the subjects, to grab me or not. Living in a little town in the back of over there, things don't change much: the opportunity to reshoot is always there, but I almost never do, for the buzz is in the moment, like a smile to you from a married woman having dinner a few tables away from you: don't look for more or something else - just savour the moment or feign short-sightedness if she isn't to your taste; either way, the smile may be better than the meal. Be content that she felt benign.
Feel about images as about women, and life takes on new meaning. Assuming, of course, you're a man. Otherwise, lets pre- visualise this thing and act accordingly.
Rob
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 08:06 AM
Ken's comment "Light, not the camera, is the photographer’s tool" reminds me that this truth seems more evident in motion pictures.
I came to photography from filmmaking. Cinematographers spend most of their working time on the light, not the camera. Read an issue of "American Cinematographer" magazine -- it's 90% about lighting strategies and lighting diagrams, 5% about choice of film stock or the "look" of the digital image, and 5% about cameras, framing, etc.
Posted by: David W Scott | Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 09:43 AM
There are three kinds of lighting styles: realistic, stylized and bogus. To know light you need to study light. I analyze the lighting everywhere I go. Because of this I have millions of lighting-diagrams stored between my ears—ready to be used at a moments notice. Some are realistic and some are stylized; but non are bogus.
There is a difference between lighting and illumination—a simple concept that unfortunately many can neither see nor fathom.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 02:00 PM
I remember reading a Ralph Gibson quote which went (as best as I recall): "When you're on location, the light is always perfect. It's the photographer's interpretation of it that is sometimes lacking." Which is kind of comforting (you can always make a picture regardless of the light), and kind of not (if you can't, that's on you).
Posted by: Ade | Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 05:18 AM
Lighting; illumination...
There is both a reason and a beauty to the white umbrella.
Illumination most certainly, but fast, more than good enough and still capable of interesting light, and practically fool-proof.
Busy studious don't usually want to revert to 30s Hollywood.
Rob
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 10:15 AM