interesting article: Photography Around the Clock

[Photography]

interesting article: Photography Around the Clock

I did found a interesting article about using Photography around the clock and you can use others like portrait or pet photography as not only food photography. I just want to share others and this is not my website as once more again just want to share to you guys what i did found a article.

Finding the Right Light | Kevin & Amanda

Have fun and enjoy learn new stuff.

[OsmosisStudios]

An interesting article: It presents a great way to describe light direction. Im surprised I havent seen it before to be honest.

[Indigo November]

Hmm, I would rather stick to the standard terms of side-light, backlight, etc.
It could get a bit confusing if we all started switching terms around.

"12 o'clock light" refers to midday sun, even in photography.
You can't just suddenly say that "12 o'clock light" means backlight. That is just ridiculous, there is already a word for it.

And if I said "6 o'clock light" (depending on the location and time of year), most of you would think sunset.

And why ditch the term "side lit"? I thought that was a perfectly good way to describe a photo lit from the side.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Indigo November

Hmm, I would rather stick to the standard terms of side-light, backlight, etc.
It could get a bit confusing if we all started switching terms around.

"12 o'clock light" refers to midday sun, even in photography.
You can't just suddenly say that "12 o'clock light" means backlight. That is just ridiculous, there is already a word for it.

And if I said "6 o'clock light" (depending on the location and time of year), most of you would think sunset.

And why ditch the term "side lit"? I thought that was a perfectly good way to describe a photo lit from the side.

I dont think the article is referring to a new way of referring to how or where light comes from, but is simple using it was an example for teaching purposes. That being said, I only skimmed the article.

[Indigo November]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I dont think the article is referring to a new way of referring to how or where light comes from, but is simple using it was an example for teaching purposes. That being said, I only skimmed the article.

Well, I say don't teach people to use improper terms!
Besides, backlight and side-light sound like exactly what they are, I don't see any reason not to just learn those.

[Jim Poor]

It's an interesting way to look at it. Everyone has different learning styles and communication modes, so whatever gets the point across.

I can see the point about mixing in new terms as well, however 12 O'clock light could just as easily mean midnight. Besides, the face of a clock has been used to describe directionality for ages. "Check your six" comes to mind, as does "Enemy spotted, 12 O'clock low," etc.

Not ridiculous at all and I wonder why so much anger behind the reply.

[Indigo November]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

It's an interesting way to look at it. Everyone has different learning styles and communication modes, so whatever gets the point across.

I can see the point about mixing in new terms as well, however 12 O'clock light could just as easily mean midnight. Besides, the face of a clock has been used to describe directionality for ages. "Check your six" comes to mind, as does "Enemy spotted, 12 O'clock low," etc.

Not ridiculous at all and I wonder why so much anger behind the reply.

No anger, I am afraid you are mistaken. It was just a small rant, and a rant isn't always done in anger.

I just think that it is silly (ridiculous) to use a term that already has a meaning, to describe something that already has a term.
Especially when you could so easily get confused, as both of them can apply to photography.

You wouldn't call a young, female horse a heifer, would you? Nor would you call a young, female cow a filly.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by Indigo November

No anger, I am afraid you are mistaken. It was just a small rant, and a rant isn't always done in anger.

I just think that it is silly (ridiculous) to use a term that already has a meaning, to describe something that already has a term.
Especially when you could so easily get confused, as both of them can apply to photography.

You wouldn't call a young, female horse a heifer, would you? Nor would you call a young, female cow a filly.

Nope, but you might call them baby horses and baby cows.
Having been an instructor for some time in my previous life, I realize that it's good have several ways of describing a concept or technique because not everyone will "get it" when described one way.

I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks that "back light" comes from in back of the photographer, for example. If you really want to get technical you should go with "broad light" or "short light," etc rather than just "side light."

All this comes down to the fact that Photography has finally shared a reference to a resource with some value and calling it "ridiculous" is uncalled for. Why I'm feeling defensive of her, is a mystery though.

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Why I'm feeling defensive of her, is a mystery though.

Tell me about jer mozzer....

[Indigo November]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Nope, but you might call them baby horses and baby cows.
Having been an instructor for some time in my previous life, I realize that it's good have several ways of describing a concept or technique because not everyone will "get it" when described one way.

I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks that "back light" comes from in back of the photographer, for example. If you really want to get technical you should go with "broad light" or "short light," etc rather than just "side light."

All this comes down to the fact that Photography has finally shared a reference to a resource with some value and calling it "ridiculous" is uncalled for. Why I'm feeling defensive of her, is a mystery though.

All good points.
I can see maybe a bit of good in it, but still, people need to get the correct terms straight in their heads.
It might be a good way to learn for some people, but having the correct terms confused is no excuse for using ones that usually mean something else.

I too am thankful that for once, Photography has shared something useful.
I didn't mean any disrespect to her. After all, she didn't write the article, did she?
I was not trying to criticize her choice of articles. It was an interesting article, that talked about a technique that I didn't agree with, and I said so. I wasn't trying to hurt Photography in any way by it.
If I had know that it could be taken that way, I wouldn't have said anything.

I apologize to you Photography, if you were in any way hurt by me expressing my opinion of an article that you didn't write.
Thanks for sharing it anyways.
























































Excessive amount of smilies present to show Jim Poor that I am not writing this in anger, and that I do not, in fact, mean to hurt Photography's feelings.