|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Professional Photographer |
What's the verdict on shadows in photography? |
I understand in many ways, shadows are a big "no-no" in photography. I also personally believe that in some cases, they can enhance a photo's artistic appeal. I know there are hard shadows and soft shadows as well. I was wondering if there is any general guideline or rule of thumb professional photographers use when it comes to using them or avoiding them. Or, is it just a matter of interpretation? It's not so much that you need to avoid shadows altogether. You just don't want anything to detract from your subject. For instance, a shadow right behind a person in a portrait will be distracting and make for an unprofessional photograph, but an image of a fence casting long shadows at dawn or sunset might be really interesting. The important thing is that the shadows enhance the image and aren't distracting. Generally, shadows are avoided in studio photography (I.E. portraits, fashion, products, etc.) but are more common in fine-art/landscape photographs. Photography is like many other things - once you master knowing the basic elements (the science of it) you can use them to create art and self expression. There is no light without shadow, and unquestionably, shadow can be used artfully - even a lot of it. Go to art museums and study the use of light in paintings. Find examples of the use of shadow that particularly call to you. And then find ways to emulate in your own work. If you look at the history of photography and follow certain fine-art photography movements, you will find each group or individual has had their own ideas about shadows. For example the F64 group in particular Ansel Adams stressed that a good photo must be completely sharp(as in F64sharp) and have detail in both the shadows and the highlights. A good example of an F64 image can be seen here in "moonrise over Hernandez" http://www.fada.com/catalogimages/moonri... Although this image doesn't do justice to the original(s) it does show you that even in the darkest areas of the image we can make out the details. If you are interested in this type of photography then you need to study the Zone System of photography. At the other end of the spectrum you have photo movements such as the one initiated in Japan by Eikoh Hosoe and followed by Daido Moriyama and others show great tenebrism in the shadows and highlights. Often in the photos of Moriyama or Hosoe you may not find any detail in the shadow areas or his highlight areas. The images display a limited palette of merely black and white, and display a great deal of drama http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images_890... This is quite unlike the F64 images which tend to provoke feelings of serenity or deep contemplation. As I said previously if you want to take a more technical approach to your image making then you need to study the Zone System of Photography which Ansel Adams helped develop. Here is a link I found that will help you out http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.ht... If you learn this system you will be able to make a technically correct photo. However, in all actuality photography is not about absolutes, correct and incorrect. Some of the best photo's in terms of historic and monetary value are perhaps not so correct in terms of their printing, or exposure and such. Diane Arbus is a great example, her photo of two twin girls sold for $500,000 yet her printing quality is at best mediocre, but the images speak above the technicalities. |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |
