On Mood

[pecunium]

Photography is all about light. No light, no picture.

So seeing light is the thing which matters most. I (and lots of photographers) have gotten "lost in the light" as some spectacular (or just interesting, pregant with possibilties) bit of light played across a potential subject.

Light is also how mood is conveyed. The angle, the color/temperature (which is part of the color... and the part a digital camera tries to measure) the amount, all combine to set the "feel" of a picture.

Look at these two portraits of me. The light falling on me is much the same in angle, and in shadow, but the sense of subject is very different (trying to ignore the other differences in subject).





The first seems far more intimate than the second (even ignoring the lack of a shirt). Largely from the lighting. That same pose outdoors, with a tree providing the shade in the mid-afteroon would be a very different picture; even if I were shirtless in it too.

The second is brighter, less intimate; because the light is "harder", an the shadows are crisper.

So, in a large scale, how does that work?

It happens I have a couple of landscapes, both with clouds.







In some ways the light is direcly opposed in them; with the elements reversed. The foreground in the upper photo is defined by the shadow (which provides a countering line to the trail the cyclist is on), and the mountains rise up to the sun.

In the second, the sun lifts the hill in the forground up, out of the murky distance.


They are both pictures with a some sweep, the horizon is a big element in both of them. But the light is different. It's more brooding in the second shot. The darkness in in the background, and seems to rise up to the very clouds. Ten minutes later, and the back of that ridgeling was as bright as the one above it, and the image is, actually, pretty dull. The sense of forboding sits on it, and gives an otherwise busy picture a sense of stillness.

(p.s. I decided that smaller images was probably kinder to those who aren't really interested in the pictures. One may, of course, open them in a new tab/window to see them in more detail. If you want the larger images in the posts, let me know).

Comments

[mesoterica.livejournal.com]

That's really cool - I didn't know such a variance in lighting could have as drastic a difference in a large landscape as on a relatively close-up portrait.

[ashiegrrrl.livejournal.com]

The first photo is very, very sexy. :)

[crazysoph.livejournal.com]

Happily married here, and I agree that the first photo is indeed rather lovely!

I'm curious, though, pecunium, is the first photo a self-portrait? Or did someone else manage to catch/pose you for that shot?

Crazy(and 'looking on the menu, but eating at home)Soph

PS the smaller images work just fine for me - they're small enough to get in under the wire/limit that LJ lets users set their image-downloading, so I can satisfy my curiousity.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

No... both of those are other people shooting me, with my camera. The first was directed... "move over a little, there."

The second was a grab shot, outside, about the same time of year, but a little earlier in the day, and a little more southern in location (Palo Alto, vs. San Luis Obispo).

And there was, now that I think of it, some haze from smoke to yellow the light in "Alpenglow".

I'd love to be able to catch that sort of look in a self-portrait, but I don't think I can do it. Takes a human eye to get that Cartier-Bresson, "moment".

[sharon-masters.livejournal.com]

ALL the pics of you are sexy.... but aside from that, yes, light is amazing.
i go out in the morning with my little camera and what i get is vastly different from 5 am to 7 am to 9am on the same spot...
it's why so many artists wanted northern facing windows, and lofts with huge walls of glass are much more in demand to those that paint and draw-- the light changes EVERYTHING.

Great photography is not just the subject, but the way the subject is perceived by the viewer- and lighting can change that instantly even in the same pose. i think that's the reason some photographers are just so magnetic to me-- Curtis's use of studio light on the Native Americans he photographed is so horrifically documentarian, while the photos Annie Leibovitz takes make me shiver sometimes in their intimacy.

i tend to lean towards the Hollywood head shot photographers of the 40's for sheer *breath taking* beauty in the way they framed and lit their stars.

Outdoor lighting-- oh my... sunsets change so much when viewed from California and then again from Hawaii... light changes life.

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

The first picture is very sexy, and more intimate, but the lighting isn't the only factor in that. The bigger part for me is the semi-surprise factor - it could have been taken without your knowledge, and that does it for me.

Good direction.

DV

[savorie.livejournal.com]

I love playing with light.

[b0dice-g0ddess.livejournal.com]

IMO, the first one makes you look younger and the second one much older. So the lighting and angles played a difference in the perception about your appearance. :)

With that said, you look good without your shirt. ;)

[editrx.livejournal.com]

The first picture proves that life has certainly been good to you, and it shows. Not bad at all, no. Oh, and yes, the light is good (not what I first noticed, however, you must forgive me).

And yes, it's very sexy. Damn.

I know you've said it before, but my mind forgets things too easily these days (lupus, dammit): What camera are you using? Lens?

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The rig was a D2H, with a Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D (wonderful lens... like my FE2, something I wouldn't trade for the world, even if it is, "old, and out of date" lacking in modern bells and whistles.

I'm not so sure how good life has been, but I'm doing all right at the moment.