What is most important. Subject matter, lighting or editing?
franky.fine.art said, 1714719351
I think the relative importance of these three can evolve over the lifetime of a photographer. Personally, I've always paid a lot of attention to lighting, and I always spend quite some time on post processing.
However, lately I feel I've been incredibly lazy in the subject department. Basically asking beautiful models to come in front of the camera and letting them pose. My only direction were a particular style (e.g. "David Hamilton") and some examples in a moodboard. Mind you, I like the results a lot, but I feel something's missing: a story, or a deeper emotion being portrayed or evoked.
I believe there is some amazing art work out there, with available non-manipulated light and (probably) barely any processing, but the images tell a story, it makes you shiver, rejoice or wonder. The artist came up with an intruiging concept and the model executed it wonderfully. With an image like that, it doesn't matter that framing is awkward and lighting a littile off, they may even be part of why I love the image.
The older I'm getting, the more I'm asking myself the question "why" before a shoot. Just pretty pictures? Is there really no story I can tell?
So, in short, personally I'm evolving from light/processing to subject.
MarcAyresPhoto said, 1714719671
A subject without lighting is still a subject, lighting without a subject is nothing.
Editing is your expression of that subject. No subject no editing.
Subject is the most important
Guillaume de Lafontaine - DWAMPIX said, 1714722829
MarcAyresPhoto said
For the sake of arguing
A subject without lighting is still a subject > but it's not a photography
Lighting without a subject is nothing > light can be a subject in itself
Subject is the most important > without light there is no photograph
The only thing that cannot be a subject for photography is the absence of light
To me photography is all about capturing light
Edited by Guillaume de Lafontaine - DWAMPIX
ClickMore đź“· said, 1714723564
If the subject and composition is right but the light is wrong then the editing can't save it.
If the lighting is stunning but the composition is not right then the editing can't save it.
Composition and lighting are equal. Editing is secondary.
art65 said, 1714723868
Without editing most of my pictures would be very poor. Without a subject there would be little interest. Without light there would be no photograph.
Stanmore said, 1714724476
For the sake of arguing
A subject without lighting is still a subject > but it's not a photography
Lighting without a subject is nothing > light can be a subject in itself
Subject is the most important > without light there is no photograph
The only thing that cannot be a subject for photography is the absence of light
To me photography is all about capturing light
Edited by Guillaume de Lafontaine - DWAMPIX
You’re confusing lighting with light. Through this prism the same can be said of dance, sculpture, painting, fashion, architecture, origami… With the absence of light, each ceases to exist as an appreciable subject.
If we take a picture with light as the sole subject, we have a white rectangle. But it’s a photograph.
If we take a picture with no light as the sole subject; black rectangle. It’s still a photograph.
The fixation with light and more recently editing in photography all too often dominates and/or denigrates the subject (IMHO). Subject / concept / content alone are all that is needed for outstanding photography. Not light(ing). Not editing.
Edited by Stanmore
Huw said, 1714724617
I normally shoot when the light is good, and there aren't too many people about - this means 3 hours after sunrise, and 3 hours before sunset….
JJsPix said, 1714725537
My own view is that the majority of photography is about the lighting.
Great subject matter can be made to look incredibly mundane with bad lighting.
And good lighting can make an image electrifying to look at.
Editing is much easier with good lighting on a subject, so that's my take. Good lighting every time.
indemnity said, 1714725865
In an attempt to answer this, let's consider a scenario...
a photographer photographs a model and the light is perfect
another photographs a model and the style/composition is perfect
a third photographs a model and the image is edited and finished to perfection
So which image will be the best?
On here, probably the image with the least clothes and biggest tits.
Tasmyn Gorecki Photography said, 1714727111
Subject matter, then lighting, then editing. If you have the first two correct, you don't need much editing. In fact, I prefer only to edit minimal amounts and get most of it right in camera. As to me that is what photography is about.
CalmNudes said, 1714737349
MacMaghnuis said
A long time ago I did a photography qualification and a lecturer said to me that photography was 50% pointing the camera at something worth looking at. I've always agreed with that so I think In would say subject matter is the most important aspect. On this site that normally means the model and sometimes the mua the photographer chooses to work with.
I'm going to go with 25% lighting and 25% editing as well. I can't choose between them.
Opinions?
Ah, but what makes it worth looking at ? I think the common things are recording transient we want to keep (real or acted out), it's showing us something we couldn't see / have never seen, or something we could see / have seen in a new way to make it interesting (and if it is something we see regularly bring back our interest in it).
Arranging the cameras view is not just what we're pointing it at (and what additional non-subject elements are in the shot - telling the story or helping the composition, or just because we can't exclude them) but from what angle / distance with what lens and then how it's lit. Given a flower, you take a boring or interesting shot, where's the difference ? Light, position/angle, and perhaps context, a flower in full bloom might be less interesting than an opening bud, or cut flowers that have passed their best, or an out door flower with raindrops on.
But I would say light is part of pointing the camera at something worth looking at
Editing. Depends on the subject. Sometimes what the sensor captures something which only becomes a worthwhile picture after some process, sometimes straight from the camera is all we need. And something like the use of D.o.F is editing before exposure (what can I see that I want to make important and focused / unimportant and defocused).