Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Shouldn't one know how light works in order to master the camera?

Mike Collins wrote:
BEst piece of advice I was ever taught was:

"Good exposure does not equal good lighting."

But I do agree, to be a better photographer you do need to understand things like DOF, Field of view, sync speeds, first curtain verses rear curtain, why a wide angle or normal or telephoto may be best, calibrating your hand held meter to your camera for every ISO since they all could be different, when shutter speed or aperture or ISO is more important, when the camera's histogram helps and when it doesn't, when jpeg may be better than raw for some shoots, etc.

Sure I agree there are many who don't know a lot of these things and want to jump into learning lighting.  That's fine, but when your  a pro, you have to know how to solver problems.  Sometimes it's a camera function.  Sometimes it a lighting problem.  Sometimes neither (subject).  But the more educated you are in both areas, the better prepared you are to tackle any problems.

+1

Mike Kelcher wrote:
I'm guessing that I've invested 4-5 times as much in lighting equipment as I have in camera related equipment and lenses. Why? Because photography is the recording of.... l  i  g  h  t.  If I properly light a model, even the most inexperienced photographer with an el-cheapo camera would get a good photo.

+1...especially at screen resolution since no one cares about print any more (though that'll change a bit when the next gen of Retina-res Android tablets saturates the market this fall :-)

But that's also the studio lighting specialty.  There is also the natural lighting specialty where you need reflectors, scrims, ND filters, etc.  It's all still light, but it takes a while to master each.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Shouldn't one know how light works in order to master the camera?

come on. your telling me you will spend $600-5k on a camera and not wonder how each main function can change your shot? I am stuck to full Manual mode. Its much more fun to Know camera functions too.

Leighthenubian wrote:

This

+ I hate the "Strobist" movement. It started out as a way to light images inexpensively and became light everything until no shadows exist.

If no shadow exist then you're not doing it right. Having strobes doesn't mean you lose control. It's ALL about control. I use strobes when I want, and natural light when I want. Learning how to use both, and control both, is what makes you a photographer.

To say one method of lighting is better than the other is putting pre-set limits on yourself. Not only does that mindset limit you creatively, but it also sets you as an elitist with a very narrow view of what is possible with photography.

Learn your craft, using both light from nature, and light from a flash.

Francisco Castro wrote:
If no shadow exist then you're not doing it right. Having strobes doesn't mean you lose control. It's ALL about control. I use strobes when I want, and natural light when I want. Learning how to use both, and control both, is what makes you a photographer.

To say one method of lighting is better than the other is putting pre-set limits on yourself. Not only does that mindset limit you creatively, but it also sets you as an elitist with a very narrow view of what is possible with photography.

Learn your craft, using both light from nature, and light from a flash.

+1

i recently bought a softbox (continuous light) after having shot exclusively natural light for 5 years. now i use both, and i couldn't be happier (my avatar is artificial light).

Leighthenubian wrote:

This

+ I hate the "Strobist" movement. It started out as a way to light images inexpensively and became light everything until no shadows exist.

Not quite. It became light it, till you get what you want.

Brian Ziff wrote:
Camera operation isn't very difficult, but most people start off by shooting natural light anyway and more or less figuring out how shutter speed and aperture work, and what's the appropriate ISO (or film speed, if you work with film).

Once you get serious though, there's nothing more important than light and lighting.  Better lighting systems give you more control, more consistency, and open a world of possibilities in terms of modifiers and light shapers.

Light is light, but the way you control it is everything in photography.  And in any case--there's no manual you can read on having a good eye.

I'll second this. Even lighting isn't all that hard (well for normal stuff at least) once a person gets their mind around it.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:

Let me ask you this. Who is going to to be further along the curve to attaining excellent photography?

Person A - who has mastered light but has never picked up a dslr? Or, Person B - who has read their manual, "mastered" the technical functions of the camera, but hasn't a clue about using light?

I'm putting my money on Person A.

It doesn't take very long to learn how to use a camera and its functions. Mastering light is far more elusive, something many spend years trying to achieve, and what truly sets apart the great photographers from the "meh."

Put the camera in P mode (for Professional), and shoot.

Brian Ziff wrote:
Light is light,

To me, it's not. 

Natural light is a different animal then artificial or flash.  They differ in color, ability to control, direction of rays, predictability, and probably some stuff I didn't grab off the top of my head just now.

For instance, try to get the same light out of the sun as you get from a 30x40 softbox. Unless you build a room around the subject with a 30x40 window in it, lit by the sun shining straight at it, it won't match.  And even if it did, you couldn't adjust the room or the model as easily as you can adjust a softbox.

Any given source has different properties then other sources.  Understanding that difference and how to apply it per image is WHY lighting probably trumps camera control in some respects (why Gregory Crewdson's pics look the way they do, even though he doesn't actually operate a camera at all).

JGLabs wrote:
If the intent of your post was to argue that people should learn the basics of photography before delving into artificial lighting, I agree with you; but so would anyone else.

So what's the point of the OP?

Tulack wrote:
Here is one of my favorite photographers.

http://500px.com/89205537525

Only natural light. Know your camera, know light, know post. "Cheap" photoshoot every time. Only camera, sometimes reflector.

I don't have those photoshop skillz though.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Working the camera controls should be second nature, lighting is more complex and diverse.  [\quote]

Both should be second nature. One of our first abilities is to detect light and shadow; practicing observing light is the main aspect to being an effective, skilled photographer.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera.

Some might go nuts, others may not. But there's no use fretting over what others do or don't do

Green Grape Photography wrote:
...start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light.

I'd say not what they can afford, what if they can afford 12 lights? I'd recommend learning how to use 1 light first. And that 1 light can be a studio strobe, off camera flash, the sun, light bulb, etc.

Eralar wrote:
Shouldn't a painter worry about mastering the brush before he learns how to work with paint?

like wave the brush in the air and pretend?

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

like wave the brush in the air and pretend?

Eralar wrote:
Shouldn't a painter worry about mastering the brush before he learns how to work with paint?

Silly.

Green Grape Photography wrote:

come on. your telling me you will spend $600-5k on a camera and not wonder how each main function can change your shot? I am stuck to full Manual mode. Its much more fun to Know camera functions too.

I learned ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture a dozen years ago.
I bought my first DSLR in 2006 for $300, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture worked the same as they did on my film SLR. The couple dozen cameras I have purchased and played with since have all worked the same way.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

Show me a photographer who can shoot in an environment completely void of light, and I'll agree.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Amateurs Worry About Cameras And Lenses
Professionals Worry About Time And Cost
Masters Worry About Light And composition

I like this.

AG_Boston wrote:

Show me a photographer who can shoot in an environment completely void of light, and I'll agree.

Read.

-JAY- wrote:

I learned ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture a dozen years ago.
I bought my first DSLR in 2006 for $300, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture worked the same as they did on my film SLR. The couple dozen cameras I have purchased and played with since have all worked the same way.

(sigh)

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Amateurs Worry About Cameras And Lenses
Professionals Worry About Time And Cost
Masters Worry About Light And composition

meanwhile we are here and others have high paying campaigns with people begging to pay for a port.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Silly.

yea.. wt-----

Miss Havisham Studios wrote:
Seriously. Wwhat makes you right? Have you "mastered light". Everyone has their own way. There are tons of wrong ways, but no "right way".

I think your a bit lost... catch up, Mustard.

MnPhoto wrote:
It is clear by the direction of this thread that the "argument" is a non-starter.

There are people that like natural light, because they are satisfied with the results, and have been lucky to have good weather with suitable lighting conditions.

There are people that shoot in areas with very poor natural light (i.e., indoors, the "predictable" New England weather, the poles at certain times of the year).

There are also people that don't want to rely on the weather or be forced to shoot outdoors during the daytime.

Then there is that group of photographers that enjoy pushing the limits of "normal" and artistic creativity by using grids, barn doors, gels, and snoots in order to capture their vision "in camera."
Reason: they prefer to minimize their use of photo editing software.

I like to think that we are all a combination of those people at one time or another in our journey as photographers.

Where you are right now, and your current equipment choices are temporary. Calling yourself an artist while limiting your options is contradictory.

I kinda digress, but as it has already been stated (ad nauseam):

Yes. You SHOULD learn how to use your camera, but you should also learn how to visualize light properly, and modify it when necessary.

Telling people how to go about the process is all a matter of opinion, because people have different ways of learning and visualizing things. What IS important is that they get there quickly so the rest of us can enjoy their art.

Well said. Nothing more needed to add. Close thread.

Green Grape Photography wrote:

(sigh)

Sigh all day long... but a 4meg  point and shoot with perfect light beats an 8X10 Arca with Zeiss glass in the dark every time. Suggesting that photography is about the equipment rather than the light will always get a poor response if your audience has ever held a camera.

RennsportPhotography wrote:
I know I use more features of my camera now than I did three years ago even though I shoot the same things.

I use the same things as when I first started with digital.  ISO, shutter speed, aperture, RAW, and shake reduction all of them in manual mode. On a very rare occasion on location I shoot aperture priority, if I'm not using fill flash. If I am then its manual or shutter priority at 1/125.

All the fancy modes are a waste on my camera.

Maybe I'm a control freak.. but I think I know what's best for my images not some built in program.

Green Grape Photography wrote:

Read.

I'd like to read, but there's no light!



You've hit the chicken and egg problem. I don't care how much a person reads a manual, if light never goes through that entrance pupil, then no image is ever created. Controlling the camera and working with your light are both important.

Green Grape Photography wrote:
Many go nuts over what 'expensive'  lighting equipment to use in order to get the right shot. Not many people are curious of controlling their camera. I always suggest people to read their cameras manual & start off with what they can afford being that Light is Light. (unless quality is also a in interest)

I mean, shouldn't photographers master the camera first-then discover how light works?

If you can shoot manually you can pick pretty much any camera and shoot it. Lighting is everything be it natural or studio. I can pick any camera that has manual controls and shoot it. The auto functions may make things easier and quicker but they are not essential.

Green Grape Photography wrote:

Actually i said "start off with what they can afford" meaning non name brand lighting equipment instead of the High Quality

"Affordable" "non name brand" lighting can get pretty expensive if it doesn't meet your needs or hold up under use and you just end up replacing it in a short period of time.  You end up spending more in the long run. 

Having said that, I shoot with relatively inexpensive gear and make it work.  I have a couple of AB800 strobes and a Calumet Genesis 200, but the rest of my strobe lights consist of $75 made in China speedlights.  I also have a large collection of used Sunpak flashes that I use "strobist" style. 

Yes, it's silly to spend a bunch of money on lighting if you don't even know how to operate your camera.  However, there are some really amazing photographers that have very limited technical knowledge of how their camera works but "get" light, composition, and color and make amazing images.  Others master Photoshop and other tools to make images that have a lot of impact.

Your advice might be good for some people, but it's just one way of many possible paths to become a good or "great" photographer.  I always think it's more important to worry about how I do things and how good my images are than to try to tell everyone else what they "should be" doing.

Chronos Productions wrote:

L Bass wrote:
You might want to tweak that to say... 'and a TON of post.' If you know your camera and light... you don't have to know squat about post, unless you're going after totally unrealistic results.

Yet it still has its own style and there are definitely a lot of people who love that stuff.

Actually, you are right. In this day and age, it's all about the computer. When I learned 'photography'... it was all about the 'camera.'

The great thing about 'photography' these days... you can screw up a whole batch of images (from total lack of knowhow)... send them to someone proficient in post photo manipulation.... and end up with some pretty nice stuff. And 'PRESTO!'.... you're a great photographer!

In the 'camera' days, you didn't have that option.