The Photo Sucks

 

If the lighting sucks.

Right? Essentially, a good photo has good lighting. It can be totally off-balance, or the subject of the photo could be out of focus or horrific to look at even; but if it has good light, it’s still somehow enjoyable. Consider Caravaggio’s paintings: some of the most horrid scenes looked beautiful under his use of lighting.

A good photo is essentially good lighting. If you’re not seeing beauty, design, abstract forms, shapes, messages, colors, lines, or even life while you’re looking at light, then your photos are going to be as interesting as how you see light.

What constitutes a good photo? A photo that makes the viewer feel. I don’t believe that sharpness and technicalities are the variables that make a good photo. I think that nice lighting and composition are some of the more major building blocks of a good photo (so is detail, use of scale, perspective, etc). If there was a pie-chart that is part ‘nice lighting’ and part ‘composition’, nice lighting would take up a larger area of the pie.

Mastering lighting opens up the doors into infinite perspectives. Literally. If lighting and the observation of light becomes a part of your imagination landscape , there is no end to what you can imagine.

Email list

Recieve an email update whenever something new happens 

    Choose your interest(s)
    We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.



     
    Neave Bozorgi