Reworked work boots

[Manfred M]

I'm doing a (virtual) talk at one of the local photo clubs on still life photography in just over a month, so have been pulling together material for the talk. I found this old gem in the archives and did some very minor tweaking to it.

Even the most mundane and uninteresting old work boots can be used to create a powerful still life image.

This is one of my first still life images that I am happy with. I took it during a studio lighting course using the lights and seamless paper at the local college. Single studio light with a white piece of foam core as my fill light.

[jkshyt]

I'm only beginning to understand light and the principals of its use.
Great still IMHO!

[xpatUSA]

I'm only beginning to understand light and the principals of its use.

Not photographic, but the basic principles of lighting are invaluable, see:

http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

[jkshyt]

Not photographic, but the basic principles of lighting are invaluable, see:

http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

and remembering that "light" is only the human-visible and very tiny part of radiation in general ...

Thank you

[Manfred M]

I'm only beginning to understand light and the principals of its use.
Great still IMHO!

Ted tends to look more at things mostly from a technical standpoint. I take a much more traditional photographic view when it comes to light. Both of us, by the way have technical backgrounds, if you look at our education and careers.

In photography we traditionally look at three aspects of light:

1. Quality of Light - Is the light hard (i.e. does it cast shadows with very defined edges, like the mid-day sun) or soft (where the shadows are far softer and have less defined edges);

2. Quantity of Light - This determine many of the camera settings; ISO, shutter speed and lens aperture setting; and

3. Direction of the light; where is it coming from above, from below, from the side, etc.

While there is a technical aspect to photography, there is also a psychological component (warm tone or cool tones, for instance) and a physiological component (i.e. how the human visual system works). Dwelling only on the technical side creates very boring images, unfortuantely.

[xpatUSA]

Ted tends to look more at things mostly from a technical standpoint. I take a much more traditional photographic view when it comes to light. <> While there is a technical aspect to photography, there is also a psychological component (warm tone or cool tones, for instance) and a physiological component (i.e. how the human visual system works). Dwelling only on the technical side creates very boring images, unfortuantely.

Oh boy ... apparently, I know little about tones or the human visual system. No wonder my images are so boring.

[Manfred M]

Oh boy ... apparently, I know little about tones or the human visual system. No wonder my images are so boring.

You rarely post any images, so we can't tell what you do know and understand.

Much of what you post is interesting to me and some of the other people interested in drilling down into the physics and technology, but of much more limited use to the average photographer.

So when you do have something to discuss, it would be great if you posted some of your own best work to demonstrate. A picture is worth 1000 words they say.

[escape]

[xpatUSA]

You rarely post any images, so we can't tell what you do know and understand.

That is an illogical statement, Manfred. It conflates a person's knowledge with the quantity of his posted work.

Much of what you post is interesting to me and some of the other people interested in drilling down into the physics and technology, but of much more limited use to the average photographer.

What would you like me to do about that?

For example, should I keep my comments at or above "exposure triangle" level?

So when you do have something to discuss, it would be great if you posted some of your own best work to demonstrate. A picture is worth 1000 words they say.

Most of my posts here have been illustrations of some technical point. However, my own "best work" falls well below the average quality of others posted here.

On the other hand, I claim that some of the "best work" here is posted by people with only a superficial knowledge of "the physics and technology" of photography whereas, accordingly to your apparent philosophy, they should know everything.

Yet again, it appears that Moderation considers technical comment to be anathema to these fora.

Please pardon my obvious irritation ...

[Manfred M]

Most of my posts here have been illustrations of some technical point. My "own best work" falls far below the average quality of others posted here.

On the other hand, I claim that some of the best images here are posted by people with only a superficial knowledge of "the physics and technology" whereas, accordingly to your philosophy, they should know everything.

First of all Ted, when photographers ask about light in the way Jack did, most photographers I have ever met are looking for an answer along the lines that I gave. They are generally not looking for the something taken out of a university level textbook on light, like the paper you linked to. Post some strong images that you have taken that demonstrate the principle you are writing about, that does give the writer credibility.

My second point is that I don't feel one can credibly answer questions unless one can demonstrate some level of expertise on a subject. Getting a quote out of a book or showing someone else's work does not necessarily demonstrate understanding and it definitely does not demonstrate experience on the subject matter.

You have expressed my opinion quite incorrectly. I feel photographers need to have only a vary minimal understanding of physics to be able to take strong images. They do have to know how to compose strong images and how to create images with strong impact. One does have to understand how light interacts with the subjects and the surroundings.

Hence my suggesting that you and I have a different view of what a photographer needs to know about light.

[DanK]

Speaking personally, I think this exchange has become too ad hominem, and it's no longer informative.

[xpatUSA]

First of all Ted, when photographers ask about light in the way Jack did, most photographers I have ever met are looking for an answer along the lines that I gave. They are generally not looking for the something taken out of a university level textbook on light, like the paper you linked to. Post some strong images that you have taken that demonstrate the principle you are writing about, that does give the writer credibility.

I probably can't do that. I personally have no images that can exactly demonstrate this lighting versus that lighting. I must assume that we're still talking about me pointing a member towards a lighting "bible" ...

My second point is that I don't feel one can credibly answer questions unless one can demonstrate some level of expertise on a subject. Getting a quote out of a book or showing someone else's work does not necessarily demonstrate understanding and it definitely does not demonstrate experience on the subject matter.

Now I'm beginning to understand why people here tend not to go up against you in these matters.

... I feel photographers need to have only a [very] minimal understanding of physics to be able to take strong images.

I already said that.

"I claim that some of the "best work" here is posted by people with only a superficial knowledge of "the physics and technology" of photography"

They do have to know how to compose strong images and how to create images with strong impact. One does have to understand how light interacts with the subjects and the surroundings.

And where would one learn how light interacts with anything, Manfred?

Hence my suggesting that you and I have a different view of what a photographer needs to know about light.

More spin. I never said that anyone needs to know everything about light to take good photos and I've already said that they do not.

You seem determined to "win" this discussion so, as to avoid further embarrassment of your good self, I'll let you have the coveted Last Word.

[xpatUSA]

Speaking personally, I think this exchange has become too ad hominem, and it's no longer informative.

Agreed, Dan. I'm done.

[Manfred M]

And where would one learn how light interacts with anything, Manfred?

Short answer is get out there and experiment with your camera and using different types of lighting and studying their effects on the image. You can read about this type of stuff in books on photographic lighting, but to be perfectly frank you can't learn or understand unless you have tried it to see what works and what does not.

It's sort of like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle by reading a paper on riding a bike and calculating the velocity required for the gyroscopic moment to get high enough so you don't fall off.

[xpatUSA]

Short answer is get out there and experiment with your camera and using different types of lighting and studying their effects on the image. You can read about this type of stuff in books on photographic lighting,

My link was to a book on lighting, not "photographic light" and I was not referring to "this type of stuff" whatever that is.

but to be perfectly frank you can't learn or understand unless you have tried it to see what works and what does not.

Quite remarkable, Manfred. I have no idea how that statement can rebut anything that I actually said.

It's sort of like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle by reading a paper on riding a bike and calculating the velocity required for the gyroscopic moment to get high enough so you don't fall off.

That's about poorest analogy that I've seen for anything lately and, guess what, I disagree.

Please end this discourse somehow because so long as you continue with your denigration, I can't stop.

Sorry Dan. ...

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Not photographic, but the basic principles of lighting are invaluable, see:

http://kronometric.org/phot/lighting...20handbook.pdf

Thank you

Right back at you, Jack!

In light of recent posts here by Moderation, my attitude is that Photographic Lighting is a sub-class of Lighting in general.

As such, a reasonable understanding of Lighting in general could I thought help you with the understanding of Photographic Lighting in particular. It certainly helped myself with wristwatch photography long ago.

For example, people (but not everybody) with little knowledge of Lighting might believe that the Inverse Square Law applies to every photographic lighting set-up, whereas the reading of page 26 in my link tells you otherwise.

[escape]

Please end this discourse somehow because so long as you continue with your denigration, I can't stop.

Sorry Dan. ...

Ted, I think Manfred is sorry for the unfair remarks towards you. Just like you can't let this go, he cannot openly admit he made a mistake at this time, but that's OK. To prove my point, I can assure you Manfred will not respond to this statement, thus indicating support of its content.

Let's move on and have a great day, everyone. click, click