It's not just about the light...
A conversation over a pint with my friend, and accomplished photographer, Sami Nabeel has got me thinking a little more about the nature of light and its relationship to the elements of photography. We were discussing photography (what else!) and Sami's wonderful first book, entitled Writing with Light. This title has echoes for me of a much earlier work; The Pencil of Nature, by one of the pioneers of photography William Henry Fox Talbot.
Talbot's title implied that Nature could, through the medium of photography, illustrate Herself: the clear fluid of light (the ink) passing through the camera (the pen) and imprinting itself on the photograph (the paper) – yes, I know it was "Pencil...", rather than pen, but you get my drift! Photography has ever since been tainted with the pejorative suggestion that it is merely a mechanical process, one akin to mystical automatic writing but almost seeming to lack the need for the guiding channel of a human hand that even that dubious process demands. We should reflect, though, that nothing is new in Art, not even this mechanistic slur against the "new" art form of photography. Way back in the 15th Century Leonardo da Vinci was arguing with critics who believed that painting was merely mechanical because, unlike writing and music, it didn't involve the intellect but was simply a craft.
Light in photography is both the creative force and source of the image and, in conjunction with time, it ineluctably binds the subject to image. It has thus achieved a mystical status. Yet, rather than being concerned with this mystical aspect the average camera user tends to take the bond for granted. Indeed the average camera user's only real worry about light is whether there is enough of the stuff to make an image – there's always the uncompromisingly harsh, actinic light of the camera's built in flash if available light fails them. The transition from snapper to photographer is marked by many changes in both technique and attitude but perhaps one of the most significant is the change from a concern merely about the quantity of light to an overriding concern about the quality of light and how to capture this in an image.
This is perhaps what prompted Sami to write on his website that:
The underlying theme of my photography is not that I'm trying to capture the landscape - it's that I'm capturing the light. The landscape is simply the tool I use in my efforts to write with light.
Whilst I have lots of sympathy with this poetic statement I feel that it requires a deeper look. It seems to suggest that, although his images are of the landscape, the subject is secondary to the light. For me, vital though it is to both the mechanical transcription and the feel of the image, light should not be elevated above the subject of a photograph – whether it's a landscape, a portrait or even an abstract. Light and subject dance together in a great photograph, each relying on the other and neither one taking the lead. Should either one be allowed to do so the other will fall out of step and the 'dance' lack expression and élan.
It has long been said, in order to emphasise light's importance, that we don't photograph the land but the light falling on it. Well, we obviously cannot photograph light independent of a subject: 'soft' light, 'hard' light, 'warm' light, 'cold' light can only be observed when they are reflected from a subject. Light cannot be seen, let alone captured in an image, except when it is reflected. The object photographed mediates the transmission of light; it absorbs or reflects varying amounts according to its surface texture and the angle of its surfaces, and it alters the colour of the light. Edward Weston went to great length when making his famous images of peppers to get the quality of light right. He experimented with a number of backgrounds but found a tin funnel provided the right kind of reflected light. The beauty in these images, which seems on one level to be all about the magical quality of the light, truly arises from the way that the peppers' sinuous forms are delineated. Light and subject, here and in every photograph, are inextricably intertwined; the light delineates the subject and the subject gives substance to the light.
The light is obviously important in an image (essential in the mechanical sense I outlined above) but it is only one element in a good photograph. I think that there are four key elements; light, subject, timing and composition. (And before anyone says, "Those aren't the same elements that you talk about in Landscape Beyond!" I would like to point out that whilst I wrote that they were all essential ingredients I didn't write that they were the only ones. I would contend that beauty, mystery and simplicity all sit within composition.)
Joe Cornish famously wrote in First Light that timing, light and composition (TLC) were his three essential ingredients for a photograph. No mention of subject. Perhaps that's because we all take it for granted that a photograph has a subject, that a photograph is of something. We classify photographs in many different ways but one of the most common is by subject. I would guess that most of the people reading this blog will be "landscape photographers" – a definition of what we do by subject if ever I saw one. So, regardless of whether we take note of the elephant in the room or not, subject is always there.
I am certain that there is a genuinely synergistic relationship between the elements TLC + S(ubject). Each is enhanced by the positive characteristics of the others, each diminished by any negative characteristics in the others, the whole becoming much more than the constituent parts.
The degree of excellence of the finished image obviously does depend to an extent upon the quality of the light falling upon the subject. But quality here refer to light's attributes; the feel of the light not to some idealised notion of excellence. The light need not be remarkable for an image to succeed, it must however be sympathetic or appropriate. The light must be excellent only in the sense that it provides the best fit with the TLC+S, so that it produces the greatest synergistic effect when combined with them. Incredible light alone is not enough to make a good photograph. Photographing a poor subject in amazing light will not save it from mediocrity nor will making an amazing composition in unsuitable light elevate the image above average at best. In fact, incredible light can actually limit the power of an image, it can overwhelm both subject and composition, as I feel it has in a sunset image I made last year in the Lofoten Islands. Whilst a viewer might well go "Wow!" it would not be because of my input as photographer working to combine light and subject but rather because of the unbelievable amber light. I think that the light is too powerful here, too sickly sweet. And just as when you eat food that's too saccharine one quickly tires of it so the viewer soon tires of this light. More subdued lighting conditions would have resulted in a better balance with the composition and led to an image with more lasting appeal. Of course, that's not to say that it wasn't absolutely incredible to be there.
What should be apparent, then, to the nascent photographer is that one must attain harmony between light and subject, the two physical elements, in order to make a good image.
One final thought; composition is essentially a question of balance. And timing brings light, subject and composition together in accordance with each other. Harmony, balance, accord – three words that might conveniently be wrapped up into one word that aptly describes what we are trying to achieve in a great photograph; concinnity. Oh dear, you're thinking, it's one of David's odd words again! Well, that's as maybe but this, sadly now rarely used, word does seem to be particularly apt when applied to the photographic process.
The OED defines concinnity as:
1. Skillful and harmonious adaptation or fitting together of parts; harmony, congruity, consistency.
2a. Beauty of style produced by a skilful connexion of words and clauses; hence, more generally, studied beauty, elegance, neatness of literary or artistic style, etc.
2b. with pl. A studied beauty or elegance.
It seems to me that sense 1 very neatly sums up what all photographers are trying to do when they try to solve the multi-dimensional puzzle inherent in photographing a subject. And sense 2 describes what landscape photographers, at least, aspire to in the final result.
Highlight this Comment Paul M15/06/2008, 18:04
Hi David
A few points occur to me having read your comment:
First, isn't it possible to consider 'the light' simply as part of the subject being photographed, rather than being separate from the subject? Considered in this light (ahem) the light takes on similar status to the other important and more tangible earthbound components of the image (the foreground rock, the distant mountain, the ugly rusty shopping cart protruding into the otherwise delightful reflection). As with the rusty shopping cart in my example, the wrong light may even cause us to walk away from the creation of an image.
Second, and sort of following on from the first point, I don't think I agree that light and subject have equal importance in all images. For example, when I look at Empty Sea I see an image where the light is of paramount importance, taking priority over the composition of the image - to me, the light is the most important subject in this image. In contrast, when I look at Boats I see an image where, while the flat light is undoubtedly important, the form and arrangement of parts has the upper hand. To me it seems possible that this image could have been successful in several kinds of light, whereas in the former I think this would not be so.
Third - of the 4 components of an image that you mention (light, subject, timing, composition) its clear that light is the one over which we have no real control. We may perceive some kind of control through our ability to forecast when the light might be right for a given composition, or via our use of filters/multiple exposures to adapt the light to the dynamic range of sensor or film. Ultimately though we landscape photographers are light takers, not light makers, and I think its because of this relationship with 'the light' that photographers as a group tend, rightly or wrongly, to accord it the highest priority.
Cheers.
Paul
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Horrocks18/06/2008, 09:43
Ultimately, surely the photograph is about many things (of which light and composition are hugely important elements). If it was solely about light though, why travel any further than your back garden to take pictures? I recall someone talking about trying to express something that is built up from within rather than extracted from without. Surely this is what we would all like to be able to do , i.e. express some emotion in the picture, something that is not merely a record of some great place or some exciting lighting but carries some feeling of what it was like to be there? Part of the enjoyment of landscape photography is being out and about in places that are beautiful and inspiring.
You don't see Light & Land running trips to run down industrial parts of Britain to take pictures of decaying factories and mines, though given the appropriate lighting you could take some stunning images of these locations that captured the stories and emotions of these places.
We want to go to beautiful places, be inspired by them and take pictures that record our emotions. Light and particularly the quality of light is a powerful tool in helping us do that but it's a tool, as is the camera, as is the JCB dominating the foreground, etc... The subject of the photograph, if it is a really successful one, is the photographers emotional response to the surroundings. Sadly I have very few, if any, images that fall in to this category but the fun is to keep on trying to make some.
Highlight this Comment Alan18/06/2008, 17:22
Just to play devil's advocate, I'll suggest that 'concinnity' has too wide a scope and is hence too prescriptive. To specify that a photograph has to have all three of the attributes 'harmony, congruity, consistency' means that the delightful feeling of incongruity seen in Blue Cones for example, would be excluded.
To use a musical analogy, dissonance can be pleasing: 'blue notes' in jazz would be one example. How about a fictional Miles Davis album called 'Kind of Blue Cones' instead of the better known album.
Alternatively, are you trying to separate the composition itself from its effect on the viewer?
Highlight this Comment Michael Stirling-Aird18/06/2008, 18:52
Hi David
I'm no expert, but I wonder if you could add one factor before light, subject, timing and composition - that of feeling, or passion? It may not always be the case, but I'm sure that 'feeling' often plays an important role when making an image. As you say about your 'Reeds and fence' image "There are times when I simply cannot help myself". Sure, when making an image where 'feeling' is the main driver, composition, light etc will be important, and may actually be part of what caused the 'feeling', but ultimately, is feeling not (sometimes) an absolutely key ingredient?
Regards
Michael
Highlight this Comment Joe19/06/2008, 18:12
Hi David,
Oh dear, I probably shouldn't be reading this current thread as I am probably way out of my depth... however, in the spirit of the Pedant's Revolt (Yorkshire Bank Branch), may I point out a further quote from my book First Light, page 11, which has (ahem) been overlooked... "Striking and dramatic, soft and luminous, transient and dappled, the quality of light is intimately dependent on the landscape off which it is reflecting, so there is no single formula for perfect light."
Thus, the subject (landscape) is indeed acknowledged. But as you imply, perhaps we do often appear to take it for granted in the sheer emphasis and meaning that we attach to light.
I can assure you that, armed with your wise words to 'always adapt our photography to the prevailing conditions' (I paraphrase no doubt) I really do endeavour to take the subject matter (and its many qualities) into account. The view that 'light is the thing' can be summed up well in Colin Prior's famous quote ' We don't photograph the landscape, we photograph the light reflecting from it.' Empirically true, yet when we look at Colin's pictures we see that the subject matter (often extremely substantial, rocks, mountains etc) is rendered with tremendous presence and physicality, not with airy fairy vaporous numinousness(?!). His point I think is to emphasise the importance of light which, arguably, the majority of human beings (and sadly some photographers) take for granted.
As to Michael's view on feeling, can I point out the remaining contents of the paragraph quoted from my book..."Tuning in to its differing qualities and potential can be learned, but is largely also felt, sensed. If we 'feel' light, our pictures will touch hearts, have an emotional impact. Light is the doorway to emotion, and the landscape photographer must learn the combination that unlocks it."
I readily apologise if the prose in the previous passage gives offence for its floridity; however, I believe the essence of the idea remains sound. And that is quite enough of quoting myself which I feel sure is extremely impertinent on someone else's blogsite...!
While it is vital to investigate and useful to attempt to define our aspirations in this way I do personally feel it's like trying to catch all the leaves falling from a tree before they touch the ground. Ultimately, however we carve up the dictionary in an attempt to distill our processes (timing, lighting, composition, feeling, simplicity, beauty, mystery etc etc) definitions remain incomplete because this is such a huge topic with so many deeply subjective elements. But of course, it is fun to try...
Hasta la vista (and the detail, of course!)
Joe
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist19/06/2008, 22:16
I agree with Joe that seeking to define what is so personal is good for one but of moderate use to others (and makes for good pub talk). I am not so sure about this feeling thing though. Isn't it a case of knowing how the light will be recorded on film (black and white or colour, E6 or C41, etc)? Then one knows that the thing which evokes a feeling, will be shown in print-form in the same way as one perceives it in the real world - in the same light you might say. I think one can go further with the scientific, knowing approach and consider the "light reflecting from it" in terms of colour which is defined with three terms which take on various names according to the colour notation scheme one uses. I like to speak of hue, tone and saturation but Munsell preferred hue, value and chroma. This way, one covers all film types and all lighting situations: warm or cold light become a choice of hue, muted or vivid a choice of saturation, bright or dark a choice of tone. As an artist, what appears on the tranny or the print matters more than what was in the real world, however much I enjoy the real world as a human being. It's the pigments which matter. I think this is in the spirit of David not including titles and descriptions in his first book. (In fact, David, your insistence on subject in this posting seems something of an about-face in this view; correct me if I am wrong). Then after that, we get used to how the juxtaposition of colour fields within a frame feels and we get better and better at being expressive.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 07:30
Hi Joe,
Good to see you posting here again! I doubt that anybody thinks that you're out of your depth when commenting on the qualities of light so don't pretend that you're are! ;-)
I'm afraid that I might have got a little carried away... I didn't meant to suggest that you were overlooking the subject, just that, in general, when photographers discuss the art of photography they tend to skirt the subject of subject (ahem). I also wanted to try and assert that light is but one factor and not the paramount factor in the creation of a successful photograph.
There are many possible reasons for our eliding the question of subject, not the least being the problem of drawing general conclusions from particularities. Each image's individuality (for want of a better word) depends heavily upon the subject. As you point out, light mediates not only how the subject is physically portrayed but also how we feel about a subject. But the subject is still an essential part (some might say the essential part) of any photograph, even in the most abstract or ethereal image.
David
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 07:54
Hi Charles,
I'm not sure that we can ever know with complete certainty how the light will be rendered on colour film, and 25+ years of personal experience as a photographer seems to back that up. Many's the time that I've got a transparency back from the lab to find that the colour in some area of the image isn't at all what I expected. In fact some colours don't seem to be recognised by films at all or rather the way that they are rendered is completely different from how we perceived them. As an example, I remember doing a studio portrait shoot many years ago with a painted canvas background. To the naked eye it appeared to be a mixture of purple and blue hues. Velvia saw it as a range of browns. Now this isn't a question of colour temperature of light affecting the result, it's a question of the film responding in a particular way to a particular set of pigments. The colour of the sitter (a dog!) was rendered perfectly "naturally".
Of course one can use various forms of post-processing to adjust the colour to meet our expectations – and in the Photoshop age this is much easier than previously. But I'm not sure that's always what we want to do. Some of my most enlightening experiences have been when an exposure has revealed colour in an object or an overall cast that has been invisible to my constantly compensating vision. When I made my image of an interior in Bannack I was aware that the different coloured light sources would have an effect on the way that the door frame was rendered but no matter how experienced I have become over the years I could not visualise this exactly. If you run your eye from top to bottom along the edge of the nearest doorway you can see how radically the colour changes. At the top it is bathed in warm bounced light from the hardboard ceiling and at the bottom in cold sky-light reflected from the wooden floor. Only in the middle of the frame does the colour approach what I perceived when I was there.
I don't think that my insistence on subject is at all an about face. In Landscape Within I refused to use specific titles because the words bring connotations. The subject is plainly still there in every image whether or not it is named.
David
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 08:29
Hi Joe,
Just an afterthought... I am open to criticism for my three essential ingredients in Landscape Beyond – rather than TLC I write about BSM (beauty, simplicity & mystery in case anyone thinks I'm referring to the British School of Motoring!) So you could say that because I haven't expressly mentioned subject I too am guilty of elision – something that I'm seeking to redress!
David
Highlight this Comment Joe20/06/2008, 10:25
Hi David,
I promise I wasn't being defensive, just in pursuit of clarification! The subject matter is as you say vital, yet the human brain's tendency to classify and label subject matter (rapid recognition/early closure?), rather than see it as pure visual phenomena (which I think photography tends to do) makes the emphasis on light necessary.
Charles' preference for a scientific, definable approach is unarguable, if that is one's natural instinct. The desire to investigate, probe, analyse and define is actually rather well represented by Ansel Adams, whose Zone System I daresay is familiar to all reading this thread. And John Blakemore, whose natural artistry and reputation as an instinctive and inspiring teacher/photographer (as opposed to a scientific, analytical one) explains and understands the practicality of the Zone System as well as anyone (John Blakemore's Black and White Photography Workshop; David and Charles 2005).
Yet Edward Weston, Adams' direct contemporary, made a point of eschewing analysis and method in favour of a more instinctive, 'felt' approach to his photography.
So what are we to conclude from this? Can 'feeling' be scientifically defined? Or is the very notion of feeling arty-farty claptrap? Or is an overemphasis on method likely to lead us down a road of brilliantly exposed but ultimately rather boring images?
I think that Charles should definitely continue to pursue the analytic approach... this is clearly your strength and inclination. But for those who prefer to 'feel' their way into composition, light, colour and so on, their approach should not, in my opinion, be diminished. After all, Edward Weston wasn't a bad photographer.
One final thought. At Art School, we had a tutor who in his day had been a brilliant student and artist. He had gone through a process of artistic analysis, rather like the Frenchman, Piet Mondrian (famous for the primary coloured rectangles) which might be described as absolute philosophical reductionism. The ultimate artistic output of all this thinking? Nothing at all, niente; his art was no art. That was the artistic result. Not surprisingly, he wasn't a very inspiring tutor because of it. Of course his carbon footprint was probably quite low, so we must give some credit...
Right and left brain, emotion and analysis, intellect and instinct, science and art... surely these all play a balancing role in landscape photography. But I think the time when we can predict a reaction to our work based on a scientific analysis of chroma, hue, saturation etc has yet to arrive. Or is the Colour Zone System just waiting in the wings? Over to you Charles...
Highlight this Comment Sami20/06/2008, 10:30
Hi all
As David has started this thought provoking essay with reference to a conversation we had, as he says, over a pint it is perhaps appropriate to put my thoughts foreword.
I have always been interested in the origin of words and why things are named the way they are, language is the backbone of communication and what a responsibly it must be to come up with a new word that has to describe a new discovery or finding. The subject at hand is Photography; the origin of the word comes from two Greek words “photo” which means light and “graphy” which means writing, both are literal translations, very scientific and highly un-poetic. The process of making an image was not named writing with objects, land, people…..etc. I find my self agreeing with the wisdom of the choice writing with light to describe the process of photography and the very obvious emphasis on light.
Light is the essential tool that we use to self-express, it is what lifts the image from literal interpretation to a more personal statement, it is the essential factor in making an image rather than taking one as David W always advocates. As light changes a carefully worked composition may no longer evoke the same emotion and many times we end up having to abandon the making of an image because the light has changed in the process.
The notion of quantity and quality of light is another factor, quantity is a simple one, there is always enough light just keep the shutter open (technology is a wonderful thing, films have improved in terms of reciprocity and digital sensors in terms of noise). Quality seems to indicate that there is good quality light, perhaps medium quality, or five stars light. This in my view is simply wrong, light quality does not change, it's always there, but may be unsuitable for the subject used to interpret the light. I have made images in the golden hours, in overcast conditions, thunderous and wet and midday sun using the landscape in a manner that interprets the condition of the light at that moment (not the quality).
I do agree that the subject matters but in a way similar to a chemical reaction requiring a catalyst for a successful conclusion, the main raw material has to be the light.
Sami
Highlight this Comment KK20/06/2008, 15:55
Oh dear I promised myself not to post anything on this one but any excuse to stop working at the sums.
Firstly let me join forces with Joe in the North British League of Pedants and point to an obvious error in the original posting. It is stated that "'soft' light, 'hard' light, 'warm' light, 'cold' light can only be observed when they are reflected from a subject." Ever photographed a lit candle or included the sun's disc?
Well apart from being pedantic I do have a serious purpose in raising this one. It was great to see Joe citing John Blakemore's fairly recent book (a favourite of mine). Towards the end he has a brief section with the title `Light as the Subject' (pp. 146-149) the pursuit of which he describes as "a difficult, and perhaps impossible aim." He proceeds to discuss the central problem, that of the subject persisting. I must say that the four photographs reproduced in this section don't quite do it for me but perhaps this is a problem of reproduction not capturing subtleties in the original prints or maybe I just need to look at them for longer.
I also disagree with the final suggestion of the main post that `concinity' (in the senses quoted from the OED) is what we are always trying to achieve in landscape photography. It is often the case but tension and drama have their place. A world consisting only of "studied beauty or elegance" is one that invites a good kicking.
On Michael's point about feeling I agree with Joe's response but not completely. There are occasions when feeling is conveyed as much by the circumstances, e.g., extremes of weather such as ice or snow appearing in a photograph made in conditions that were obviously not comfortable or even safe. Any knowledgeable viewer is bound to pick up on this and reflect it in his/her reactions. Of course light is a key ingredient but only one amongst others creating a general mood.
I'm not quite sure what to make of Charles' main point. Sure it is the recorded colours that matter (though the fact that moving from one medium to the next almost always incurs a compromise shows that this is not an unproblematic assertion). However we do not have perfect models of colour and even if we did I do not see what is gained, in terms of making a photograph (as opposed to colour management), by reliance on some colour space. Our psychological response to colour is not something that can be captured by any colour space (nor is it likely to be unless we propose to have one for each person, after all some people detest green and others love it). Let's remember nature's little joke: the colours we think of as warm have a low colour temperature (around 3000K) while those we think of as cold have a high one (around 9000K).
Well to conclude I mustn't miss the opportunity to disagree with my good friend Sami (we have a pact on this, it's the Mediterranean way). In a sense there is no arguing with the statement that "the main raw material has to be the light." However this is only in the same sense as that the main material of a painting has to be the paint (OK pedants canvas etc...). For some of my photographs the light is itself the main point but for many it is the convenient medium used to convey the composition discovered in the physical world to the recording medium (film in my case); admittedly light always affects the subject and is in this sense always part of it.
KK.
Highlight this Comment adamp20/06/2008, 16:00
Hello All,
Well, there seems to be broad agreement that several key factors are at play: light, composition, subject. The type/quality of light dictates whether we even bother to take a picture (make an image…) and if we do, then we try to chose the subject which makes best use of the light available.
There seems to be less agreement about feeling, or emotion. I would like to mention here one incident from a recent L&L tour to Eigg, where I made an image during an evening shoot. I am quite deliberately using the word make, because I was very conscious of not just the subject (boulders, rock face, Rhum etc) in front of me, but also of the wonderfully dynamic sea as it thrashed around the rocks. I sent a scan of the image to some friends (David – the Hebrides 07 crowd) and got a message back about having captured the restless atmosphere. What joy! I had not even thought of that word as I was lining up the shot, but was very aware of the ceaseless swirling in the water. And someone had seen this in my image!
So, to me this was very strong proof that we can and should strive to capture feeling, emotion and similar intangibles as an essential part of our image-making.
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 17:37
Hi KK,
Okay I'm kicking myself now (not an uncommon event judging by the livid bruises all over my legs...) for not mentioning transmitted light.
I can only plead an abhorrence of including the sun's disc in my images (that and a lack of candles out in the landscape)for my overlooking this possibility.
I would point out that you still can't judge some aspects of the quality of the light except when it reacts with its environment; transmitted light shining through a mist or gauze, for example, attains its quality by being reflected or refracted from the particles or threads that make up such a material.
David
Highlight this Comment Michael S-A20/06/2008, 18:41
I am out of my depth, but what the heck! Back to 'this feeling thing'. What I'm getting at in the first instance is not the feeling conveyed by an image, but passion - for (landscape) photography, for the landscape in question, for the sense of the place, not just the light, but the smell, the sounds, the humidity, the wind, the shapes, the textures, the isolation (or otherwise), and so on. Perhaps a combination of these factors helps/causes some to consider making an image, or feel inspired to make an image (I'm sorry, but I just have to stop - I'll just be 15 minutes...an hour...3 hours....!), or not to make an image, and consider how to approach the challenge of what to try to convey, and how?
Michael
Highlight this Comment KK20/06/2008, 19:07
Hello David,
Now that I'm sensing blood I feel duty bound to point out that in judging reflected light we are not just judging the quality of the incident light but also the absorption properties of the reflecting body. The phenomenon of metamerism illustrates the point very well; I refer you to Chapter 1 (pp. 25-30) of Real World Color Mangement by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting. NBLP strikes again.
This post is also in aid of proving a recent prediction of Mr. Cornish to be correct, viz, that I would one day bore for Scotland on the subject of colour management; well he has to get something right!
KK.
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 19:55
Hi KK,
I did mention that subjects absorb as well as reflect light:
The object photographed mediates the transmission of light; it absorbs or reflects varying amounts ...
And I wouldn't dare to contradict Mr Cornish on prediction about your future national standing... ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment David20/06/2008, 21:31
Hi Michael,
I fundamentally believe that passion is at the very heart of any artistic endeavour. So, yes Michael, a feeling for both subject and craft are prerequisites for making good images.
I've said this before but I tend to repeat myself... there seems to be some magic that links the passion put into art with the passion apprehended by the audience. Of course this isn't infallible, I'm sure that William McGonagall was passionate about his artform yet received almost universal bad reviews and is now renowned as the worst poet in the English language.
Perhaps it's not quite a question of magic; if one is passionate one is likely to spend more time studying one's subject and working at one's craft. In a proportion of cases this will pay dividends with a higher quality of insight and output. One still cannot guarantee that the audience will get the same depth of reaction but it is more likely that they will feel something.
I really couldn't help myself when I made Reeds & Fence. But this kind of overwhelming, undeniable compulsion to make a particular image doesn't strike me that often, perhaps a dozen times in a year. So what of the rest of my image output? Well they're certainly more than the product of merely going through the motions but they don't spring from the same depth of feeling and resultant compulsion.
Whilst I believe in the strong link between "passion in" and "passion out", art is an imperfect channel of communication. An interesting experiment might be to look at a selection of images by a photographer which includes their current top five and try to pick out which they were. Any volunteers to provide the example images? Joe? I would guess that a high proportion of people would get 3 out of 5 but I doubt that any more than a tiny minority would get 5 out of 5. But I've been wrong before...
David
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist21/06/2008, 08:16
Hello David, Joe and KK,
Firstly, in a vain attempt to attain membership of NBLP, may I point out that Piet Mondrian is actually Dutch, although he did spend 20+ years in France ? Now, you will not be surprised to know that I actually rather like Mondrian’s work and to say that it is no art, is waving the proverbial red flag in front of me. He took the idea that the canvas is but a planar surface adorned with pigments to its simplest expression and observed what happened. What was left once he restricted himself to what he considers his core conclusions and beliefs? How much could be done with these alone? For one thing, he released the dynamic potential of these simple planes of colour. For another, he showed what the limitations were and at the end of his life/career, he returned to the potential of the diagonal. You might say he spent 20 years in a wilderness and never got out of it fully – everyone to their own.
Now, what’s the point of me saying all this? Well, David W has launched himself into setting definitions. As pointed out, these are definitions based on perceptions and subjective responses, and so are very personal. But it will allow him to define core beliefs. I suggest that anyone who tries this route, then reduces his expression to just these in order to find out how they work and more importantly how they suit his vision (sorry KK: I know you don’t like the term – let us say what he sees in his mind’s eye). If Beauty, Mystery and Simplicity float David's boat, that is fine by me. You have explored and are exploring these areas, often with success I feel, and you come to understand their relative qualities and deficiencies. Reductionism has clear merits when it comes to creating original work and forging individuality.
Although I couldn’t bore for England in colour management, I still believe very strongly in the understanding of colour space. Joe talked about the different light sources acting upon the subject in ‘Countours in Blue’. David W has used this approach often whether in the image associated with the present thread or his Blue Snow – Yellow Grass picture. His blue pine cones are a little different as they rely on the different absorbances of the subjects. I for one cannot believe, David, that you didn’t have some understanding of this at the time of m/taking the picture. For me, this contrast of hue is so fundamental that I see it as being the subject – not the sand, or the cones or the blades of grass. So, we arrive at a situation where the subject itself is not defined in absolute terms. With the picture associated to this thread, was the subject ‘sand and water’, ‘reflections’ or some link to a dream about golden snakes? The response will vary according to the reader, I suggest. Isn’t this the power of connotation?
I will also say, as Joe intimated, that understanding colour is a tool in much the same way that the zone system is. Understanding either doesn’t necessarily lead to an all-out scientific approach. There is plenty of excellent work of the touchy-feely variety achieved with both. However, as I said above, there is value in reducing to the core beliefs and/or conclusions.
The view camera transforms space with its flexible projection mechanisms, so as to achieve a planar object: the image on the ground glass, which is made less fleeting by recording it, for instance on a sheet of film. Now what the sheet of film shows is not just a transformation of space, but also a transformation of colour space (I use ‘transformation’ in the mathematical sense). Use of black and white film imposes a radical transformation with a loss of hue information. In fairness, in panchromatic film, hue is projected to tone and added to the subject’s own tone, which is important in the choice of colour filters. Realising this has led me to use CMY filters not the RGB filters, which, for some reason, have gained favour. Equally, knowing how colours will appear on Velvia50 or on Velvia100 will help choose film stock. This is all the more true when choosing between E6 and C41 given the respective latitude of these films. Separating out hue, tone and saturation help to understand the relative merits of these films. They are tools of one’s expression.
Thinking in terms of colour and its parameters as opposed to light and subject, will lead to different conclusions and hopefully different insights. For me, that in itself is a valuable exercise.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Julian21/06/2008, 10:03
One of the interesting things about Mondrian's work is that there is a direct progression in his abstraction. He began by painting images of the Dutch landscape and, as you move through his work chronologically, the route he took to arrive at his highly abstract later work becomes very clear. Given that David is famous for his semi-abstract work, I am tempted to wonder if he will follow a similar path to Mondrian and eventually end up photographing just rectangles and lines. :-)
Getting back to 'feeling' in a photograph... I do not think a photograph can portray emotion - at least not in the same way as those involved in the performance arts can. The best musicians, actors and dancers are able to communicate their emotional state to an audience in a very direct way. Can a photographer put emotion into a two dimensional representation of a four-dimensional space and maintain that sense of emotion all the way through the many processes involved in the transferring of an idea from one brain to another? I don't think so.
But, like a fax machine where a message is read, converted into an abstract electrical representation and then, by means of interpreting agreed protocols, that same message is recreated by an entirely different machine, a photographer can endeavour to include enough cues so that the viewer may recreate something of the emotion felt at the instant of committing the image to film or sensor. How successfully this is done is a measure of the photographer's understanding of the language of photography. Ansel Adams made the very profound point of noting that 'there are always two people in a photograph: the viewer and the photographer' and, for a photograph to successfully convey emotion both must understand this language, either intuitively or intellectually.
Obviously, being too mechanistic about this only leads to cliché. One thing photography magazines are always exhorting us to do is to put 'mood' into our pictures. They then offer up a few canned ideas which bring quick results but are ultimately unsatisfying. The answer, of course, is to study the language until, as with learning a spoken language, we can speak it as fluently as we can our own mother-tongue, rather than merely relying on phrasebooks from which we can parrot phrases without ever really understanding what we are saying.
With landscape photography, the language has a limited vocabulary: Joe's 'TLC' form the basic building blocks. David's 'BSM' builds on these to add nuance to the language but one is nothing without the other. Obviously, behind these snappy abbreviations lie a wealth of concepts but, as DNA is essentially a language where huge complexitiy can be distilled into a few simple building blocks, so it is with landscape photography. Now, if someone can distill my nebulous and rambling thoughts into a snappy TLA I'd be eternally grateful!
Highlight this Comment KK21/06/2008, 15:38
I can't help adding to the Mondrian thread by pointing out that he really hated green, so he was really a hardcore landscape photographer (at least conceptually). More seriously, although I do enjoy some of his abstract work I think that such a tightly focused line of investigation is ultimately self limiting and has the seeds of its own destruction. It leads to a situation where the work says less and less and is unlikely to mean much except to those who are committed to the artist for whatever reason. This was a 20th century phenomenon across the arts, e.g., Samuel Beckett (one of my all time favourite writers) suffered from this to some extent for part of his career. In music, Anton Webern was an early and rather extreme example.
I'd like to comment on Julian's claim that photography cannot portray emotion at least not as compared to performance arts. I agree that to understand what a work says (I deliberately say work here because my point is not limited to photographs) we must be able to understand its conventions or language. But this is nothing new or unusual. I could quote for you a wonderful poem in language X (let's say) and unless you know that language it will be meaningless. Even an English translation would be of little use (in fact in most cases one is left wondering what people see in the poem as it appears rather pedestrian). If you look at Chinese scroll paintings you are likely to be extremely puzzled at first as they seem to be telling some sort of story but confusingly; well at least until you realize that you are meant to read them from right to left.
To give you a personal example, somebody asked me for the Greek Cypriot phrase for something a few weeks ago. The phrase involved a double consonant (double n), the Greek Cypriot dialect is full of such examples and they are very emphatic. When I told him that his pronunciation of the double consonant was not quite right and repeated the phrase he was somewhat surprised and insisted that surely I'd only say it like that if I was stressing the word. Nothing could be further from the truth, the relevant modifier word (used to form the future tense) would never be stressed.
From time to time various practitioners of some art claim that their art cannot convey emotion, probably as a defense mechanism against too many tedious questions. Stravinsky made such statements for at least part of his career; Bartok on the other hand made the opposite claim in his typical laconic way (it was rather clearly aimed at Stravinsky without being explicitly so). No matter what the artist claims people will find emotion in the work provided it is worthy of attention. The emotion they find need not be what the artist intended if anything, I rather like that. Attempts to control the audience's reactions strike me as counterproductive at best and, speaking as a sympathizer of true anarchism, rather repulsive.
Communication of any kind always involves an agreed protocol or if you like language. At the level of very basic gestures and facial expressions I guess there is a sort of universal human language. I cannot speculate to what extent as I have not made a study of it but at least some gestures that are taken as basic in some cultures are not understood or misinterpreted in others. When it comes to art, what is communicated is not necessarily precise information so the protocol is not tightly specified but there has to be something there to get things going.
To conclude, Ansel Adams was certainly a great photographer but his point that 'there are always two people in a photograph: the viewer and the photographer' was hardly profound nor original (and I don't imagine he saw it as such either).
KK.
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews21/06/2008, 17:43
I'm in danger of over simplifying things here, but doesn't this discussion (and in essence photography) come down to a variation on one of DW's mantras:
"Match the composition to the light, and the light to the composition"
What a photographer is doing is coming up with solutions to this problem. How they go about this will vary based on their own approach, and may well vary from photograph to photograph. Some may prefer the analytic approach, while others may go for a solution that just feels right. There is no correct way of coming to the solution. Indeed, there may be multiple solutions or no solution at all. But getting to the solution will involve the photographer making a whole series of decisions (viewpoint, time of day, film stock, framing, ... the list goes on). Some of these will be conscious decisions, some may be left to the technology in the camera, others may be left to luck.
If you think about the images you have made, don't you always remember the key decisions that were made on the way to producing it?
And from my experience, understanding that what you are trying do is to solve the light/composition problem is one of the key steps in going from a "snapper" to a "photographer".
Highlight this Comment Sami21/06/2008, 17:52
Hi KK,
My better instinct tells me to drop it but it must be this Mediterranean thing, a slight point of disagreement regarding the paint or indeed the canvas being elevated to raw elements, they are not, they are simply tools, and what do they capture? Well... the light of course; from the very early stages of painting, the highest praise bestowed on an artist is how well they have captured the light, in a portrait, still life study or a landscape (this of course many years or centuries before we are capturing the light in photography). Film transparency ,digital file…etc. are merely tools and not objects of desire, ultimately it has be the print that matters allbeit in a book, exhibitions, private wall or web page. Yes, a web page is emulating a print and in my defense I will use the description these clever people at Adobe use when you out to PDF (Print to PDF).
Cheerio of now
Sami
Highlight this Comment KK21/06/2008, 20:13
Hello Sami,
Very pleased to see that you have taken the bait. Perhaps I am in danger of creating the Mediterranean League of Pedants but here goes. It seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes. It is of course true that the visual arts rely entirely on light to produce their message. As an aside this puts sculpture into an an interesting hybrid position, don't know where it leaves dance!
However the point I was making was about the actual content/intention of a photograph. It might or might not be about the light just as music (at least in performance) is sound but is only rarely about sound. I don't want to take up much more space (having taken up so much already) so I'll end with a misquote: light is the medium but not necessarily the message.
KK.
Highlight this Comment David O22/06/2008, 08:19
It's Sunday morning and my head hurts. I'm not suffering from a hangover.....I think.....I'm trying to make (and at this rate, possibly "take") a photograph. There is so much going on inside my head, I am lost. My finger's on the shutter release but I am not sure how I feel about it or whether it is fit for my purpose. I need some TLC (literally) but what I would like to do is BSM........but I don't see anything that could possibly be BSM.
The danger here is that I am suffering from "labelling" (OED - the stifling of artistic intent due to the assignation of fixed criteria).
I decide to take the image anyway - I don't know what it means but I like it and I'm glad I took it. I can think about it later.
I'm off now with my copy of High Fidelity firmly in my grip - there's a top five to compile and I can never resist a list.
Highlight this Comment David22/06/2008, 08:22
Hi Sami,
I think that you started this multi-threaded rope of thought by your comments over the fabled pint and I'm really glad that you did. I'm just opening out the debate to a wider audience – though not so wide that we wouldn't all fit in the pub!
Having given you the credit for opening the debate, I'm afraid that I still can't agree with you! ;-)
Light is obviously important but it is nothing without a subject. I agree that the quality of light is often the deal clincher but for me it's never the sole reason for making an image; I need to be moved by what I'm striving to depict, not simply by the light. If not, then no matter how glorious the light, I won't make an image. I realise that this may seem perverse but it's a fact; in fact it is something that I'm sure that you've witnessed on a number of occasions.
Light is but one tool in the photographer's toolkit; there are many others available for evoking a response in the viewer, choice of subject and composition being the most obvious. (As an aside, I'm increasingly unsure whether what we do in photography can be called self-expression... No plausible conjectures, just questions on this one at the moment!)
Perhaps we might think of light as a good sauce (as opposed to the source!) and the subject as the basic ingredients of a recipe. The basic ingredients are absolutely essential to the dish, there would be no dish without them. However, an accompanying sauce can turn those ingredients from mundane to sublime.
But sometimes the ingredients don't need a sauce; plain, wholesome, high quality food cooked in a simple way can be just as delicious as the most extravagant haute cuisine. And sometimes the sauce is too much; it masks the taste of the ingredients or alters the balance of the dish. This is obviously not desirable and something that competent chefs would avoid.
But only very rarely, if ever, would one choose to eat the sauce on its own, in fact the sauce is designed to be consumed with a dish. It needs the counterbalance of flavours provided by the dish for it to give its best.
My comment about quantity really only applied to the happy snapper rather than someone using a more advanced camera.
Your comments about quality are largely in agreement with mine. The art of making a good image is the matching of light to subject and vice versa, as I wrote in Developing Vision & Style. So in this sense quality, as I proposed in my original post, can only be expressed in terms of aptness; the light is either apposite or not.
To me the subject is so much more than the channel for the light or the canvas that is painted by the light. In fact, if we want to communicate anything in our images, however imperfectly, the subject is the primary means that we have to do this.
I think that it's useful to look at how we might receive meaning from a photograph. I should make it clear here that 'meaning' refers to communication between the artist and viewer via the work of art. In landscape photography, at least, this is most likely to take the form of an emotional response, not the comprehension of some specific, defined idea that the photographer wants to pass on. Single images are probably not capable of this due to the signal to noise ratio!
A lot of much brighter people than me came up with a branch of linguistics called semiotics. This is the study of signification and communication, it looks at how messages are transmitted by signs; these might be in natural language, gestures or in images. In many forms of signification there are definitions for the signs. These are usually, but not always, culturally specific. The most obvious group of signs with defined meanings are spoken or written language and gestures. These definitions give a range of specific meanings for each sign (or we wouldn't be able to have dictionaries or be offended by someone giving us the finger). Often meanings overlap with others, but there is still broad agreement on what is being signified. (In answer to K.K.s question I think that very few gestures, and one can include facial expressions, are actually universal. Certainly nodding in agreement means the exact opposite in some cultures. Perhaps the smiling and frowning are the only ones...)
In the realm of representational art the case is not so clear cut. Each object within the frame denotes something; tree, wall, grass, water etc. but each of those also connote according to both cultural norms and the viewer's individual norms. The depiction of the object illustrates something, e.g. a tree, but it may also evoke something else e.g. Spring, loneliness, persistence, growth, Life and so on.
Beyond this personal level, many artforms are codified – that is, those "in the know" understand the significance of the inclusion of particular objects or characters in an image. These objects have hidden meanings and signify more than they seem to. Some of these codes are quite apparent, others more arcane. For instance, pre-Renaissance painting in Europe used scale to define importance rather than the placing of an object within an imaginary space. The largest figure in a painting was not necessarily the "nearest" to the viewer but was more likely to be the most socially important viz the King. Many paintings work on a number of levels of signification; at the level of simple illustration and also as allegories. What you see isn't the whole story. Interpreting them requires knowledge of the back-story, something that may or may not have been culturally widespread at the time of their making. Some paintings which were quite bold propaganda in their day have hence lost their significance to the vast majority of modern viewers.
Landscape photography has evolved from traditions in painting and at one level individual images signify their author's position within this evolutionary process. But at the level of most viewers, a landscape photograph is perceived as an image of a place, be it a vista or a more intimate view. The only means that a viewer has to apprehend meaning from the image is through studying the objects depicted and the manner of their depiction.
The objects in the photograph are the main story. The light with which it is painted is of lesser but still significant importance. The light supplies nuance and flavour; warmth, coldness, harshness and softness. But it can't do this without a subject! As I wrote in my original post, they are ineluctably bound; the light does describe the subject, photography _ is_ writing with light but this doesn't make it paramount in terms of how we apprehend meaning from an image, merely very important!
David
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin22/06/2008, 16:57
As one of the founding members of the Yorkshire Branch of 'Pedants are we', I feel it's my duty to take KK's point about absorption and point out that the the last thing touched by any of the light we see is usually an air molecule next to our eye*. This light has just recently been emitted by the collapse of a electron in one of air's constituent molecules. This absorption and re-emission has taken place along the way, sometimes the the light has been re-emitted in the direction it arrived (for instance the diffusing nature of fog) but more usually it is re-emitted again in the direction of travel (this is what a transparent material really does).
Now the interesting implication of this is that the light that hits out eye isn't the same light that left the subject we are taking a photograph of! What has actually happened is that each molecule along the way has absorbed the light and increased an electron energy level. This electron then typically collapses back again and emits a new particle/wave of light. In effect the molecule of air has acted as a digital storage medium, albeit for a small length of time, which then 'displays' the light back out again.
The actual subject that we take a picture of is also absorbing all of the light that it receives and, depending on it's construction, emitting new light. The construction of the material dictates the frequencies of the new light.
So really, it's the subject that is doing the painting with light and you are just the editor for natures infinite monkeys!
As for the quality of light, this is nearly always to do with non transparent molecules in the earths atmosphere doing the same absorption/emmission dance. They are secondary subjects. Even the blue light is a secondary emission from air molecules caused by structural density of particles and gases in the high atmosphere. Before light reaches earth it is nearly completely fixed in frequency distribution and intensity. All of the colour of the light that we see is dictated by earthly influence. In many ways, the quality of light is part of the landscape itself.
To counter Sami's point about artists 'capturing' the light; I think what they mostly meant is that they have captured the way the light has enhanced the subject matter. As for writing with light, many artists used ungodly pigment substances and I don't think they would have written "Writing with sea snail poo and mango cow piss" on their calling cards. Apologies for my demonic advocation..
Calming down a little, I don't think that we can break up the photographic art into it's constituents because language is too loose to define something that just is.
If we ignore the camera, photography is defined by a set of co-ordinates, a direction and two points in time (a start and an end point). Beyond that, the results are defined by the intervening optical elements, length of exposure an optical substrate and a bunch of random manipulations.. Poetic?
Finally, I'll agree with the excellent culinary metaphor of David's where Joe's Time, Light, Composition and Subject are the ingredients and David' Beauty, Simplicity and Mystery are the recipe.
Tim
* it's the molecule of vitreous humour right next to our eye.
** when your tripod fails you, the definition might be two or more points in time :-)
Highlight this Comment Sami22/06/2008, 16:57
Hi David
The most important lesson to take away from all this is not to drink and & talk about photography….
Now what a surprise! You do not agree with me, this must be a first….
Attempting to respond to all of this is no mean feat, so her we go; I will take my cue from one of your pillars – Keep it Simple!
Sieving through all the words our points of disagreements are narrow, the importance of light, you equate it to the subject matter or slightly lesser and I say subject is important but light is what we ultimately interpret. To illustrate lets consider the following scenario: we arrive at a location, previously scouted or otherwise, we may have hoped for certain conditions but alas the light is elusive and may have been as we envisaged or totally different. The process of composition starts, in our inner vision we are including and excluding subject matters and we are doing so because the current light is rendering subjects in a specific way, the process maybe subconscious but it is there, we arrive at what we feel is our expression but as we prepare to shoot the light changes rendering the image so differently to a point where one feels that this is not what we want to express. Who is in charge here?? The photographer, the subject or the light...
Have you ever packed up a composition because the light changed???... The subject did not change it is still their but what made it not worthy of the click?
In so many aspects in life there are leaders and followers, they are both important but not equally, for me the leader is the light, it is what dictates, if it changes one may still be able to make an image all be it of a partially changed or completely altered subject, it is the marriage of subject to light but it is not a marriage between equals. With Joe’s permission, First Light.
As for food let us not go there, but just a thought, in a curry what is more important or has the distinctive edge in rendering the dish and make it standout, the curry sauce or the meat and vegetables.
Sami
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin22/06/2008, 20:24
Hi Sami,
Regarding your question, have I packed in a composition because of the light changing? Yes I have, but more often than not I pack in because the subject is not right. If I have the subject I can see if the right light comes along but if I have the light I can guarantee the subject won't suddenly appear.
I would say that it's the bigger job to find the right subject and composition than it is to find the right light. You can get lucky with light but you can't with composition.
And.. as a great curry enthusiast, I'd say that the best curry matches ingredients into a whole and that it's in the freshness of the spice, the cooking of the paratha, the choice of the right black cumin seeds and the tandoor and many more things.. If you take the sauce on it's own you get a Pot Noodle sachet.. ;-)
Highlight this Comment David22/06/2008, 22:03
Hi Sami,
I was thinking (no, really!) that we were both probably making more sense with a pint or two inside us! ;-)
David
Highlight this Comment David22/06/2008, 22:09
Hi Tim,
I'm with you on this one. I've often been places with amazing light but not made an image because I couldn't find a decent composition. Great light is of no use without the composition to accompany it.
All that talk of curry has got me dribbling so I'd better leave my computer whilst the keyboard still works...
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews22/06/2008, 22:56
I'm sure all of us have ended up not taking a picture because the light has changed. I would suggest this is because the balance between your subject/composition and the light has changed. It is also possible for your subject to change. For example a particular arrangement of clouds in the sky, which would compromise your original picture. Again, it is the balance between light and the composition/subject that has changed.
The difference between Sami's and David's views on this subject go back to the point I was trying to make in my previous comments. Sami is advocating finding a subject first and then working out what light he wants. If he doesn't get that light he doesn't have an image. This is similar to David Noton's approach, whose book "Waiting for the Light" shows the lengths he goes to to get the right light for his chosen subject. David W's approach (and mine, it has to be said) tends to involve a balancing act between the light and his composition, working with what is there at the time (as described in the previous blog about planning). If this balance can't be achieved, he doesn't have an image. Although these approaches are quite different, they can both be equally successful, but what works for one person may not work for another.
At the end of the day it all comes down to a set of decisions. While you can't control light when using a natural source to any great extent, you still have to decide whether the light you have is appropriate for what you are trying to achieve, in the same way as you decided on the framing, arrangement of objects, viewpoint, time of day, focusing, shutter speed, aperture, recording medium, lens, etc. Your decisions will be influenced by your personal preferences and priorities (BSM, quality of light or whatever), which is why you often get such a diverse set of pictures taken at the same location.
Highlight this Comment Sami23/06/2008, 06:40
Hi Tim
Have you considered that the subject was not right because the light may not have been appropriate and may work under different conditions, if not, there is an inherent problem with the composition in the first place?
You say that it is a bigger job finding the right subject, well for me – a mere mortal – it is the light that has always provided the challenge. I have not yet managed to control it.
As for the curry, well I am in full agreement with you, all these ingredients makes the curry sauce.
Sami
Highlight this Comment Sami23/06/2008, 07:50
Hi Chris
Your analysis seem to me almost spot-on, I would clarify that my image making starts with the available light conditions, taking these conditions into account first I will then try to consider subject matter and attempt to interpret an image, you are absolutely right if I can not marry the light to my subject I have no image.
Sami
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/06/2008, 11:37
Hi Sami,
It could be that the light wasn't right but generally I tend to blame myself for problems with pictures - i.e. I haven't chosen the right subject that works with the light I have, rather than finding a subject and then working out what light would work.. I think we're coming at things from different angles. Like Chris says, you can work in many different ways - I tend to work in David's way the majority of time but occasionally I'll find some composition that I know could be amazing in the right light - in which case I will return or wait.
As for the curry - I think you do the cuisine an injustice i.e. shami kebabs, tandoori chicken, most of northern India's dry curries.thals, etc.. And would you hear "What sauce would you like with that sir?" or "What food would you like with your sauce?" in a typical restaurant? On the other hand, the Saucier is the higher position in many restaurants - perhaps "Saucier Photography" could be the new book title! ;-)
Highlight this Comment KK23/06/2008, 22:22
Although I don't agree with Sami I don't think his position is as isolated as the balance of views expressed would imply. The following extract from John Blakemore's Black and White Workshop book already mentioned by Joe is pertinent:
"Clarence John Laughlin once said:
`One of my basic feelings is that the mind, and the heart alike, of the photographer must be dedicated to the glory, the magic, and the mystery of light. The mystery of time, the magic of light, the enigma of reality - and their interrelationships - are my constant themes and preoccupations.'
Underlying all my photography is a passionate fascination with light - with light as it reveals the world; with light itself, as a manifestation of energy. A problem I have set myself for many years now is to make photographs where light becomes the subject; photographs that become about light itself..."
(This is from the section I cited in my first post dated 20/06/2008; see pp. 146 and 148.) Admittedly the points made in the quotes are not identical to Sami's and the concerns of these photographers are quite different from the main one of this blog. However both photographers clearly give light primacy at least in these passages (I am in no position to go any further). It doesn't seem so different from the main concern of Joe's book `First Light' (no doubt Joe will correct me if I am mistaken).
In fact my disagreement with Sami is due to the unqualified claim, if the claim were prefaced with "For me ..." I would have no problem with it.
Mediterranean solidarity rules.
KK.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist24/06/2008, 14:29
Hello Sami,
I am puzzled by one thing. Maybe I am analytical to the point of being unfeeling, but would you care to explain what you mean by “extraordinary light” or the “right light” generally? I am not being facetious and saying that you have to record light otherwise you’d end up with a dark picture. I am being serious. I understand full well that warm or cold light are non-white lights with more red or blue respectively, and that soft and hard lights are a question of diffusion, but what is extraordinary light? Do you mean light that brings the best out of the chosen subject? Or do you mean light that is the result of an unusual combination of meteorological phenomena? Talking of which, I would be curious to know if you equate light and meteorology given that you are a landscape photographer.
I have no trouble understanding that one might want to draw attention to an element of the picture other than the subject. I for one believe strongly in colour and form and feel that they matter more than the subject in my arty pictures, i.e. the right subject is the one which will yield the form and colour I like – effectively I am prejudiced towards form and colour rather than subject. So I willingly accept that someone else might prefer not to be a documentary photographer with the subject foremost in their mind. I am just having the greatest difficulty understanding what it is you’re after. “Light” is a bit vague for me.
In reference to Blakemore’s magic light, and thinking of AC Clarke’s famous quote, are we at risk of losing the magic by understanding the technology?
Yours pedantically, Charles
Highlight this Comment Sami24/06/2008, 16:41
Hi Charles
You have every right to be puzzled, I am! Can you please point to me where I have used the words “extraordinary light” or “right light” in any of my entries in this bog.
Maybe we are on different blogs.
Yours accurately, Sami
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist24/06/2008, 20:37
Hello Sami,
Too damned accurate for me! OK I read through your postings and you're right, you don't ever actually say it. But I got the feeling you did when you were saying that if the light wasn't right, you'd abandon a subject. David talked a lot about incredible or amazing light, so I presumed he was referring to the same thing as you. Assuming that the light need not be extraordinary for you, I suppose that what you're saying is that the properties of the light govern the most photographically fundamental aspect of the subject: its appearance. But then what of all the other processes which lead to the subject's appearance (geology, hand of Man...)? We don't have much control over those either. Or are you in thrall to the light because it changes on a time-scale to which we are sensitive?
Yours corrected and no wiser, Charles
Highlight this Comment Joe24/06/2008, 20:46
Having just got home from leading a workshop, and attempted, head spinning, to catch up with the quite extraordinary elaborations of this thread (Tim, you never told me you were a particle physicist), can I make a few short observations...
Firstly I regret letting down the Northern Pedants with my gaffe about Mondrian. Many apologies.
Secondly, I never said anything qualitative about Mondrian's work, merely wished to illustrate a process of artistic reductionism (which in my opinion, my former tutor took too far). I do not know enough about Mondrian (clearly!!) to offer a valid opinion on his artistic output.
Thirdly, I love the cooking metaphor, although as with all equivalents drawn from other art forms (music, painting, poetry, tai chi, whatever) to distill the essence of photography, there is always a temptation to take a point too far for (highly legitimate) humorous effect.
Finally, and at risk of being a killjoy, I do feel these arguments have been explored before, and the result has often been contradictory. Without having checked the source recently (uh-oh, I'm going to be in the firing line again here) I am pretty sure that John Szarkowski asserted that Edward Weston's work was principally about form, that he was the photographic equivalent of a sculptor, while (Ansel) Adams' work was all about light, and the fleeting evanescent surfaces he chose to describe. Risky though it is to take issue with John Szarkowski, I personally can think of many pictures by both photographers which appear (to me) to utterly contradict these assertions.
As photographers we all require the 'ingredients' of the world' s physical manifestations; but surely light is much more than just the sauce! There is always light if we are to see, and there is no photography without it. Extraordinary light, the right light (whether Sami used these phrases or not), magic light, or just plain old dull light, to me it is the medium, the means, and sometimes it is also the message. I would even point to much modern 'fine art' photography, of all sorts of dead pan social landscape subject matter (forgive the coverall phrase) which requires the judicious use of drab light and cyanised colour casts, as evidence that all photographers require particular light to achieve their desired aim.
'...with light itself, as a manifestation of energy...' as KK points out, John Blakemore's use of the language definitely works for me. JB's language readily captures the mystery and poetry in light. Indeed, are we ourselves not further manifestations of the energy of the Universe? OK, maybe not before 10 in the morning and a couple of strong coffees...
And is not the human tendency to separate, define, compartmentalise, and analyse just a manifestation of the dominance given to the left side of the brain by a cultural trend born from the strategic successes fostered by intellectual rationalism and Logic developed at the height of the Athenian Enlightenment? (KK, I am sure you will have a view on this!) Archimedes and co have a lot to answer for. I really do think there is an inextricable relationship between light and subject matter, for is not everything connected to everything else in the Universe, if only through light?
The wonderfully varied views in this thread seem to me less an argument about the balance between light and subject matter and more about the fact that we all enjoy a damn good argument!
Joe
Highlight this Comment Sami25/06/2008, 08:46
Hello Charles
Well maybe we are getting somewhere. Please look at my entree on the 20th and for ease of reference I will re-quote myself “Quality seems to indicate that there is good quality light perhaps medium quality or five stars light, this in my view is simply wrong.......” so I am in contradiction with David there.
Your supposition on the property of light governing my photographic fundamentals is spot-on, as for the other aspects geology, hand of man ….etc well it is the up to the photographs to include or exclude within the image making process (hence retaining control), the current statutes of the light will dictate my compassion (in my view to keep KK onside).
Sami
Highlight this Comment David25/06/2008, 09:31
Hi Sami & Charles,
Well Sami, we might be in agreement about something, except you think we're not! ;-) I went to some length in my original post to define quality in this context as meaning 'appropriate to the subject':
"But quality here refer to light's attributes; the feel of the light not to some idealised notion of excellence. The light need not be remarkable for an image to succeed, it must however be sympathetic or appropriate. The light must be excellent only in the sense that it provides the best fit with the TLC+S, so that it produces the greatest synergistic effect when combined with them."
Which says, in a much more long winded way than you do, that light is either right or not for a particular subject! Do we have accord?
Having said all that, one can still experience extraordinary light and I'm puzzled Charles why you're puzzled with this concept. It seems fundamental to me that in order to make good, evocative images we must emotionally connect with our subject. (OK, perhaps not if you're photographing widgets for a catalogue... but that 's illustration not evocation.) In other words to make great photographs we must have a feeling for the world and a feeling for light. Analyzing light to the nth degree doesn't help at this point; one simply has to be moved by the light. You just have to know the feeling "Wow!" when looking at light falling on a subject to know what extraordinary light is! If you've never felt that then I don't know what to say.
Of course one might still not make an image if you can't make the light and the subject dance together...
David
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews25/06/2008, 09:50
Charles
Seeking to shed some light (ahem) on the phrases you suggest, "extraordinary" light is exactly that - something out of the ordinary or unexpected. The evening in the Lofoten Islands that David refers to in his original blog entry is a good example. When we arrived at the beach it was bathed in purple light. This shifted through oranges, reds, blues and purples as the sunset/sunrise progressed. I had not seen anything else like it before or since, but it proved really difficult to convey the feeling of "being there" photographically. None of the pictures I've seen really do justice to what happened, so it will live in my memory rather than recorded on film. David Jackman's shot gives you some idea of the intense colours that came later on in evening, but only tells part of the story. Similarly, the light during the solar eclipse a few years ago was extraordinary, but again almost impossible to capture on film.
The "right light" is much more subjective. My mathematical and analytic background suggests that it is the light solves the composition/subject/light equation that has been covered at length in previous blog entries. But I also know it comes down to a question of "feeling" right, which gets in to the left brain/right brain stuff that Joe has written about. And when I'm composing a photograph I go for the "feeling" option, leaving the analytical stuff to when I get the transparencies back. The analysis of the photos then helps to inform my judgement next time.
So "extraordinary light" may not be the same as "right light", in fact I would suggest it rarely is. When it is, then you should end up with something that stands out from the crowd, such as Jon Gibbs winning picture from Take a View last year.
Hope this helps!
Chris
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin25/06/2008, 10:54
Hi Joe,
My part time particle physicist job is top secret (doh!). Acutally it's just too many New Scientists in my old research lab's library - junk food for an overactive imagination!
I was mentioning our 'argumentative' nature to David recently and we were both agreeing (shock!) that a good healthy argument is one of the best forms of learning. It's only when your beliefs are challenged that you really analyse them and the process of understanding another's point of view (even if to refute it) is enlightening also.
I think this "arguing the toss" probably began in earnest during the Enlightenment period and I personally think it was one of the reasons 'thinking' progressed so rapidly. I don't think it was all rational/logical though.. A lot of right brain creativity went into the diverse thinking and philosophising..
It is all a balance however and we are all entitled to our own views on what that balance is and the arguments are all about how we perceive our own balance. I'm always interested in how people work in the field and what they look for . David is probably a good example of the Joe's favourite Zen maxim and from my understanding his approach is to get in the right mind set to make the most of opportunity if it arises..
I'm more interested in all of the subliminal choices that are made in the field between arriving and seeing the 'picture/opportunity'. At the end of the day, you have to choose where to go, what path to take when you get there and what parts of the location to look at.
I'd be very interested in hearing how your readers go about this and this may 'enlighten' (doh!) us as to what priorities people have (possibly another post David?).
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist25/06/2008, 12:03
Thank you everyone and especially Sami for your patience. Sami, what you say about the control over subject and the dependence on light, is interesting and another way of thinking the processes I go through, which on the surface are not so dissimilar to yours. I had hitherto thought in terms of form and colour, but will now bear in mind that little photon born in our star, travelling through space, smashing its way through transparent materials, giving a little of itself to the subject before dying in a blaze of glory on the emulsion.
David: I was wanting to find out whether Sami was thinking in terms of unusual light in the sense of unusual meteorology or special light in the sense that it realises the subject's potential. I am lucky to have experienced a little of both and thought "wow!" indeed: don't worry, I have a beating heart after all.
Ah, the Jon Gibbs picture... Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, I think it is a great pic and one I would have loved to have taken, but why on earth is it classified as a landscape photograph? Could it be that the judges were so enthralled by the light/ weather, they forgot to check the subject? How much of landscape photography is about light not land? I am not expecting an answer, I am just saying this is a good example of all that has been said in this thread's various posts.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Sami25/06/2008, 12:04
Hi David
We have détente; I have taken more than my fare share in this blog and I thank you all for you indulgence.
Sami
Highlight this Comment David O25/06/2008, 12:29
Hi David
I was just thinking (no, really!) that the image of Budle Bay which adorns your original blog entry perhaps proves the point (your point) at hand. In the Gallery section where you have uploaded the image, you say that you had to wait until the third day or so for the light that was appropriate for the subject - in this instance, for me at least, this subject may only work in this kind of light (with the last rays clipping the recesses in the sand and the reflection of the lighting in the sky in the ocean run off). Your waiting game seems to suggest - to me at least - that you had chosen a subject but there simply was no image without the appropriate light. The combination does, for me, evoke a viewer's response - so job done.
In Joe's First Light book, the appropriateness of light to subject matter is also shown in many of the images - if I recall correctly, the Contours in Blue image would only be "available" at certain times of the year due to the movement of the sun's path. Joe also shows alternative images of the same subject but with different light - I recall being quite surprised (looking at the 2 images next to each other) just how a subject evoked entirely different responses (in me at least) based on the changes in light. I am not sure why I was so surprised but the juxtaposition of the 2 images has taught me a valuable lesson about light, appropriateness of light to subject matter and why I might favour one image over another (the "feeling thing").
Rgds
David O
Highlight this Comment KK25/06/2008, 12:37
Oh dear another posting from KK, well this time it's Joe's fault. I read his posting with increasing distress as I could find nothing to disagree with. But then we come to: "Archimedes and co have a lot to answer for." Well this Old Greek isn't going to let a slur on that Old (and much more illustrious) Greek go by without admonition. It seems to me that we have a lot for which to thank him and his followers. I shan't produce the very long list. Suffice it to quote from a discussion with a fellow mathematician some time ago during which he pointed out that if Western Civilization had to pay royalties for its use of Linear Algebra it would not be able to afford it. (Linear Algebra is one very important branch of mathematics; no it wasn't developed by Archimedes.)
OK more seriously I think the left-right brain thing is a real hindrance and it's time it was dropped. I'm not denying that brain functions do localize but such a distinct binary split is not really appropriate to fully formed retrospection and re-enforces a highly questionable cultural position. Personally I'm relieved and grateful if any part of my brain works. What we have is an unfortunate clash of culture fostered in part by entrenched power structures and widespread misconceptions. Scientific understanding is in addition to and not necessarily in contradiction to artistic. Sometimes it is indeed in contradiction, but this is nothing unusual; science at times contradicts previous scientific understanding and moves us on. The point is to be open to the possibility but accept it only when there is convincing proof.
At other times the scientific approach is misapplied, especially when it is used in a reductive mode coupled with measurement for situations that simply do not benefit from such an analysis. I already mentioned this in a previous posting: colour spaces are great for lots of things but they do not capture emotional response and we don't want them to. We don't want a scanner to say "too much green, this photographer doesn't like it, better change it to golden brown). As another example, Information Theory can help us with lots of things but is essentially powerless in assessing a work of art. Not so long ago there was a fashion for using the word "information" in connection with photographs, including landscapes; this left me mystified and still does.
So it seems that Joe was right, I do have a view on all this stuff. Regrettably a fully considered answer would take far too long so let me sum it up with the advice I give to my computer algebra students: "In interpreting a statement always remember in which structure you are working." So when John Blakemore uses words such as "magical" I understand him to be employing the power of poetic imagery to convey his wonder rather than invoking things to do with chants etc. (oh no, that seems to be another point of agreement with Joe; definitely time to quit).
KK.
Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews25/06/2008, 12:38
While on the subject of Jon Gibbs' image, it is interesting (and possibly revealing) that it was the favourite image of the two non-photographers on the judging panel. My own favourite images from the selection were those by Chris Tancock, possibly as they more like the sort of thing I like to produce. Now haven't we already bashed around the idea of "photographer's photographs" in previous log entries...
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin25/06/2008, 15:37
Interesting you should say Chris Tancock's pictures as I thought these were the stand out winners (especially the waterfall).
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist25/06/2008, 17:50
Hello KK,
I agree with the need to work within a system of reference for the sake of coherence. I agree also that colour space per se will not traduce to a feeling. It is a means of measurement, no more. Just to reiterate one point: I was trying to say that if the photographer prefers golden brown to green (let's say) and that that colour, alone or in context, evokes a sentiment, he will want to preserve or even accentuate it, when he creates a record of it on film (or whatever over medium). He will then benefit from an understanding of how that colour will be recorded and he if has an understanding of the transformation of the colour space which will occur in the process of recording it, then his expression will be more accurate(*). A savvy photographer will know how to take into account a non-white lighting source, for instance, or how to make the most of different film stocks.
Now having said, I also raised the question of whether feeling was the only thing which should be expressed in photography, and suggested that colour in its broadest sense might be another suitable aim. One can imagine it as a foundation either for decoration or for a more fundamental investigation of the core principles subtending photography (whatever our definition thereof). This may be a way of putting some scientific rigour in to art - not that art needs it, but more in the interest of cross-fertilisation. What's more, doing so may be a more rigorous approach than referring to "the light" which is a field parameter and, I sense, too abstract for describing the recorded image.
Best regards, Charles
*To answer David's point which he made originally and which I neglected to answer, I agree that knowledge of the real world is inaccurate due to the limitations of the measuring tools, be they our senses or external devices.
Highlight this Comment KK25/06/2008, 21:37
Hello Charles,
I didn't intend to reopen previous points as such, the example just came to mind. Of course it makes sense to understand the technical aspects of our art by the best means available to us. Currently this means use of spectrophotometers, calibration targets, appropriate software and a good workflow. None of this comes cheap or easily.
All that having being said I am with David (I can't believe I'm writing this but there it is) on the practicalities of actually making the photograph. The complexities of doing things on location make it impractical to apply any precise measurements (in many cases downright impossible either because conditions are pretty atrocious or by the time measurements are made the picture is lost). Of course this makes it even more imperative to understand colour and how it records on our chosen medium. It is for this, and other reasons, that as I write this I am hearing the comforting hum of the largest upright frost free freezer I could get a couple of years ago which is stuffed full of classic Velvia 50. I know the film very well, it does what I want in Scotland's wonderful and often misunderstood 'bad conditions' so, in a sense, I have a calibrated system. To be sure I cannot predict things absolutely precisely but I see that as a welcome bonus. The surprises I do get are overwhelmingly on the pleasant side and I learn from them.
This seems rather unscientific but actually the beauty of scientific research consists to a large part in unexpected surprises. In pursuing one result other things turn up. I do not know of any creative mathematician who has a worked out system that gets from hypothesis to conclusion in a straight line for anything other than standard situations. Once again all the relevant tools of the trade must be known and fully understood but the magic is in the exploration, it wouldn't be worth doing otherwise.
You raise the question of whether feeling is the only thing which should be expressed in photography. For me there is no question that this is not enough. A photograph, indeed any work of art, that does not engage both feeling and intellect is in my view deficient. This area is again one that would take up too much space to address properly and I regret to say that very often somewhat facile answers are produced. For example there is the widespread misconception that technical mathematical material is devoid of feeling; at best we get a nodding acknowledgment in this direction but phrased in terms of the passion of people engaged in the activity. That is true but what is much more interesting is that much of the stuff itself can engage us in wonder.
You mention the possibility "of putting some scientific rigour in to art - not that art needs it." Well artists have tried this at times. Look at Seurat for example. I don't want to start another thread but every time I look at his work I find it literally rather diffuse, it lacks the final convincing punch (metaphorical you understand).
You also mention "that colour in its broadest sense might be another suitable aim." Well surely that is what all of us who are working with colour photography are doing, with varying degrees of success. Not all colour photographs are explicitly about colour but satisfactory ones have to do more than just show some strong or unusual colours.
To conclude it seems to me that we overlap on most things. The main difference is that I think there are limits to the utility of certain approaches when it comes to the process of producing art itself. Of course I fully accept that others will have different approaches and priorities.
KK.
Highlight this Comment David26/06/2008, 08:16
Hi David,
The image actually illustrates my complete thesis quite well... I'd wandered along this stretch of beach on previous evenings when the light had also been glorious but no subject had presented itself so I hadn't made an image. On this occasion the falling tide had sculpted this wonderful shape in the sand. Subject and light being in concord I made a photograph!
David
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook26/06/2008, 15:02
I wonder what has caused all this bogging, looking back (to check my memory) you used to only have 7 or 5 or 9 even 1 comment(s). Now its all gone nuts (53, 48, 25) can’t keep up with it all, makes me wonder if anyone is out making images as well as doing all this thinking and writing. Could be a while David until another book comes out, unless your planning a book of the blogs! ;)
It’s all good stuff though.
Highlight this Comment Joe26/06/2008, 18:16
Hi KK,
Profuse apologies, the Archimedes comment was a throwawayline and I promise it was meant in jest. I am a big fan of Greek culture (I'm not just talking yogurt); as a boy I always thought the Athenian Civilisation was the coolest in history.
As for the left/right brain model, not having studied the brain except through (superficial) popular science articles and programmes I simply accept the popular descriptions. Personally I do not see artistic endeavour and scientific endeavour as two polarised ends of some cerebral spectrum. On the contrary, I regard them as fundamental and complementary instincts in the human desire (instinct?) to explore and express.
If I had any talent with numbers whatsoever (I have none) I think I would have enjoyed science almost as much as I do art. Even with none, I still find science absolutely inspiring, and I hope some scientific knowledge informs what I do with my photography. Don't we all?
Joe
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson29/06/2008, 17:44
It is easy for you landscape photographers, you only have to cope with daylight, spare a thought for your fellow photographers who have to cope with three different types of light in one image. I recently printed out an interior shot of Winchester cathedral. As I wanted the image to have contrast and depth I opted to use a tripod and no flash. The resulting colour image contained three types of light, daylight. tungsten and flourscent sources.
In the end the print was a compromise, as even the wonders of Photoshop could not improve the situation.
However having showed the image to other photographers, they were intrigued as to how well it worked.
On the other hand I could have converted it to black and white if I dare mention it here on the hallowed ground of you fellow colour photographers.
As I have already said in a previous blog " all light is good light" and we photographers have to make the best of it at the time of making our image.
David, your blog is really working with all these posts. I will need to stop going on holiday for two weeks, or take my laptop with me.
In reply to one of the above blog entries, yes some of us do get out there making images. Most of mine are of the detritous type of abstract subject matter, even found in the gutter beneath our feet.
regards to all.
Sandy
Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker11/07/2008, 10:12
Curry, light and beer…man what a conversation! How perfect a thread and some incredibly thoughtful comments too!
For some reason there does seem to be large numbers of photographers that consider technical elements of more importance than feelings. I understand you have to know how to use your kit, but my view is that you should be able to forget you are taking a photograph, and concentrate on what you see how it makes you feel. The ability to produce an image that connects with the viewer’s emotional state, triggers some subconscious memory and brings emotions to the surface is in my view of prime importance!
I do wonder why these technical photographers glaze over when you start talking about emotions and feelings? Left-brain dominance? Insecure? Oedipus complex? Come on guys let's go on a drumming workshop and hug some trees! (o:
I think that landscape photography attracts interesting people, (present company included of course). I would suspect we all love to be in dramatic, inspirational, peaceful, even quiet and calming places. God the feeling of being alone at dawn in a freezing wind with icy north sea waves crashing over your wellies is not to be missed. But to try and think too much about technical elements when in this type of environment is missing the essence of what it is like to be there. (Soggy socks)!
Getting to the point I originally wanted to mention... man this is long winded sorry… I don’t know about you guys but when I see good light, I just love that feeling! I feel like a kid that has just been given a day pass to Blackpool pleasure beach, (sorry can't think of a more poetic analogy). I feel like the first days of the summer holidays, I feel like a kid again! (Have I just let on too much about my psychology?) Being in a beautiful place with crashing waves and howling wind with unusual inspirational light makes me feel alive!
Anyway… anyone for curry?
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!