Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Eye, every single time. That's always the most effective, effecting image.

Lighting and technique has its purpose (especially if the image is to be primarily illustrative), but if the goal is truly effective imagery, the eye wins out over the technician each and every time.

The masters, such as Irving Penn, would argue this point with you. You can't really be effective without both.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
The masters, such as Irving Penn, would argue this point with you. You can't really be effective without both.

Well I think you can be effective without both. The point was to see which was better.  What if you are outside, in sunlight and there is nothing special you do, no added light... then you can still come out with a killer image, if you have an eye.

Vegas Alien wrote:
Both is right.

You can have a wonderful eye for composition, but unless you can light your subject no one will ever see it. I consider my lighting techniques to be part of my inner "eye".  Many might think of an "eye" as simply what you see, compositionally. My "eye" comprises both an inner and outer vision.

I put the subject on the set, look at the composition, close my eyes, imagine the light that needs to be there and then place the light where it needs to be. Composition, form, posing and line complete my vision.

I think the element of technique comprises much more than simply lighting a subject. Visualizing the final image in your minds eye plays a huge part, but understanding all the elements necessary to complete the image also play a huge part. Not everyone uses synthetic lighting in capturing an image but they still need all the other elements to make the image a success.

Torrence Williams wrote:
I was wodering what the general consensus was on what people in the business (models and photographers) thought was better.  A photographer who has good/great lighting skills OR a photographer who has a good/great "eye".  Which one has better pictures???? (obviously the photographer that has both is "the man" ot "the woman". But taking each  piece separately,  who is better?

The more I learn about light.... the more experience I have with light... the better my Eye becomes.

The less time I spend thinking about light, the better. There is more time for the creative.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

I think the element of technique comprises much more than simply lighting a subject. Visualizing the final image in your minds eye plays a huge part, but understanding all the elements necessary to complete the image also play a huge part. Not everyone uses synthetic lighting in capturing an image but they still need all the other elements to make the image a success.

I was pretty much saying the same thing. Read what I wrote:

I consider my lighting techniques to be part of my inner "eye".  Many might think of an "eye" as simply what you see, compositionally. My "eye" comprises both an inner and outer vision..

...Composition, form, posing and line complete my vision.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:
The masters, such as Irving Penn, would argue this point with you. You can't really be effective without both.

Irving Penn was a master from a certain point of view. There were many many others. Penn's work is brilliant, and wonderful, and as limited as great work can possibly be. Trying to follow in Penn's footsteps is near-certain disaster.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

The masters, such as Irving Penn, would argue this point with you. You can't really be effective without both.

I like to think I have an eye for this while having a very limited ability with lighting.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:

Irving Penn was a master from a certain point of view. There were many many others. Penn's work is brilliant, and wonderful, and as limited as great work can possibly be. Trying to follow in Penn's footsteps is near-certain disaster.

In my original statement I used the word "masters", a plural implying others. I only used Penn as an example. Not following in a masters footsteps for at least part of the journey will more than likely make the effort a failure.

Torrence Williams wrote:
A photographer who has good/great lighting skills OR a photographer who has a good/great "eye".

They're all part of the same thing.

What you're talking about is where someone falls on the continuum between strategy and tactics. When you master either you realize that they're connected and, in order to master either, you wind up mastering both. Or neither. There is no such thing as "intuitive excellence" - it's simply "excellence" that has trained to the point where a huge number of complex decisions are being made below the level of consciousness.*

mjr.
(* edit: if you don't believe me, and you know how to drive a car with a manual transmission - try driving as hard and fast as you can while PAYING ATTENTION to your gear shifting. You'll either crash or do better than you ever have before)

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

They're all part of the same thing.

What you're talking about is where someone falls on the continuum between strategy and tactics. When you master either you realize that they're connected and, in order to master either, you wind up mastering both. Or neither. There is no such thing as "intuitive excellence" - it's simply "excellence" that has trained to the point where a huge number of complex decisions are being made below the level of consciousness.

mjr.

amen
again, succinct almost to daoism

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
And I know other masters personally who disagree with this statement.

Do not take me wrong. I have little patience for photographers who think there's an easy way to greatness. And every photographer that aspires to greatness should learn technique, it's liberating. But this emphasis on technique first I very strongly feel is patently wrong. And I know masters in person who feel that as well.

I suggested in my first post that both were required. Catalog studios depend heavily on technique while photojournalists depend heavily on their eye. Some are able to combine the two.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
But this emphasis on technique first I very strongly feel is patently wrong. And I know masters in person who feel that as well.

I've observed a lot of master craftsmen at various crafts (ranging from saddle-making, photography, computer programming, computer networking, and woodwork) and the way I've conceptualized it is that there are 3 legs to the process of mastering someting:
- book learning and study (theory)
- experimentation and technical study (technique)
- intuition and creativity (eye, flair, what have you)

Now here's what's interesting - I know masters who have started with any one of those, but then they switch back and forth. Maybe you start off by just grabbing a camera and seeing what happens. Then you read a few books. Then you experiment. Then you go back to just seeing what happens. Each different approach feeds the others and makes them more effective when you get around to them. Sometimes you pull back a bloody stump - other times you have a big success. But either way, you learn.

I've found that attacking learning anything by pursuing just one of the 3 approaches is more time consuming and (mentally/physically/financially) expensive. But if you switch around periodically, depending on your personality, you'll just rocket up the power curve.

I've seen people who start off intuitively (or whatever) and get partway to where they want to be using that method, and then they hit a plateau and can't get past it. When I see that, I do what I can to kick them into trying one of the other 2 approaches, to jump-start themselves. So if you've got a photographer who is mired in the zone system mentality and groupe f/64 mindset, whose compositions are spectacular but unemotional: give them a bottle of tequila and a holga.   If you've got an artist who creates spectacular intuitive work but doesn't really know what they're doing, get them into a workshop with someone who's technically rigorous, who can give them some intellectual underpinning to their creativity. Etc.

mjr.

Jay Bowman wrote:
Lighting can be taught or learned.  "The Eye" can't...

Exactly.

Jay Bowman wrote:
Lighting can be taught or learned.  "The Eye" can't...

Sure it can.

Deaftone wrote:
So much to say, but like others I think an eye is more of a factor.  Lighting is almost equally important, but you can see where people are able to break the rules, or cheat the image with photoshop.  I think the eye separates a GWC and photoshop compared to an actual photographer.

Wow now this one caught my attention. i believe the eye is a nuatural thing, you have it or you don't.  You can strenghten your vision, but you cannot make yourself see.

Torrence Williams wrote:
Wow now this one caught my attention. i believe the eye is a nuatural thing, you have it or you don't.  You can strenghten your vision, but you cannot make yourself see.

hmmm....then why does one's work develop over time (hopefully)?  the 'eye' can be learned, it's just harder to learn than lighting.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
They're all part of the same thing.

What you're talking about is where someone falls on the continuum between strategy and tactics. When you master either you realize that they're connected and, in order to master either, you wind up mastering both. Or neither. There is no such thing as "intuitive excellence" - it's simply "excellence" that has trained to the point where a huge number of complex decisions are being made below the level of consciousness.*

Very well put sir... This may need to be published.. Great View...

Christopher Bush wrote:

hmmm....then why does one's work develop over time (hopefully)?  the 'eye' can be learned, it's just harder to learn than lighting.

I think the difference is more than semantic, but that's the only way I know to express things here.

You can learn lighting.  You can teach lighting.

They eye can't be learned or taught.  It must be developed and nurtured.

It's a much more mysterious process to develop and eye, and it's something that can't be set down as steps in a textbook.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I think the difference is more than semantic, but that's the only way I know to express things here.

You can learn lighting.  You can teach lighting.

They eye can't be learned or taught.  It must be developed and nurtured.

It's a much more mysterious process to develop and eye, and it's something that can't be set down as steps in a textbook.

this is about to get very socratic, but can something be learned that cannot be taught?  i would consider 'developing' the 'eye' to be synonymous with learning, but there is no teacher.

Jay Bowman wrote:
Lighting can be taught or learned.  "The Eye" can't...

Vegas Alien wrote:
Sure it can.

It can be developed or refined, but I don't believe it can be taught or learned.  That's a not-so-subtle difference. 

If we were discussing anything else, people wouldn't be saying you can teach "the eye" or it's suitable counterpart.  Does knowing how to proficiently mix ingredients mean that you'll have the taste and ability of a culinary artist?  Does the fact that you can read music and learn the keys on the piano mean that you'll be able to join a jazz band and play a solo?  Would the fact that you can put together phrases and learn iambic pentameter mean that you'll have the heart of a poet and will create beautiful poetry?  I could go on and on.

I think that an eye for composition as an artist is not something that can be taught.  We're saying it could because we actually do photography and would never consider the possibility that we don't have it and never will...