Sure, as I thought...Landscape (and Travel) photography... Makes sense. Fair enough - usually doesn't need to make use of auxiliary lighting.
I'm not proposing a "viewpoint". Photography
is about "the light." Without it, there is nothing (unless you're into infrared photography.) One can't "disfavor" anything that allows one to create what one wants or needs to create, or forces one to limit how you shoot (wide open, high ISO, low SS) because there "isn't enough light" and so arrive at a different or compromised result...
I think we all agree that an image of a scene taken at 1/30th, ƒ1.8, ISO 1000 is a very different image than the same scene taken at 1/200th, ƒ11, ISO 100.
If the former happens to be exactly what one wants, great. Coincidence doesn't occur that much though and most of the time it won't be. And so one decides what settings one wants to use to achieve a particular result, and build it from there with what one needs to achieve that result. (Even for landscape images, there are times the foreground needs more illuminations and the "sun" isn't cooperating so you need to add more light in a particular area with auxiliary lighting.)
Sure, noise/pixelation (aka “graininess”) from high-ISO images can have their artistic place in some circumstances, but it is rare to get a client (or anybody else) who likes and wants “pixelated, grainy images...” over sharp images or softened images via lighting or post. (I suppose for people just viewing images on a tiny iPhone screen, this aspect may not seem important.)
“Open Aperture” has consequences, perhaps the biggest consequence in photography: the difference between something being completely in focus and only partially in focus; or between an important piece of background being included and a distracting background being eliminated. Those choices are given up when aperture is considered only as a source of letting more light into an image just to expose it properly. That’s the secondary
effect, not the primary
purpose.
I also used some German rangefinders, Rollei in particular, in film days, and got tired of the lack of DOF, and blurriness from pushing the limits of the shutter because "there wasn't enough light" and so used a flash because your options were even more situationally limited with film, pretty much allowing only SS and ƒ-stop adjustments (unless you mid-rolled it and popped in some Tri-X. Film being much slower then - "Tri-X 400" was considered
fast!) One was always begging for light almost anytime of the day. So, I too, learned "real photography" back then ('60s and '70s) and it most definitely included using flashes. (Even my first Brownie Hawkeye had a flash bulb attachment.
View attachment 221024View attachment 221023 (Expensive little buggers back then
!)
So I’m not suggesting a “viewpoint.” I’m saying that dismissing and not using
all the tools at one’s disposal in photography limits one’s ability to create the image that one’s client demands or your mind’s eye wants. Light shouldn’t dictate your end result; your end result should be what you dictated the light - and consequently and importantly
aperture - must be - and then created it accordingly.
