There's no such thing as bad light, just misunderstood light

<P>This quote by Don McCullin was thrown at me by another

photographer, possibly as a way of justifying some of his images, and

I think I took the meaning.</P><P>However, would some people on the

forum like to add their interpretation?</P>

What about no light?

I would apply two possible interpretations:

 

- All light exhibits some interesting characteristics, and provides the opportunity to capture a unique beauty.

 

or

 

- With the proper technique (i.e. filters, lens hood, camera adjustments...), an excellent photo can be captured in any light.

 

I think I'd be inclined to favor the first interpretation.

 

Great quote, I think.

I would agree with this statement, because photography is all about the way we as photographers manipulate light. In order to manipulate or control something you need to get an understanding of it.

 

What is light? The visible light spectrum is scientifically described in terms of color temperature, and is measured in degrees of Kelvin.

 

How do we control it? Through the use of aperatures, shutters, shades, reflectors, etc.

 

Are there different types of light? Yes, there's ambient light, omni light, spot light, xray, ultraviolet, electromagnetic.

 

What makes this statement great is that our process is based upon the light. Not enough light and it's underexposed, too much light and it's overexposed and both cases are the results of misunderstanding light. We need just enough light to bring out the detail in shadowed areas, but not too much as to burn or blow out highlights.

 

Good subject.

 

Thanks,

 

Gregg

"There's no such thing as bad light, just misunderstood light" -Don McCullin

 

I love it.

There's no such thing as bad light but there's plenty of uninteresting pictures taken by it...........

I would rather say that there's light which fits a particular subject, and light which does not fit a particular subject.

 

It's usually easier to start with a subject and find/create/modify light than start with light and find/create/modify a subject...

There's no such thing as bad light, just badly-used light.

"There's no such thing as bad light, just the wrong light for the shot you want." The light's always good for shooting something or other. Your "bad light" is the moody or stark lighting that someone else is looking for. If the people in Arizona and England would just change places about twice a year, that would help the problem.

It's a great quote. Whatever happened to Don McCullin, anyhow? Has he quit, or am I just looking in the wrong places?

Last I heard, he was living in Somerset (England) and shooting moody black-and-white

landscapes...

 

And looking for good light...

Don McCullin has not retired to Somerset to photograph moody landscapes, he is still doing his <a href="http://www.christianaid.org.uk/donmccullin/dates.htm">Humanitarian</a> works, this time for aids victims in Africa.

Don has just published yet another book, this one entitled 'In Africa'.

"There's no such thing as bad light, just misunderstood light"

 

Sounds interpreted from a Dr. Phil show. Or maybe, a variation of Barbara Woodhouse's

"No Bad Dogs"

 

In varying degrees the light of the moment is either helping your composition, or it's not.

And understanding it is such a bitch.

Well if you understand light in terms of how it will interact with the camera as a whole unit, and how you apply your learned technique to the camera and situation, then it really is a logical, concise statement.

 

Marlon Beltran

"If the people in Arizona and England would just change places about twice a year, that would help the problem".

This is an excellent statement. What does an Arizonian think about Brit pics.."They're ALL UNDEREXPOSED, that's what, and that sky MUST be doctored into the image...What does a Brit think about us cowpokes? Bloody Hell, look at that, ITS ALL SATURATED! Look at that frigging sky..its all FAKE...yup...

my interpretation:

 

yea, but misunderstood by who. the photographer? or the viewer. I personally beleive there is bad light but it does have to be judged in context. a direct flash may be displeasing but if the content of the photo was a message meant to be displeasing.. say a bad thing happening in a night club bathroom (plenty of those). and the photographer wanted to add to the unpleasant effect and decided to use a direct flash. then it doesn't have to be bad lighting. Lighting can be misunderstood on the photographers level (ie, person doesn't know that their message could be better conveyed in a different light :)) or it could be misunderstood on the viewers level (on this level however I believe it is the viewer misinterpreting the photo,,, which could be attributed to the photographers failure to communicate)..

 

of course this is all mostly bs on my part because I don't think of any of this when using a camera. I think to myself. is it interesting? will it work? ok click. then I look at it later and think 'do I still like it?' if I do I keep it. and post it .. I look at it a little later and if I still like it, then I post it for critique. I end up with a lot of pictures of stuff that isn't important and doesn't really convey any message, but it is stuff that is a pretty view of sometimes ordinary boring items. and lighting is usually natural so there is nothing to interpret.

 

anyway somebody using that statement as an excuse or defense for their work doesn't likely realize it is their responsibility to communicate clearly. not for the viewer to interepret profoundly vague, or vaguely profound messages.

 

anyway that is my wordy interpretation... or maybe a thought process provoked by that statement.

There's probably as much truth to it as the old "My wife (or husband) doesn't understand me" line. Sometimes they understand quite well, and know ugly when it's present.

"There's no such thing as bad light, just misunderstood light" -Don McCullin

 

"I'm not a bad girl, I'm just drawn that way." -Jessica Rabbit

I agree with Joe VanCleave.

 

I observed years ago that there's no such thing as #!@**% weather, only

#!@**% attitudes towards nature. The same people will complain of rain or

snow and then later in the year complain of a drought.

 

It is the possessor of the attitude, or in McCullin's case, the definer of "bad"

light, which introduces a value judgement into a given situation, usually based

upon one's pragmatic tasks at hand. In and of itself, I believe that light can be

neither good or bad any more than space itself can be good or bad. It is how

we interpret its presence, based upon our needs and purposes, which leads

us to such judgments of appropriateness and any subsequent alteration of our

environment.

 

While McCullin's statement that "there's no such thing as bad light"

necessarily implies that there's no such thing as good light, I presume his

intention was ultimately to guide the mind of the comment's original recipient

toward a more expanded, unprejudiced, and (dare I say) enlightened view of

light.

 

But as Brian observed, while there may be no "bad light", there are certainly

many less than good photographers.

I dunno about "bad light" but for me, there's "better" and "worse" light. I can't imagine Rembrandt paintings depicting a face with light from a cloudy day falling on the subject.

Once again we have fallen to the imprecision of common words. And this is the Philosophy section of the forum, I believe!

 

Bad light is insufficient light. Would anyone like to claim there is no such thing as insufficient light?

Do you have a concept of what you want to shoot?

 

If so, there is light that supports that concept, and that's what you want. Keeping an open mind will allow you to see what's offered at a given time and place, even if what you wanted is not going to happen.

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, sometimes you get the shots you want by bringing your own light source or by modifying what's given with filters, reflectors or diffusers.

 

Insufficient light? Try shooting by moonlight sometime.

<i>Insufficient light? Try shooting by moonlight sometime.</i>.

 

Without a tripod?