![](\"\/i\/s\/lightsciencemagic.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\nAs I lamented once before, good photographers apparently make bad writers<\/a> (with the\nmost poorly written book I've ever seen, on any subject, being by a photographer<\/span><\/a>). There\nare plenty of great writers – Bill Bryson<\/a> is one of my\nfavorites, and those books about a hairy<\/span> potter are apparently pretty good\n– but time and again, the books I see<\/span> about photography are\nhorrible.<\/p>\n\nSo, it was with growing excitement that I read<\/span> the early pages of\nLight: Science and Magic<\/i> (third edition, by Fil Hunter<\/b>,\nSteven Biver<\/b>, and Paul Fuqua<\/b>). It was clear<\/span> early on that\nthese guys are excellent writers<\/b>, knowing both what to say and how\nto say it.<\/p>\n\nFrom the introduction, where they talk about the history of the book\n(whose first edition was published 17 years ago)....<\/p>\n\n
Styles of photographic lighting have changed and will\ncontinue to do so. Light — Science and Magic<\/i> does not go out\nof style because it was not, is not, and will never be based on style. The book is<\/span> based on the behavior of light, and its principles will not change\nuntil fundamental physics does.<\/p>\n\nThis is clear and concise, letting the reader know that this book\naddresses the first of the two skills required to set up good lighting.\nSince no one ever reads the introduction, it's repeated in the first\nparagraphs of the first chapter:<\/p>\n\n
Light — Science and\nMagic<\/i> is a discussion,<\/span> not a lecture.<\/span> You bring<\/span> to this discussion your\nown opinions about art, beauty, and aesthetics. We do not<\/span> intend to change\nthose opinions and may not even influence them very much. We will be<\/span> more\nbored than flattered if reading this book causes you to make pictures that\nlook like ours. For better<\/span> or worse, you have to build your own pictures on\nyour own vision.<\/p>\n\nWhat we do<\/i> have to offer you is a set<\/span> of tools. This book is\nabout technology. Science. Brass tacks. Information for you to use when you\nplease, if you please, and how you please. This does not mean that this\nbook is not about ideas<\/i>, because it is. The basic<\/span> tools of lighting\nare principles, not hardware....<\/p><\/div>\n\nA few paragraphs later, they sum up what the book really intends to\nconvey...<\/p>\n\n
To photographers, the important principles of light are\nthose that predict how it will behave. Some of these principles are\nespecially powerful. You will probably<\/span> be surprised to find how few they\nare, how simple they are to learn, and how much they explain.<\/p>\n\nIn this first chapter they then go on to list three important principles\nbefore moving on to other introductory things like “Film or\nDigital?,” how they chose their examples, etc.<\/p>\n\n
The book offers photographic exercises, and under the heading “Do I Need<\/span>\nto Do These Exercises?” they offer advice to the various segments of their\nreadership (teachers, professional photographers, etc.) To those learning\nphotography without formal instruction, they suggest that...<\/p>\n\n... you try all of the basic examples in this book. Do not simply<\/span> read about them. What happens in your head is the most important\npart of lighting, but the eye and the hand are still essential. Guided\nexperience coordinates the three.<\/p>\n\nWow, that's excellent writing.<\/p>\n\n
Chapter One's introductory material eventually ends with...<\/p>\n\n
\n\n
What is the “Magic” Part of this Book?<\/b><\/p>\n
Learn about the light and the science. The magic<\/span> will happen.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\nWell, probably not in my case, but again, excellent writing.<\/p>\n\n
Chapter Two covers the basic physics of light. Early on they introduce their intent...<\/p>\n\n
In this chapter we are going to\ntalk about light, the raw material from which we make pictures. You,\nreader, are already familiar with most of the ideas we will discuss. This\nis because you have been learning to see since the day you were born. Even\nif you happen to be a novice<\/span> photographer, the occipital love of your brain\nhas enough information about the behavior of light for you to be a\nmaster.<\/span><\/p> We want to attach words and labels to some of this\nunconscious and semiconscious information. This will make it easier for us\nto talk about light with other photographers, just as musicians find it\neasier to say “b flat” or “4\/4 time” instead of humming a scale<\/span> or tapping\na rhythm.<\/span><\/p> This is the most theoretical chapter in this book. It is also<\/span> the most important, because it is the foundation for all that\nfollows.<\/p><\/div>\n\nOkay, so that first paragraph is a bit<\/span> wordy, but their presentation is\njust excellent. The book not<\/span> only tells you what you need to know, but they\nframe it so that you know why you need to know.<\/p>\n\nThe chapter then describes some of the basic physics of light, and then\nuses that description to clarify common concepts like brightness, color,\nand contrast, all in tangibly-meaningful ways. It talks<\/span> about how the\nsubject being photographed can affect light (refraction, transmission,\nabsorption, and reflection). It shows<\/span> lots of photos that illustrate what\nthey're talking about.<\/p>\n\nChapter Two then ends with....<\/p>\n\n
Reflection<\/i> is light\nstriking a subject<\/span> and bouncing off. You know that<\/span> and need no further\nexplanation from us. The concept<\/span> is easy because we use it daily.\nReflection makes vision possible. We do not<\/span> see objects; we see light.\nBecause most objects produce no light, their visibility depends entirely on\nlight reflected from them. We do not<\/span> need to show you a photograph<\/span> of\nreflection. Almost any picture you have on hand will serve the purpose.<\/p>\n\nHowever, the familiarity of reflection does not mean that it needs no\nfurther discussion. On the contrary<\/span>, its importance demands that we devote\nmost of the next chapter to it.<\/p><\/div>\n\nWriting this good is not born in a vacuum.<\/span> I get the<\/span> distinct feeling\nwhile reading that these guys spent a lot<\/span> of frustrating years reading\npoorly-written books on photography, and decided that dammit<\/i>, they\nweren't going to produce the same crap as everyone else. Their writing is\nnot simply good, but purposefully good (whatever that means; I'm not exactly\nsure myself, but it seems to be somehow appropriate).<\/p>\n\nI'm only a short way into the book, and on the content front, the first\ntwo chapters have me looking very forward to the remaining ones. But on the<\/span>\nwriting front, already this book has taught me something wonderful: it\nis<\/i> possible for a photographer<\/span> to write well.<\/p>\n\n\n