The Digital Insider

In my first semester of attending photography school full time I had a professor who was a very successful working photographer. I actually wondered sometimes why he taught. Especially after visiting his home studio in Venice. There was no doubt that he had done exceptionally well for himself. Anyway, during our first week of class he told us that we had to put together a book with tear sheets from magazines, et cetera that we liked. Now, that was broad yet, specific to the individual. He went on to explain that it could be anything for any reason. Whether you liked the lighting, the colors, it turned you on or repulsed you for whatever reason. It could be a photographer’s work that you admired or hated.

The exercise later revealed his reasoning. He had us take a lupe and look at the eyes of the subject in the photograph; especially studio photographs. By doing this it was a bit confusing at first but then completely obvious. You could see the lighting in the subject’s eyes. By studying the eyes you can generally determine where the light source was coming from and the shape of the light source. You could see if it was round, square, rectangular and the size and angle of the light. His suggestion was to find a photograph that you liked, look at the eyes, determine how it was lit and duplicate it. After recreating it, ask yourself what would I do different and do it.

It was a great idea and learning experience for any beginning photographer and/or student. It’s easy to look at something and think to one’s self that, “I can do that”. Well, this exercise was a way to prove it. I made such an attempt at duplicating a beauty shot I saw and it was difficult but exciting all at once. Nonetheless, it worked.

Currently and forever the only slight problem with the exercise is the blessing and curse of advancing technology in photography especially as it relates to Photoshop. A great tool for so many things whether creative and/or purely maintenance on photographs it can limit one’s learning experience in the aforementioned example. Primarily because the eyes can now be retouched to the extent that it makes it very difficult if not at times impossible to see the lighting scheme in the eyes.

Alas there are still great painters to study. Light is light and it hasn’t changed much over the centuries. Paintings are like photographs in that it takes a 2-dimensional medium and by using or manipulating light creates a 3-dimensional piece of work. The information is all around us. You can look at the way the light falls on your date or mate’s face when sitting at dinner or how the light bounces off a building in the late afternoon creating a warm and soft glow. The information is still in the eyes, your eyes.

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am and is filed under Photo Tips, Photography History, digital photography, photos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.