Three Things A Good Photograph Needs

I would agree 90%.

The reason I say 90% and not 100 is if you give me the light I can usually make a composition with weak and boring subject, though a good subject certainly helps.

I agree with you both...ANYTHING can be a subject, of course some are more interesting than others, controlling the composition into an interesting view is a skill, but I can't change the light worth anything, so I think its most important when I am looking for a scene to photograph myself.

But in the final image, it all has to be there.

Absolutely true...although I usually place beautiful light number one on my list.

Subject rules,followed by composition and then the quality of light. BUT with that said, they are all a leg on the stool and can change importance as one or the other 'legs" takes a place of more importance. So great light can transform a boring subject,etc.But in most cases, subject rules..............

Here's a shot with the subject, the composition and finally the light, in that order. The car was in late afternoon shade and blue-ish:



This is an example of light,composition,subject matter:



Rich

wrong thread!

Good post Edward. I do agree with JC though. While good light is important, it's also about controlling the light, even in challenging conditions. How can you do that when shooting outdoors? To twist a quote from Admiral Kirk, learn how things work. That refers to the technical aspects of photography. I don't always get to shoot in the best lighting conditions. Often I have to shoot in full sunlight at mid-day, or on flat cloudy days. It is what it is. But some of my best shots have been done under poor lighting conditions. So on cloudy days, winter days, or bright sunny days, I don't leave the camera in the bag like some do. I look even harder for something to shoot.

The top 2 shots were done on days when it the sky was a complete gray of solid clouds, which you can kind of see through the windows of the first shot. Flat light, little contrast. The bottom shot was mid-day, full sunlight, which of course they say you should never shoot in. Never say never.

I've gotten some good black and white shots on those gray, blah lighting winter's days. They look really blah in color, but when life hands you terrible lighting, make black and white lemonade :-)

Sometimes light itself can be the subject.
.....

I love overcast days. You just don't shoot the blank white sky. Cloud days is when nature give you a giant soft box. Its great for collecting images for future composites. It also means you can shoot all day and not have to avoid harsh high noon light.


....
Giant softbox:

I Agree

I love that Vette Edward!

Sometimes, when you don't have all three, you can improvise in post production.

This 35mm slide I took in France 61 years ago was nice, but it was an overcast day and the sky was solid gray.

Bingo! I added a sky from a photo I took in Santa Monica a couple of years ago and it made it worth looking at.



Chuck Staley Concept Art

The key there Chuck was you UNDERSTOOD what was missing.

...
and thanks other Chuck. To get that lighting like that for a car usually requires a special studio with a giant softbox. Thanks Mother Nature!
....

Here is another on with "awful" lighting. Actually I discovered this spot on a scouting trip and returned to it the next overcast day to get some creepy, moody lighting with the book cover market in mind. Not a particularly exciting subject in most cases.

Absolutely right about the 'holy trinity,' Edward. Sometimes, when you don't have one or more of the elements, just create them. Here's a shot that took me two lens changes and some foot-zooming to get the composition right; then tons of Photoshop work to refine the lighting and rework the details. It's been one of my most popular pictures:

First attempts:



Final shot before:



Finished image:

Edward, great post. I would like to add patience to your list though. I also don't think that your example posted is the best in your vast body of excellent work to illustrate your point.

This to me far better illustrates the importance of subject, composition and lighting.

Don't forget dodging and burning!

Dean, thanks for noticing that image. I've been working on adding more drama to my landscapes.

Its one I've printed out on an Epson 2030 13x19 printer and was pleasantly surprise by how well it look printed. The challenge we all face selling online is that tiny screen versions don't do the artwork justice. I don't even get the chance to see my work printed that often.

You're right about the printing, Edward. I print everything before I upload because they are two different worlds.

Going along with Murray's excellent of framing, this one from Dean knocks it out of the park. You have the blurred out framing of an exotic door, a great subject, composition and lighting.

I am a painter not a photographer. I take photos and even put some on my site but that is not my strength. I am enjoying this thread because it contains a lot of information about how to become better as well as what photographers see as important in their works.

I agree with everything above. I also would add, you start to develop, or grow, a sense about the whole process. Sometimes it just takes the photographer taking time to be still, and look. Things reveal themselves when you are still. Here are three pictures developed from one pause to set up a mini tripod, then just looking at what I was seeing.
Rebecca

So glad to see Murray's post here since I have been wondering what in the heck the use of a fisheye lens would be..but now that I see his posting, from someone who uses it the right way, its a beautiful shot.

Problem with a fisheye usually comes from over use or misuse. It can be like telling the same story over and over.

The most over emphasized element in the world of equipment collectors has to be sharpness. Vincent Versage talks about buying lenses for how they handle the OUT of focus areas. That's why you bother to spend more money on a lens. Every lens is designed to focus on a single plane. They all handle that task well. Where they differ is in the other 99% of the frame.

What good is sharpness on a scene that is ill composed, boring and poorly lit?

Correct, and there's also luck, being in the right place at exactly the right time. One could never recreate this photograph.

But even in serendipulous moments the truly great image still has composition, lighting and subject.

The trick is to have composition so entrenched in your mind that you instinctively compose.

Very good discussion Ed, something I have followed since 10 years old, I let the light come to me as well as the photo. There are instance when its either take it or leave it and most of the time its just the one shot I take it without a moment to loose. A spectacular photo does not necessary have to be focused IMO. The light constantly changes when taking outdoor photos you can not move the light but you can move around it and capture something pretty spectacular. There are photographers which actually wait for the light. The light of all light is early morning light, there is a more natural subtle light and creates a complimentary harmony of subject and light. I agree with you perfect exposure does not create a compelling photo. Its not all about the camera equipment you use but who is behind the camera and is taking the photo.

Biblical Rays was taking on a moving exploration boat, in that instance I had enough film in my SLR and took rapid shots and the entire mood changed constantly onboard large exploration boats.

You did mention light filtered by clouds its ok but actually prefer personally that kind of light for black and white images. I personally do not care for monochrome images where there is no separation of light values, it gives the illusion the image is dull, flat, no tone values whatsoever.

You get what you get right?

I've been all about clouds this last year or so. Someone said recently that they just realized that just about every landscape photo really is about weather. So true. Nothing more dramatic than a stormy sky.

After an overcast day (same day as the Vette shot) I got this just as we were leaving. Timing was perfect. A shaft of light lit up the white building.

@Edward, I like this image Storm Coming.....I do believe the clouds do play an important role in taking a photo with as you call it bathed light a soft natural light. And then on the other spectrum of light you have the harsh light which does create for an all together different type of photo but acceptable in some instances. I have noticed after a rainstorm that is an interesting type of light.

The Door IMO is absolutely on the mark. The right amount of bathed light, the composition and also reflected light. It plays an important role when it comes to light that seems to be bathed. The bathed light you speaking of can be manipulated. A good example is a screen used more in motion pictures. I have talked to some of the photographers on the sets and that bathed light is very important and they constantly take the meter readings because it can change so quickly, by movement passing through the light.

Personally, Ansel Adams was by far the best of all photographers who relied on bathed light. He found the composition but then allowed the light to appear to the composition. I had always admired his work. A long time neighbor and friend actually purchased for a hefty price an original Ansel Adams photo and when you actually see it and hold it in your hands on the original paper he developed it in his darkroom, its quite revealing the importance of Ansel using bathed light.

Michael,

If you like Ansel, take a look at this Florida guy, Clyde Butcher:

http://www.clydebutcher.com/photographs/8

I spent some time with him and he's the new/next Ansel!

Rich

Regarding clouds. I was told many years ago to study the landscapes of the Dutch masters and ask myself not only what made them compelling, but consider how I should incorporate those qualities in my photography. Not too long after that there was a special exhibition of Dutch paintings at the Milwaukee Art Museum. When I was about half way through the exhibit I realized that everyone of those landscapes had dramatic clouds, often depicting an impending storm.

EDIT: Great stuff Rich! Was I just saying something about clouds?

Chuck,

Yes you did mention clouds earleir, but I was responding to Michael and this guy, Clyde Butcher, whose work,especially in the Everglades almost always has great clouds...........

I don't seem to be drawn to big vistas for some reason.

Rich

Nice discussion here with many valid points.

When I am out and about I always look for that right "subject matter" that interests me and what I believe may be of interest to others. Finding or making that " compelling composition " is always my goal, but is often simply not possible due to traffic, crowds or other obstacles. When I am traveling, I have to take the opportunities as they become available with the " light " that is present at that time. I am simply not able to come back at a better time to possibly get better light, and I do not like to wake up at 5:00 am for a sunrise and I miss many sunsets.

But then sometimes ( IMO ) I just get lucky and find the right subject, make that compelling composition and have it bathed in excellent light:

Bump

All of this applies to the other visual arts as well, it's not for photographers only.

I am getting a lot out of the discussion of use of light, which also applies to painting and drawing - only I'm going to say "painting" to cover everything, otherwise the sentences get too long.

I only remember discussion of light in the following contexts:

(1) paying attention to where the light source is, for painting -- making sure every object in the painting has the light source coming from the same direction;

(2) plein air painting - and the problems with "chasing the light" - which is essentially an exercise in painting really fast to capture the light/shadow/colors before the sun changes it's position in the sky and changes how the whole landscape looks. You change the time of day by even half an hour and the colors change and the shadows change shape and placement - it's a whole different composition. You start a painting at 4:00pm, and if you're still painting the same canvas at 4:30 you can have two entirely different paintings going on the same canvas... it can look horrible.

(3) lighting still lifes from an angle that makes the lights & darks in the painting create good contrast & composition, and paying attention to the color of the lighting (essentially choosing the right light bulb) so when you copy the colors you actually see, you get good colors in the painting.

That's why painting from photographs can be limiting... the camera often manipulates the colors - so color is usually different from what you see in person, and the way cameras focus, you only get real clarity of detail at one distance, often everything at all the other distances is slightly (or a lot) out of focus and hard to use as subject matter in a painting if you want to capture detail at different distances.

What else are you photographers trained to consider when you capture the light?

Ed,

The Red Door is a very strong image. Congrats.

You used this word while describing composition...."background ".....
a very good art teacher would have you drop that word in favor
of only using the words negative space.

The reason for the words negative space is simple, there is no background, instead
there is the space around the subject matter.

Dave

Dave:
Background and negative space aren't the same thing. Sometimes the background is negative space (usually it is). Sometimes it isn't. Depends on the artwork.

An example: a white silhouette with a colored/decorated background: The negative space is would be the object (white silhouette), and the positive space with all the visually interesting stuff would be the background.

Also there is art (certain optical illusion art comes to mind) where it is unclear which is positive/negative space, and which is background/foreground.

Rich, I've bookmarked Clyde immediately!

Cheryl,

The reason a stronger instructor would have you drop the word background is to train the students eye.

Dave

the thread awakens...

David:

It would depend on what the instructor was teaching, and the level of the students in the class. If the point is to introduce students to the concept of positive / negative space, I can see dropping the word "background" for purposes of that lesson.

For more advanced students who are thoroughly familiar with the concept of negative / positive space, I could see teaching various lessons on the extent to which the two sets intersect (background / negative space), in which case a strong teacher would use both words, not interchangeably.

I dont see it.

Background is not the word for what is in a work of art.

Yes if you cut out a profile image and paste it on a second piece of paper etc....yes you have a second piece of paper.

Background is a misnomer. It is a more primitive form of thought about what you see. Generic you.

Dave

Ok I guess I'll go along with this sleeper thread awaken after eight months of rest. ;-)

The challenge in photography and any other flat art medium is creating depth with foreground, middle ground and background.

Backgrounds should be interesting just like your main subject.

Sometimes, when I'm out shooting nature...I find just the right subject in the wrong place. If it's small enough I take it with me until I find just the right lighting, background, and compositional elements to create the shot I want.

So trying to get depth.

With the leaf theme....here was my attempt to put the leaf in the foreground and have the background tell the story.



Now if I had one of those wide angle macro lens it would be more effective.

Still lifes in the studio give one the chance to work with all of the elements discussed.

Subject - choose an interesting subject with lots of rich texture. Below we have some fresh picked apples from a local orchard.

The Supporting Cast - bowls, plates, garnishes can support the main subject and add interest to the scene.

Arrangement - Even in a still life you have to think about foreground, middle ground and background. You also have to consider where you will put your focus and what areas you will allow to blur.

Lighting - in the studio lighting is at your command. Hard or soft. You are in control of the highlights and shadows. You choose what to show or hide. Here I was going for an old masters type of lighting. The set up was near a window in my garage.

"The challenge in photography and any other flat art medium is creating depth with foreground, middle ground and background.

Backgrounds should be interesting just like your main subject."

Concur, especially if doing landscape photography, unless one intentionally wants to blur parts (foreground/background) of the image to bring more attention to other parts.

Too long to post here, but here is a discussion/definition about "background":
http://www.photokonnexion.com/3249-2/

A definition/explanation of "negative space":

"Negative space (composition)
‘Negative space’ in an image is the nothing that surrounds the subject(s) of the picture or the space between subjects. While negative space is actually a concept of nothing the background is still visible and also has an impact. As a result it is often the background that creates at least part of the power of the image..."

(excerpted from http://www.photokonnexion.com/definition-negative-space-composition/

I was reading the book "Drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards and she talks about the importance of background even in simple drawings. "By noticing the negative space and drawing the edge that defines that negative space, we shift into right-brain mode and can much more accurately draw the image."

With photography one always needs to be aware of the other spaces in the image and their relationship to the subject to create a compelling image.

"With photography one always needs to be aware of the background and its relationship to the subject to create a compelling image."

Ditto. Even the rural shots (landscapes, barns, etc) I go for, there always seems to be a distracting element (in the background usually) that detracts for the intended subject. I'll make attempts to remove the distraction via cloning, Content Aware, etc. when possible. In composing some shots, moving around to try and eliminate having the distraction in the scene is not possible, so post-processing tools (software) comes into play.

Depth of field is another tool in photography to create compelling negative space. A distracting background can become beautiful boken. Even if its added after the fact - when the artist's vision is completed.

Depth of field is one thing I'm always working on, as I sometimes forget to check the f-stop setting. The camera I bought recently (D7100) has a dof preview button, but I still forget to use it.

Ed,

The principles of her book are extremely good. But we now know that your capacity to make art or better
art is not simply right brain v left brain. The parts of the brain we use are across the brain. Much
of human upper level functioning is across the brain. Not centralized or centralized to one sphere.
It just sounds cool to call it right brained, and she wrote it up in some flashy ideas as right brained.

Dave

Great light truly makes the subject feel dimensional. Nothing worse than "flat" subjects. This is all natural light, but I had to find just the right time of day as the light came from my window.

Yes, David. I know. See the forest.

...
Great light, subject and background Diana!

Oddly this is one of my best selling prints with just a boring blue sky with not one cloud in it...



I did try to liven it up a bit by plopping an interesting sky behind it:

what a good picture needs...an audience

A good image attracts an audience? no?

Not near as good as good advertising.

Yikes -- The Walking Thread!

Everything comes back sooner or later. :-)

Unless you forget about it for three months.

Michel
✈ 2016 Travel Photography Contest Leaderboard.

No - a good image doesn't necessarily attract an audience.

http://royd-erickson.artistwebsites.com

You can allways make your own light : )

The three things I need are a camera, Photoshop and luck.