Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

Light Science Magic An Introduction

to Photographic Lighting 6th

CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD

https://textbookfull.com/product/light-
science-magic-an-introduction-to-
photographic-lighting-6th-edition-fil-hunter/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

An Introduction to Computational Science Allen Holder

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-
computational-science-allen-holder/

An introduction to electrical science Second Edition

Waygood

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-electrical-
science-second-edition-waygood/

The Real World An Introduction to Sociology 6th Edition

Kerry Ferris

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-real-world-an-introduction-
to-sociology-6th-edition-kerry-ferris/

Archaeology: An Introduction 6th Edition Hannah Cobb

https://textbookfull.com/product/archaeology-an-introduction-6th-
edition-hannah-cobb/
An Introduction to Physical Science 15th Edition James
Shipman

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-physical-
science-15th-edition-james-shipman/

An Introduction to Psychological Science, Second

Canadian Edition Mark Krause

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-
psychological-science-second-canadian-edition-mark-krause/

An Introduction to Psychological Science Third Canadian

Edition Mark Krause

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-
psychological-science-third-canadian-edition-mark-krause/

With Good Reason An Introduction to Informal Fallacies

6th Edition S. Morris Engel

https://textbookfull.com/product/with-good-reason-an-
introduction-to-informal-fallacies-6th-edition-s-morris-engel/

Python Programming An Introduction to Computer Science

John M. Zelle

https://textbookfull.com/product/python-programming-an-
introduction-to-computer-science-john-m-zelle/
Light–Science & Magic

Photographic lighting is a topic that will never go out of style, no matter

how sophisticated cameras and other technology get. Even with the most
high-tech gear, photographers still need to put a lot of thought and vision
into lighting their photographs in order to get great results. Mastering this
key skill has the power to dramatically and quickly improve your photo-
graphs as well as your efciency.
Light—Science & Magic provides you with a comprehensive theory of the
nature and principles of light, with examples and instructions for practical
application. Featuring photographs, diagrams, and step-by-step instruc-
tions, this book speaks to photographers of varying levels. It provides
invaluable information on how to light the most difcult subjects, such
as surfaces, metal, glass, liquids, extremes (black-on-black and white-on-
white), and portraits.
Tis new edition includes:

• Expanded chapters on portraiture and lighting equipment

• Chapters on necessary equipment when working on location versus in
the studio
• An updated appendix of reliable photo gear sources
• Over 100 new photographs and informational sidebars
• Updated information about advances in fash equipment, LED panels,
and fuorescent lights

Lighting styles will evolve, but the science of light will always remain the
same. Once photographers understand the basic physics of lighting (without
having to become physicists), they can apply that knowledge to a broad
range of photographic styles.
Fil Hunter was a highly respected commercial photographer specializ-
ing in still life and special efects photographs for advertising and editorial
illustration. During a career spanning over three decades, he worked for
such clients as America Online (AOL), US News, Time-Life Books, Life
Magazine (27 covers), the National Science Foundation, and National
Geographic. He taught photography at university level and served as tech-
nical consultant on a number of photographic publications. Mr. Hunter
won the Virginia Professional Photographer’s Grand Photographic Award
three times. He co-authored Focus on Lighting Photos with Robin Reid.

Steven Biver has over 20 years of experience as a commercial pho-

tographer specializing in portraits, still life, photomontage, and digital
manipulation. His client list includes Johnson & Johnson, USDA, William &
Mary College, Condé Nast, and IBM. He has been honored with awards from
Communication Arts, Graphis, HOW Magazine, and Adobe, who have also
included his work on a Photoshop ‘extras’ disc to inspire other photographers.
He is also the co-author of FACES: Photography and the Art of Portraiture.

Paul Fuqua has worked as an editorial and wildlife photogra-

pher for more than 35 years. He started his own production company
in 1970 and is dedicated to teaching through the use of visuals. Paul has
written and produced educational and training material in a variety
of felds including law, public safety, history, science, and the environ-
ment. For the last 10 years he has produced educational material dealing
with the natural sciences and the need for global habitat stewardship.
Paul is also a co-author of FACES: Photography and the Art of Portraiture.

roBin reid has been a professional photographer for over 30 years. She
has worked for many federal courts (US Supreme Court, US Tax Court, and
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and others), as well as Domino’s
Pizza, Time-Life Books, McGraw-Hill, American Management Corpo-
ration, Diabetes Forecast, and Heckler & Koch. Ms. Reid has won various
awards from the Virginia Professional Photographers Association, includ-
ing Best Portrait of a Child. She taught both Studio Portraiture and Tools of
Photography classes for the Art League of Alexandria for many years. She
co-authored Focus on Lighting Photos with Fil Hunter.
Light–Science & Magic
An Introduction to
Photographic Lighting
Sixth Edition

Fil Hunter
Steven Biver
Paul Fuqua
Robin Reid
Sixth edition published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2021 Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua and Robin Reid

Te right of Fil Hunter, Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua and Robin Reid to be identifed
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafer invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Notice: Knowledge and best practice in this feld are constantly changing. As
new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research
methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds,
or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they
should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties
for whom they have a professional responsibility.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent
to infringe.

First edition published by Focal Press 1990

Fifh edition published by Routledge 2019

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-0-367-86026-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-86027-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-01650-2 (ebk)

Typeset by Alex Lazarou in Minion Pro.

dedications

We dedicate this book to all the wonderful teachers who fully share their
knowledge. Tese are special people. Fil Hunter, whose pioneering vision
this book so largely refects, taught everything he knew without reservation.
Steve, Paul, and I happily continue that tradition and appreciate all the other
teachers, whatever their feld of expertise, who do so also.
We want to acknowledge two such teachers in particular—Ross Scroggs,
Sr., who taught Fil not only about photography, but also about being human,
and Robert Yarborough, who was a life-long infuence for Paul.
Steven Biver, Paul Fuqua and Robin Reid

Tanks to my wife Gina and my kids Jade, Nigel and Tessa.

Steven Biver

Tanks to my ever patient wife.

Paul Fuqua

I would like to thank Suzanne Arden for being my shooting buddy and
best cheerleader on my experimental work with printing on gold (and for
introducing me to a new passion, fused glass); Elaine Ligelis and John M.
Hartman for supplying many of my props; and my models—Kizita, Forrest,
Robin (not me), Gabriel, Kim, Eliza, Kwan, Isabel, David, and Valentine.
And, of course, Fil. Sorely missed and remembered every day.
Robin Reid
Contents

Introduction xv

1 Light: the Beginning 1

Lighting Is the Language of Photography 1
What Are the “Principles?” 2
Why Are the Principles Important? 4
How Did We Choose the Examples for this Book? 4
To Do or Not to Do? 5
What Kind of Camera Do I Need? 6
A Word of Caution 7
What Lighting Equipment Do I Need? 10
What Else Do I Need to Know to Use this Book? 11
What Is the Magic Part of this Book? 11

2 Light: the Raw Material of Photography 13

What Is Light? 14
How Photographers Describe Light 16
Brightness 17
Color 17
Contrast 18
“Light” versus “Lighting” 22
How the Subject Afects Lighting 24
Transmission 24
“Direct” versus “Difuse” Transmission 27
Absorption 28
Refection 29
viii ContEntS

3 Te Management of Refection and the Family of Angles 31

Types of Refections 32
Difuse Refections 32
Te Inverse Square Law 35
Direct Refections 36
Te Family of Angles 39
Polarized Direct Refection 40
Is It Polarized Refection or Ordinary Direct Refection? 45
Turning Ordinary Direct Refection into Polarized Refection 46
Applying the Teory 47

4 Surface Appearances 49
Te Photographer as an Editor 50
Capitalizing on Difuse Refections 50
Te Angle of Light 51
Te Success and Failure of the General Rule 55
Te Distance of Light 57
Doing the Impossible 59
Using Difuse Refection and Shadow to Reveal Texture 63
Capitalizing on Direct Refection 65
Complex Surfaces 69

5 Revealing Shape and Contour 75

Depth Clues 77
Perspective Distortion 77
Distortion as a Clue to Depth 78
Manipulating Distortion 79
Tonal Variation 81
Te Size of the Light 82
Large Lights versus Small Lights 82
Distance from the Subject 83
Te Direction of the Light 85
Light on the Side 86
Light above the Subject 87
Fill Light 89
Adding Depth to the Background 92
How Much Tonal Variation Is Ideal? 96
Photographing Cylinders: Increasing Tonal Variation 96
Te Glossy Box 98
Use a Dark- to Medium-Toned Background 99
 ContEntS ix

Eliminate Direct Refection from the Box Top 100

Move the Light Source toward the Camera 100
Raise or Lower the Camera 101
Use Fallof 101
Eliminate Direct Refection from the Box’s Sides 101
Put a Black Card on the Tabletop 102
Tip the Box 102
Use a Longer Lens 103
Finish with Other Resources 103
Try a Polarizer 103
Use Dulling Spray 104
Use Direct Refection 104

6 Metal 107
Flat Metal 108
Bright or Dark 109
Finding the Family of Angles 109
Position a White Target where You Tink the Family of
Angles Will Be 109
Place a Test Light at the Camera Lens 110
Aim the Test Light 110
Study the Position and Shape of the Area Marked on
the Test Surface 111
Lighting the Metal 112
Keeping the Metal Bright 112
What is a “Normal” Exposure for Metal? 115
Keeping the Metal Dark 115
Te Elegant Compromise 119
Controlling the Efective Size of the Light 121
Keeping the Metal Square 125
Use a View Camera or Perspective Control Lens 126
Aim the Camera through a Hole in the Light Source 127
Photograph the Metal at an Angle 128
Retouch the Refection 128
Metal Boxes 128
A Light Background 130
A Transparent Background 131
A Glossy Background 133
Round Metal 135
Camoufage 136
x ContEntS

Keeping the Light of the Camera 137

Using a Tent 137
Other Resources 140
Polarizing Filters 140
Black Magic 140
Dulling Spray 141
Where Else Do these Techniques Apply? 141

7 Te Case of the Disappearing Glass 143

Principles 143
Problems 143
Solutions 144
Two Attractive Opposites 145
Bright-Field Lighting 145
Choose the Background 147
Position the Light 147
Position the Camera 147
Position the Subject and Focus the Camera 147
Shoot the Picture 147
Dark-Field Lighting 150
Set Up a Large Light Source 151
Set Up a Dark Background Smaller than the Light Source 152
Position the Camera 152
Position the Subject and Focus the Camera 153
Shoot the Picture 153
Te Best of Both Worlds 154
Some Finishing Touches 155
Defning the Surface of Glassware 155
Illuminating the Background 158
Minimizing the Horizon 159
Stopping Flare 162
Eliminating Extraneous Refections 163
Complications from Nonglass Subjects 164
Liquids in Glass 164
Liquids as a Lens 164
Keeping True Color 166
Secondary Opaque Subjects 168
Recognizing the Principal Subject 171
 ContEntS xi

8 Making Portraits 173

Te Single-Light Portrait Set-up 173
Te Basic Set-up 175
Light Size 175
Skin Texture 177
Where to Put the Main Light 178
Te Key Triangle 179
Key Triangle Too Large: Main Light Too Near the Camera 180
Key Triangle Too Low: Main Light Too High 181
Key Triangle Too Narrow: Main Light Too Far to Side 182
Lef Side? Right Side? 183
Broad Lighting or Short Lighting? 183
Eyeglasses 185
Additional Lights 186
Fill Lights 187
Refector Cards as Fill Lights 189
Background Lights 191
Hair Lights 192
Kickers 195
Rim Lights 197
Mood and Key 199
Low-Key Lighting 199
High-Key Lighting 200
Staying in Key 202
Dark Skin 203
Te Unfocused Spot 205
More than One Person 207
Using Colored Gels 210

9 Te Extremes 215
Te Characteristic Curve 215
Te Perfect ”Curve” 216
A “Bad” Camera 218
Overexposure 220
Underexposure 221
Using Every Resource 225
White-on-White 225
Exposing White-on-White Scenes 226
Lighting White-on-White Scenes 228
Subject and Background 228
xii ContEntS

Using an Opaque White Background 229

Light the Subject from Above 230
Use a Gobo above the Subject 230
Add Dimension 232
Using a Translucent White Background 233
Using a Mirror Background 236
In Any Case, Keep the Background Small 238
Black-on-Black 238
Exposing Black-on-Black Scenes 239
Lighting Black-on-Black Scenes 239
Subject and Background 240
Using an Opaque Black Background 242
Using a Glossy Black Surface 244
Keeping the Subject away from the Background 245
Histograms 246
Preventing Problems 248
Overmanipulation 250
Curves 251
New Principles 252

10 Working on Location 255

Te Lights We Use 255
Heavy-Duty Portable Strobes 256
“Hot-Shoe” Flashes 256
LED Panels 257
Getting the Exposure Right 258
Letting Your Flash Do the Figuring 259
Using a Meter 259
Meters and LEDs 259
Getting More Light 260
Multiple, or “Ganged,” Flashes 260
Battery Packs 261
Flash Extenders 262
Getting Better-Quality Light 262
Te Problems 262
Take It Of 263
Bouncing from Hard to Sof 264
Te Omni-Bounce—a Big Help for a Little Money 265
“Raccoon Eyes” 266
Feathering Your Light 269
 ContEntS xiii

Forcing the Shadow 270

Lights of Diferent Colors 271
Why Is the Color of the Light Important? 271
Tungsten 271
Daylight 272
Nonstandard Light Sources 272
Do the Colors Mix? 274
Te Remedies 276
Correcting Mixed Colors 276
Correcting Unmixed Colors 276
Filtering Daylight 278
Correcting Errors in Reproduction 278
Lights of Diferent Duration 278
Diferent Approaches 280
Other Useful Gear 287

11 Setting Up Your First Studio 291

Lights: an Early Issue 291
Getting Your Lights Right 293
What Kinds of Lights? 293
Flash 294
Continuous Lights 295
How Many Lights? 297
Light Stands 298
Booms 299
Light Modifers—Which Do I Need? 299
Difusers 299
Refectors 300
Snoots, Grids, and Barn Doors 300
Gobos and Flags 301
Backgrounds 303
Computers and Associated Gear 304
Miscellaneous Equipment 304
What Sort of Space? 305

Appendix: Reliable Suppliers 311

Index 313
introduction

Our aim in this sixth edition of Light—Science & Magic remains true to
the intent of the frst—present the key lighting concepts in a clear, readily
understandable way. Lighting is at the very heart of photography. Having a
gorgeous model or working with talented stylists won’t insure a great photo-
graph. It must be well lit.
Tis is not a “how to” book in the sense that the term is generally used. In
it, we rarely, if ever, suggest appropriate lens apertures, shutter speeds, fash
settings or other such information—information that is ofen an important
part of the currently popular “recipe” approach to teaching lighting. If that
is what you are looking for, you must look elsewhere. (We would recom-
mend the brilliantly done Digital Photography Book series by Scott Kelby.)
What we do ofer is an understanding of the underlying nature of light
and show how to employ its key characteristics for the lighting of any sort
of subject in any location or circumstance. In it, we present an overarching
approach to photographic lighting. Applying it will enable you to under-
stand why a subject looks the way it does when it is illuminated by any given
“light,” and how to use this understanding to make exactly the picture you
are afer.
We also include chapters dealing with the peculiarities associated with
using hot-shoe and similar fashes, and suggestions for those of you who
may be considering setting up your frst studio. Finally, in a brief appendix,
we list some of the photographic suppliers from whom we have received
particularly good services over the years.
cHaPter 1

Light: the Beginning

Light—Science & Magic is a discussion, not a lecture. You bring to this dis-
cussion your own opinions about art, beauty, and aesthetics. We do not
intend to change those opinions and may not even infuence them very
much. We will be more annoyed than fattered if reading this book causes
you to make pictures that do nothing but mirror ours. For better or worse,
you have to build your own pictures on your own vision.
Most beginning photographers fnd lighting mysterious, incredibly
tedious, and frustrating. Te good news is light follows rules, and, when we
understand these rules, it all gets easier! We can create mysterious pictures,
as seen here at the beginning of the chapter, but lighting doesn’t have to be
a mystery. And, if you are wondering about this photo, we explain it at the
end of the book.
Here, we ofer you a set of tools. Tis book is about the science of light.
Brass tacks. It is information for you to use when you please, if you please,
and how you please. Tis does not, however, mean that this book is not also
about ideas, because it is.
Te basic tools of lighting are principles, not hardware. Shakespeare’s tool
was the Elizabethan English language, not the quill pen he used. A pho-
tographer without mastery of lighting is like a Shakespeare who could speak
only the language of the people in the Globe Teatre pit. Being Shakespeare,
he still might have come up with a decent play, but it certainly would have
taken a lot more work and, very likely, more blind luck than most people are
entitled to expect.

ligHting iS tHe language oF PHotograPHy

Patterns of light convey information just as surely as do spoken words. Te

information that light conveys is clear and specifc. It includes defnite state-
ments, such as “Te bark of this tree is rough” or “Tis utensil is made of
stainless steel, but that one is sterling.”
2 Light: thE BEginning

Lighting, like any other language, has a grammar and a vocabulary. Good
photographers need to learn both. Fortunately, photographic lighting is a lot
easier to master than a foreign language. Tis is because physics, not social
whim, dictates its rules.
Te tools we have included in this book are the grammar and vocabu-
lary of light. Whatever we say about specifc technique is important only to
the extent that it proves the principles. Please, do not memorize the lighting
diagrams in this book—rather, learn the theories behind them.
It is entirely possible to put a light in exactly the same spot as shown in
one of the diagrams and still make a bad picture—especially if the subject
is not identical to that in the diagram. But, if you learn the principles, you
may well see several other good ways to light the same subject that we never
mention and, perhaps, have never even occurred to us.

WHat are tHe “PrinciPleS”?

To photographers, the important principles of light are those that predict

how it will behave. Some of these principles are especially powerful. You
will, however, probably be surprised to fnd how few they are, how simple
they are to learn, and how much they explain.
We discuss these key principles in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. Tey are
the tools we use for everything else. Ten, in later chapters, we put them to
work lighting a wide range of subjects. At this point we will simply list them:

1. Te efective size of the light source is the single most important decision
in lighting a photograph. It determines what types of shadows are
produced and may also afect the type of refection.
2. Tree types of refections are possible from any surface: direct refection,
difuse refection, and polarized direct refection. Tey determine why
any surface looks the way it does.
3. Some of these refections occur only if light strikes the surface from
within a limited family of angles. Afer we decide what type of refection
is important, the family of angles determines where the light should or
should not be.

Just think about that for a minute. If you think lighting is an art, you’re
exactly right—but it’s also a technology that even a bad artist can learn to do
well. Tese are the most important concepts in this book. If you pay close
attention to them whenever they come up, you will fnd they will usually
account for any other details you may overlook or we forget to mention.
 Light: thE BEginning 3

Working WitH ligHt

Figures 1.1 these four images—very different pictures—are a small sample of some of the many
different ways photographers have worked with light, be it either in a studio or in the outside
world.

Credit: Steven Biver Credit: Paul Fuqua

Credit: John M. hartMan Credit: roBin reid

1.1
Some examples of the different photographers who have worked with light.
4 Light: thE BEginning

WHy are tHe PrinciPleS imPortant?

Te three principles we have just given are statements of physical laws that
have not changed since the universe began. Tey apply to all sources of light
and have nothing to do with style, taste, or fad. Te timelessness of these
principles is exactly what makes them so useful.
Consider, for example, how they apply to portrait style. A representa-
tive 1952 portrait does not look like most portraits made in 1852 or 2020.
However, and this is the important point, a photographer who understands
light could duplicate either of them.
Chapter 8 presents a number of useful approaches to lighting a portrait.
Some photographers will not want to adopt those approaches, and even
fewer will do so in 20 years. We do not care whether or not you use the
methods of portrait lighting we chose to demonstrate.
We do, however, care very much that you understand exactly how and
why we did what we did. It is the answers to those very “hows” and “whys”
that will allow you to produce your own pictures your own way. Good tools
do not limit creative freedom. Tey make it possible.
Good photographs take planning, and lighting is an essential part of that
planning. For this reason, the most important part of good lighting happens
before we turn on the frst lights. Tis planning can take many days or it can
happen a fraction of a second before pressing the shutter release. It does not
matter when you plan or how long it takes, as long as you get the planning
done. Te more you accomplish with your head, the less work you have to
do with your hands.
Understanding the principles we presented above enables us to decide
what lights need to be where before we begin to place them. Tis is the
important part. Te rest is just fne-tuning.

HoW did We cHooSe tHe examPleS For tHiS Book?

Te portrait is but one of the several basic photographic subjects we discuss.

We each chose to prove something about the basic principles. We also lit the
subject to show the principle, regardless of whether there might be other
good ways to light the same thing. If you master the principles, you will
discover the other ways without any help from us.
Te above means that you should give at least some attention to every
representative subject. Even if you have no interest in a particular subject, it
probably relates to something you do want to photograph.
We also chose some of the subjects because they are rumored to be dif-
fcult. Such rumors are spread usually by people who lack the conceptual
 Light: thE BEginning 5

tools needed to deal with such subjects. Tis book dispels the rumors by
giving you those tools.
In addition, we tried to use studio examples whenever possible. Tis,
however, does not mean Light—Science & Magic is only about studio
lighting. Far from it! Light behaves the same way everywhere, whether it is
controlled by the photographer, by the building designer, or by nature. But
you can set up indoor experiments like ours at any hour of any day, regard-
less of the weather. Later, when you use the same lighting in a landscape, on
a public building, or at a press conference, you will recognize it because you
will have seen it before.
Finally, we chose each example to be as simple as possible. If you are
learning photography, you will not have to leave the set-up in your living
room or in your employer’s studio for days at a time to master it. If you
teach photography, you will fnd that you can do any of these demonstra-
tions in a single class session.

to do or not to do?

If you are learning photography without any formal instruction, we suggest

you try all of the basic examples in this book. Do not simply read about
them. What happens in your head is the most important part of lighting,
but the eye and the hand are still essential. Guided experience coordinates
the three.
When we talk about sof shadows or polarized direct refections, for
example, you already know how they look. Tey happen in the world, and
you see them every day. But you will know them and see them still better
once you have made them happen.
If you are a student, your class assignments will keep you busy enough
without any further demands from us. Your teacher may use the exercises
here or invent new ones. Either way, you will learn the principles in the
book because they are basic. Tey happen in all lighting situations.
If you are a professional photographer trying to expand your expertise,
your judgment about what exercises you need is better than ours. Gen-
erally, these will be those that are least like the things you are already
photographing. You may fnd our basic examples too simple to be an enter-
taining challenge. Try complicating things a bit. Add an unexpected prop,
an unusual viewpoint, or a special efect to our basic example. You might as
well get a striking portfolio piece out of the efort while you are at it.
If you are a teacher, you can look at this book and see that most of the
exercises show at least one good, simple, easy-to-master way to light even
6 Light: thE BEginning

those subjects with reputations for maximum difculty: metal, glass, white-
on-white, and black-on-black. Notice, however, that, although we’ve done
this in almost every case, we weren’t able to do it in absolutely every one of
them.
Te “invisible light” exercise in Chapter 6, for example, is pretty difcult
for most beginners. Some students may also fnd the secondary background
behind the glass of liquid in Chapter 7 to be beyond the limit of their
patience. For this reason, if you fnd anything in this book that you haven’t
already done with your own hands and eyes, we strongly encourage you to
try it yourself before deciding whether it is appropriate to the skills of your
students.

WHat kind oF camera do i need?

Asking “What kind of camera do I need?” may seem silly to experienced

photographers. But we have taught this material. We know how many
students ask it, and we have to answer it. Tere are two good answers, and
they contradict each other slightly. Te weight we place on each answer
matters more than the answers themselves.
Successful photographs depend on the photographer more than the
equipment. Inexperienced photographers work best with the camera with
which they are familiar. Experienced photographers work best with the
camera they like. Tese human factors sometimes have more to do with the
success of a photograph than purely technical principles.
Ideally, people learning photography should shoot digitally for the instant
feedback this approach provides. Shooting digitally is also far less expen-
sive, and the quality that most of today’s digital cameras provide borders on
amazing. Of the many photographs in this book, we made all but a handful
digitally. Te only downside of shooting digitally is the natural tendency to
overshoot, which adds up to a lot of postproduction editing. Te better you
master the principles, the more likely you’ll get the lighting right in far less
time and without shooting endless versions.
Just which digital camera you should get is up to you. Fortunately, most
manufacturers ofer a number of reasonably priced models. Check out the
many reviews that you will fnd in photography magazines and on the web.
Talk to other photographers and, if possible, deal with a camera store whose
sales staf know what they are talking about. Camera clubs are also another
good source of information, and, if you are in school, your instructor will
also be able to help you select the camera that best fts your needs and budget.
If possible, buddy up with a fellow student with a similar camera and share
 Light: thE BEginning 7

equipment. If your fellow student has a long lens and you have a short one,
you can switch with each other to see if you like the other lens well enough
to purchase one for yourself. Every photographer has purchased equipment
they fnd they don’t like, even though it sounded essential in the advertising.
By renting or borrowing items frst, you can avoid unnecessary expenses.
Today, even cell phone cameras are increasingly capable. Tey don’t have
the controls that digital cameras have, or the resolution for 40 × 60-inch
prints. However, people are doing some great photography with these little
cameras. I recently needed uncommon dental surgery, which the endo-
dontist wanted to photograph. I, of course, said, yes. I wanted to see what
camera and lights she would use. She simply pulled out her cell phone ftted
with a close-up lens and used the existing lighting. Tese were not artistic
photographs—in fact, they were, to my eye, rather gruesome. However, they
were a good record of the surgery. Tey didn’t have the resolution to make
wall displays—but who would want one? Cell phone cameras continue to
improve and can be part of our arsenal.

a Word oF caution

Any way you look at it, the advent of the digital world has been a wonderful
thing for students. It has not, however, resulted in a totally win–win situa-
tion. Digital cameras are, at their hearts, computers. Because of this, camera
makers can program the camera to alter the image they take without the
foreknowledge or consent of the photographer! Tis is ofen a good thing.
Te camera’s decisions are, in our experience, more ofen than not correct.
Sometimes, however, they are not.
A still bigger problem is that it is hard for students to know whether what
has happened, for better and for worse, is because of the camera’s decision
or because of the photographer’s decision. You may make mistakes that the
camera fxes, costing you a learning experience, or the camera can make a
mistake, and you innocently blame yourself for it.
In light of the preceding paragraphs, we ofer the following suggestions:

1. Develop at least a minimal competence in postproduction skills. You do

not have to be a whiz-bang Photoshop genius to be an efective digital
shooter. You do, however, need to learn at least the basics of one of the
numerous (and ofen amazingly inexpensive) digital editing programs
now available.
2. Shoot in the “Manual” mode. Tis will prevent your camera from
“helping” you to get a technically satisfactory shot. It will, however, go a
8 Light: thE BEginning

long way in that direction by leaving most of the decision making up to

you and not your camera’s computer “brain.”
3. Shoot in the Raw format. Because of its minimal in-camera compression,
it stores far more of the visual information that reaches your camera’s
sensor than does the alternate JPEG format. Tus, during postproduc-
tion, when you are fne-tuning your images, your sofware has far more
digital information with which to work. And this can make a big difer-
ence—a very big diference.

a r aW advantage

We shot Figure 1.2 in the Raw format. While adequate, we feel that it lacks the
tonal range and color, in other words the “snap,” needed for visual impact.

1.2
Farm boy from the dominican republic as shot in the raw format
before any postprocessing.

Figure 1.3, by comparison, shows our young friend after we did some work
on his image during postproduction. Because we shot the original in Raw,
we had the fexibility we needed to produce the color and contrast treat-
ment we wanted.
Figure 1.4 is a monotone variation on the above theme.
 Light: thE BEginning 9

a r aW advantage (continued )

1.3
the same image as Figure 1.2, but after we did some postprocessing on it.

1.4
here we see a variation on the previous theme. once again, it was our use of the raw
format that gave us the fexibility needed to produce this black and white image.
10 Light: thE BEginning

Unfortunately, this book does not have the space needed to deal with the
above three issues in detail. Te “A Raw Advantage” box is but a quick look
at some of the things you can do when shooting in Raw. For more complete
information, please consult one of the many fne books on the subject avail-
able today.
If you are a student, the remedy for this is a close, ongoing talk with your
instructor about what’s happening in your pictures. If you are an experi-
enced photographer, you can already tell when the camera is helping you
and when it is hurting you.
Te hardest path is that of a novice photographer attempting to learn
the material in this book without the beneft of formal instruction. What
we can ofer all photographers is the assurance that the material we present
in the following pages can, indeed, be learned in that very way. All four of
the authors of this book did so. Talk with other photographers as much as
possible. Ask questions, and always share with others whatever you have
learned.

WHat ligHting equiPment do i need?

We expect you to ask this question, and we ofer this two-part answer:

1. No photographer has enough lighting equipment to do every assignment

as well as possible. No matter how much lighting equipment you have,
there will be times when you want more. Suppose, for example, you can
illuminate a large set to shoot at f/96 at 1/5000 a second. (Please call the
fre department before turning on this apparatus.) You will probably then
fnd that you want still more light in a particular shadow, or you may fnd
that you need to light a yet larger area to ft the required composition.
2. Most photographers have enough equipment to do almost every assignment
well. Even if you have no lighting equipment at all, you may be able to get
the job done. Can the subject be photographed outdoors? If not, sunlight
through a window may be a good light source. Inexpensive tools, such
as white cloth, black paper, foam board, black gafer tape, and aluminum
foil, can allow you to control sunlight as efectively as the best manufac-
tured equipment.

Te above said, there is no dispute that good lighting equipment can be a

great convenience. If the sun moves too far across the sky before you are
ready to expose, you may have to wait until it returns the next day and
hope there is no more and no less cloud cover the second time around.
 Light: thE BEginning 11

Professional photographers know that convenience becomes necessity when

they have to photograph what the client wants when the client wants.
Tis message is not aimed at professionals, however. Tey already know
how to do whatever is needed with whatever is available. We are more inter-
ested in encouraging students now. You have advantages that professionals
do not. Within broad limits, you can select the size of your subject.
Small scenes require less light. You may not have a 3 × 4-foot sof box,
but a desk lamp with a 60-watt bulb and a tracing paper difuser can light a
small subject nearly as well.
Lack of equipment is, no doubt, a handicap. You know it, and we know it.
But it is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. A good dose of creativ-
ity may well overcome it. Just remember that creative lighting is the result of
planning the lighting. Part of that creativity means anticipating the limita-
tions you face and deciding how best to work within them.

WHat elSe do i need to knoW to uSe tHiS Book?

We assume you know basic photography. You know how to determine a

reasonable exposure, at least close enough that bracketing can cover errors.
You understand depth of feld. You have mastered the basic operation of
your camera.
Tat is all. We have no intention of being ruthless in our examination of
your background credentials. Just to be safe, however, we suggest you keep
a good basic photography book on hand as you read this one. (We did when
we wrote it.) We do not want you to fnd easy material difcult just because
we unknowingly use a technical term you have not seen before.
Finally, do not overlook the internet. Tere is a wealth of information to
be found there about lighting and photography in general. A search here
and a search there are moments well spent by any photographer—advanced
or beginner.

WHat iS tHe “magic” Part oF tHiS Book?

Learn about the light and the science. Ten the magic happens!
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
work together harmoniously and efficiently; to complement, not to
antagonize each other; provided means are taken to ensure to each
its due relative precedence and weight in the determination of
practical questions.
Historically, the institution and development of naval
administration has been essentially a civil process, the object of
which has been to provide and keep in readiness a national weapon
for war. The end is war—fighting; the instrument is the navy; the
means are the various activities which we group under the head of
administration. Of these three, the end necessarily conditions the
others. The proverb is familiar, “He who wills the end wills the
means.” Whatever is essential to the spirit and organization of the
navy afloat, to its efficiency for war, must find itself adequately
represented in the administration, in order that the exigencies of
fighting may be kept well to the front in governmental and national
consideration. Since armies and navies have existed as permanent
national institutions, there has been a constant struggle on the part
of the military element to keep the end—fighting, or readiness to
fight—superior to mere administrative considerations. This is but
natural, for all men tend to magnify their office. The military man
having to do the fighting, considers that the chief necessity; the
administrator equally naturally tends to think the smooth running of
the machine the most admirable quality. Both are necessary; but the
latter cannot obtain under the high pressure of war unless in peace
the contingency of war has dictated its system. There is a quaint,
well-worn story, which yet may be new to some readers, of an
administrator who complained that his office was working admirably
until war came and threw everything out of gear.
The opposition between civil and military, necessitating their due
adjustment, may be said to be original, of the nature of things. It is
born with naval administration. Corresponding roughly to these
primary factors are the two principal activities in which
administration is exerted—organization and execution. These also
bear to each other the relation of means to end. Organization is not
for itself, but is a means to an ultimate executive action; in the case
of a navy, to war or to the prevention of war. It is, therefore, in its
end—war—that organization must find the conditions dictating its
character. Whatever the system adopted, it must aim above all at
perfect efficiency in military action; and the nearer it approaches to
this ideal the better it is. It would seem that this is too obvious for
mention. It may be for mention; but not for reiteration. The long
record of naval history on the side of administration shows a
constant predominance of other considerations, and the abiding
necessity for insisting, in season and out of season, that the one test
of naval administration is not the satisfactory or economical working
of the office, as such, but the readiness of the navy in all points for
war. The one does not exclude the other; but there is between them
the relation of greater and less.
Both organization and execution are properties alike of the active
navy, the instrument for war, and of the naval administration, the
means which has been constituted to create and maintain the
instrument; but from their respective spheres, and in proportion to
their relative nearness to the great final end of war, the one or the
other characteristic is found predominant. The naval officer on board
his ship, face to face with the difficulties of the profession, and in
daily contact with the grim implements which remind him of the
eventualities of his calling, naturally sees in organization mainly a
means to an end. Some indeed fall short. The martinet is a man to
whom the organization is more than a means; but he is the
exception. Naval administration, on the other hand, in the common
acceptation of the term, is mostly office work. It comes into contact
with the navy proper chiefly through official correspondence, less by
personal intercourse with the officers concerned; still less by
immediate contact with the daily life of the profession, which it
learns at second hand. It consequently tends to overvalue the orderly
routine and observance of the system by which it receives
information, transmits orders, checks expenditure, files returns, and,
in general, keeps with the service the touch of paper; in short, the
organization which has been created for facilitating its own labors. In
due measure these are imperatively necessary; but it is undeniable
that the practical tendency is to exaggerate their importance
relatively to the executive end proposed. The writer was once visiting
a French captain, who in the course of the interview took up wearily
a mass of papers from a desk beside him. “I wonder,” said he,
“whether all this is as bad with you as with us. Look at our Navy
Register;” and dividing the pages into two parts, severally about one-
sixth and five-sixths of the whole, he continued, “This, the smaller, is
the Navy; and that is the Administration.” No wonder he had papers
galore; administration needs papers, as a mill needs grist.
Even in the case of naval officers entering administrative offices,
the influence of prolonged tenure is in the same direction. The habits
of a previous lifetime doubtless act as a check, in proportion to the
strength they have acquired in the individual. They serve as an
invaluable leaven, not only to his own thought but to that of his
associates. Nevertheless, the experience is general that permanence
in an office essentially civil tends to deaden the intimate appreciation
of naval exigencies; yet upon this alone can thrive that sympathy
between the administrative and executive functions of the navy
which is requisite to efficiency. The habit of the arm-chair easily
prevails over that of the quarterdeck; it is more comfortable. For this
reason, in the best-considered systems, a frequent exchange between
the civil and military parts of their profession, between the
administrative offices and the army or fleet, is thought expedient for
officers who show aptitude for the former. It is better for them
personally, better for the administration, and consequently better for
the service at large. It prevails extensively in the United States Navy,
where it is frequently the subject of ill-instructed outside criticism on
the score of sea-officers being on “shore duty.” Without asserting
that the exact proportions of service are always accurately observed,
it may be confidently affirmed that the interchange between the civil
and military occupations tends to facilitate the smooth working of
both, by promoting mutual understanding of conditions and
difficulties.

The British System[35]

[From 1660 to 1832, British naval administration was divided

between a civilian “Navy Board” and a military “Board of
Admiralty.”—Editor.]
Divided control means divided responsibility; and that in turn
means no responsibility, or at least one very hard to fix. The abuses
that grew up, especially in the dockyards, the effect of which of
course was transmitted to the navy that depended upon them, led to
a loud outcry throughout the service towards the end of the
eighteenth century; but horses are not swapped when crossing
streams, and the exigencies of the great wars which ended in 1815
made it long impossible to attempt the revolutionary change needed.
This was carried out in 1832 by the Government which came in with
the Reform Bill of 1830. The spirit of the innovation was summarized
in the expression, “Individual (undivided) Responsibility.” The Navy
Board disappeared altogether. The civil functions which in the
process of centuries had accumulated in its hands, and had
culminated by successive additions into a very numerous and loose
aggregation of officials, were concentrated into five heads, having
separate and independent responsibilities; in this resembling the
chiefs of bureau in the United States Naval Administration. Each of
the five was specifically under one of the members of the Admiralty
Board, who thus represented that particular interest of the Navy in
the Board regarded as a consultative body. Admiral Sir Vesey
Hamilton writes: “This was a consolidation of functions and a
subordination of the civil branches to the Admiralty as a whole ...
under the Board of Admiralty collectively and under the Lords
individually.” While the First Lord is a civilian, the majority of the
other members of the Admiralty are naval officers. Authority,
therefore, is in civil hands, while military influence enters strongly.
While I highly appreciate the value of this latter factor, particularly
as the sea lords do not consequently give up their profession, but
remain actively connected with it, it appears to my observation of
human nature that the system has some of the disadvantages of a
council of war, tending to make responsibility elusive. I question, in
short, the entire soundness of a scheme which by its nature, if not by
specific provision, inclines to place executive action in the hands of a
consultative body. It seems to sap individual responsibility; not
perhaps in subordinates, but, what is much worse, in the head, in the
commander-in-chief of the administration, upon whom depend the
great determinative lines of provision and of policy. In conception,
the Admiralty is primarily a Board, secondarily individual members.
For individual responsibility at the head, too much depends upon the
personality of the First Lord, too little upon his position. Since these
lines were first written, five years ago, it may fairly be inferred, from
the language of the English Press, that very decisive changes of policy
have been adopted which are attributed popularly, and even
professionally, to the dominating influence of one of the “Sea” Lords.
During a brief period in 1827, as two centuries before, an
arrangement more formally ideal obtained. The Duke of Clarence,
afterwards William IV, being appointed Lord High Admiral, the
Admiralty Board lapsed as a board and became his council. The
modification here made in deference to royal blood might well serve
as a model for naval administration; a head with advisers feels
responsibility more than a head with associates. It should go without
saying that in any case the head must be good.
In the United States Naval Administration the head is one man,
with no division of responsibility. His own superior, the President,
may control his action, as may Congress by law; but this, as far as it
goes, is simply a transfer of responsibility in its entirety. It is not a
division. The Secretary of the Navy has no associates, but he has
subordinates. In them he has capable advisers, so far as he chooses
to use them; but he can transfer to them no responsibility, except
that of doing as he tells them. The responsibility of decision is his
alone. The law constitutes them subordinate executive officers, just
as it constitutes a lieutenant in the navy; but it does not constitute
them advisers, and there is in their position nothing which compels
the Secretary to hear their advice, still less to accept it. Each is
independent of the others, and there is nothing in law to compel
conference between them. The Secretary may assemble them, or any
number of them, as a board for consultation, in his presence or
otherwise; but there is nothing in the system which obliges him to do
so. Unity of action between several naval technical experts, each of
whom is represented in the planning and maintenance of every naval
vessel, and some in every element of naval military efficiency,
depends entirely upon the co-ordinating force of the Secretary, who
is a civilian, possibly with only more or less outside knowledge of the
subject. The system provides no strictly professional unifying force,
such as the Board of Admiralty, which has a numerical
preponderance of combatant sea-officers, each of whom has in
individual control one or more of the technical administrative
departments, and may be supposed therefore to be fully informed of
its arguments in any technical matter under discussion. The
constitution of the Admiralty Board also ensures that all technical
details and their effect upon naval efficiency shall be scrutinized
from the point of view of the men who shall do the work of war. The
American plan fixes the very strictest individual responsibility in the
Secretary, and in his principal subordinates, the chiefs of bureau. His
duties are universal and supreme, theirs sharply defined and
mutually independent. This result appears to me superior to the
British, but it has the defects of its qualities; not too much
independence in responsibility, but, so far as the system goes, too
little co-ordination. As I said of the responsibility of the First Lord,
unity of action depends too much on the personality of the Secretary.

The United States System[36]

The United States system of naval administration has progressed

successively, and without breach of legislative continuity, from the
simple rudimentary organ, the one man, in whom all functions as
well as all responsibility were centered, through the phase of a
complex organ with aggregate functions and responsibilities,
defined, but still undifferentiated, into an organization elaborate in
form, if not final in development. The process has been from first to
last consistent in principle. The sole control and single responsibility
of the Secretary—the representative of the President—have been
preserved throughout, and all other responsibility is, and has been,
not only subordinate to him but derivative from him, as a branch
derives its being from the root. Moreover, consistency has also been
maintained in restricting the administration thus evolved to the civil
function which it essentially is. From the first departure, in the
institution of the Board of Commissioners, to the present time, it has
not had military authority properly so-called. It has had necessary
authority in matters pertaining to a military establishment, but it has
had no direction of activities in themselves essentially military; that
has remained with the Secretary, and is by him transferred only to
officers properly military in function. Finally, the principle of
particular responsibility has been strictly followed. Within the limits
of the duty assigned, the corporate responsibility of the Board in its
day was, and the individual responsibility of each bureau chief now
is, as certain and defined as that of the Secretary.
The defect of the system is that no means is provided for co-
ordinating the action of the bureaus,[37] except the single authority of
the Secretary. This, in his beginning days of inexperience, together
with his preoccupations with the numerous collateral engagements
attendant upon all positions of public responsibility, will most
usually be inadequate to the task. To indicate a defect is not to
prescribe a remedy; and the purpose of this article is to show things
as they are, not to advocate particular changes. One of the ablest
administrative sea-officers, both afloat and ashore, that I have
known in my professional career, stated before a Congressional
committee that he had “always believed it would be wise to have a
board of five officers for the purpose of harmonizing difficulties
between bureaus, settling upon a ship-building policy, and other
matters that embarrass the head of the Department on account of a
lack of professional knowledge.” I do not undertake to pass an
opinion upon this particular suggestion, but confine myself to
remarking that the fault in the system certainly exists, and that any
remedy requires the careful observance of two points: 1, that the
adviser, one or a board, be wholly clear of administrative activity;
and, 2, that he or they be advisers only, pure and simple, with no
power to affect the individual responsibility of decision. This must be
preserved under whatever method, as the Secretary’s privilege as
well as his obligation.
 13. The Military Rule of Obedience[38]

It may be asserted, as perhaps the most tenable general definition of

the principle upon which the rule of obedience rests, that the spirit of
obedience, as distinguished from its letter, consists in faithfully
forwarding the general object to which the officer’s particular
command is contributing. This finds expression in the well-known
directive maxim, “March to the sound of the guns.” In doubtful cases,
however,—and by doubtful I mean cases where action other than that
prescribed in the orders seems expedient,—liberty of judgment is
conditioned by the officer’s acquaintance with the plans of his
superior. If his knowledge is imperfect, or altogether lacking, the
doing that which at the moment seems wise to himself may be to
defeat a much more important object, or to dissolve the bonds of a
combined movement to which his co-operation is essential. If, under
such circumstances of ignorance, resting only upon his own sagacity
or surmises, he errs either in his reading of his commander’s general
purpose, or in his decision as to his own action, and through such
error disobeys, he cannot complain if he receive censure or
punishment. He has violated a recognized rule without adequate
reason. The rectitude of his intentions may clear him of moral blame,
though not necessarily even so; for the duty of obedience is not
merely military, but moral. It is not an arbitrary rule, but one
essential and fundamental; the expression of a principle without
which military organization would go to pieces, and military success
be impossible. Consequently, even where the individual purpose may
be demonstrably honest, not willful, blame adheres and punishment
may follow, according to the measure of the delinquency, though that
be due to nothing worse than personal incompetency....
No man wrestled with the question more vigorously than Nelson;
none found greater exasperation than he did in the too often
successful opposition of the letter to the demands of his impetuous
spirit for co-operation, addressed to men over whom he had not
immediate control; none was more generous in his attitude to
subordinates who overrode or overpassed his own orders, provided
he saw in their acts the intelligent and honest will to forward his
purposes. Obedience he certainly required; but he recognized that,
given a capable and zealous man, better work would usually be had
by permitting a certain elasticity of initiative, provided it was
accompanied by accurate knowledge of his general wishes. These he
was always most careful to impart; in nothing was he more precise or
particular. If he allowed large liberty in the letter, he expected close
observance of, nay, rather, participation in, the spirit of his ideas. He
was not tolerant of incapacity, nor would he for a moment bear
willful disregard of his plans. When considerations of high policy
entertained by himself were crossed by Sidney Smith, his language
became peremptory. “As this is in strict opposition to my opinion,
which is never to suffer any one individual Frenchman to quit
Egypt, I strictly charge and command you never to give any French
ship or man leave to quit Egypt.” The italics are his own; and he adds
again, as though distrustful still: “You are to put my orders in force,
not on any pretense to permit a single Frenchman to leave Egypt.”
The severity of the tone sufficiently proves his disposition to enforce
the strictest rule, where necessary to control individuals; but a more
liberal reliance upon principle, in preference to rule, was his habit.
None, it may be added, illustrated more copiously than he, when a
junior, the obedience of the spirit and the disobedience of the letter.
His practice was in this consistent in all stages of his career.
Unfortunately, the example may tempt smaller men to follow where
their heads are not steady enough to keep their feet.
Of course, thinking and feeling thus, he gave frequent expression
to his views, and these, coming from a man of his military genius, are
often very illuminative. There is one such that is singularly applicable
to our present purpose, of searching for the underlying principle
which governs the duty and observance of obedience, and
determines its absolute necessity to all military action. “I find few
think as I do, but to obey orders is all perfection. What would my
superiors direct, did they know what is passing under my nose? To
serve my King and to destroy the French I consider as the great order
of all, from which little ones spring, and if one of these little ones
militate against it, I go back to obey the great order.”
 14. Preparedness for Naval War[39]

Preparation for war, rightly understood, A falls under two heads,—

preparation and preparedness. The one is a question mainly of
material, and is constant in its action. The second involves an idea of
completeness. When, at a particular moment, preparations are
completed, one is prepared—not otherwise. There may have been
made a great deal of very necessary preparation for war without
being prepared. Every constituent of preparation may be
behindhand, or some elements may be perfectly ready, while others
are not. In neither case can a state be said to be prepared.
In the matter of preparation for war, one clear idea should be
absorbed first by every one who, recognizing that war is still a
possibility, desires to see his country ready. This idea is that,
however defensive in origin or in political character a war may be,
the assumption of a simple defensive in war is ruin. War, once
declared, must be waged offensively, aggressively. The enemy must
not be fended off, but smitten down. You may then spare him every
exaction, relinquish every gain; but till down he must be struck
incessantly and remorselessly.
Preparation, like most other things, is a question both of kind and
of degree, of quality and of quantity. As regards degree, the general
lines upon which it is determined have been indicated broadly in the
preceding part of this article. The measure of degree is the estimated
force which the strongest probable enemy can bring against you,
allowance being made for clear drawbacks upon his total force,
imposed by his own embarrassments and responsibilities in other
parts of the world. The calculation is partly military, partly political,
the latter, however, being the dominant factor in the premises.
In kind, preparation is twofold,—defensive and offensive. The
former exists chiefly for the sake of the latter, in order that offense,
the determining factor in war, may put forth its full power,
unhampered by concern for the protection of the national interests
or for its own resources. In naval war, coast defense is the defensive
factor, the navy the offensive. Coast defense, when adequate, assures
the naval commander-in-chief that his base of operations—the
dockyards and coal depots—is secure. It also relieves him and his
government, by the protection afforded to the chief commercial
centers, from the necessity of considering them, and so leaves the
offensive arm perfectly free.
Coast defense implies coast attack. To what attacks are coast
liable? Two, principally,—blockade and bombardment. The latter,
being the more difficult, includes the former, as the greater does the
lesser. A fleet that can bombard can still more easily blockade.
Against bombardment the necessary precaution is gun-fire, of such
power and range that a fleet cannot lie within bombarding distance.
This condition is obtained, where surroundings permit, by advancing
the line of guns so far from the city involved that bombarding
distance can be reached only by coming under their fire. But it has
been demonstrated, and is accepted, that, owing to their rapidity of
movement,—like a flock of birds on the wing,—a fleet of ships can,
without disabling loss, pass by guns before which they could not lie.
Hence arises the necessity of arresting or delaying their progress by
blocking channels, which in modern practice is done by lines of
torpedoes. The mere moral effect of the latter is a deterrent to a dash
past,—by which, if successful, a fleet reaches the rear of the defenses,
and appears immediately before the city, which then lies at its mercy.
Coast defense, then, implies gun power and torpedo lines placed as
described. Be it said in passing that only places of decisive
importance, commercially or militarily, need such defenses. Modern
fleets cannot afford to waste ammunition in bombarding
unimportant towns,—at least when so far from their own base as they
would be on our coast. It is not so much a question of money as of
frittering their fighting strength. It would not pay.
Even coast defense, however, although essentially passive, should
have an element of offensive force, local in character, distinct from
the offensive navy, of which nevertheless it forms a part. To take the
offensive against a floating force it must itself be afloat—naval. This
offensive element of coast defense is to be found in the torpedo-boat,
in its various developments. It must be kept distinct in idea from the
sea-going fleet, although it is, of course, possible that the two may act
in concert. The war very well may take such a turn that the sea-going
navy will find, its best preparation for initiating an offensive
movement to be by concentrating in a principal seaport. Failing such
a contingency, however, and in and for coast defense in its narrower
sense, there should be a local flotilla of small torpedo-vessels, which
by their activity should make life a burden to an outside enemy. A
distinguished British admiral, now dead, has said that he believed
half the captains of a blockading fleet would break down—“go crazy”
were the words repeated to me—under the strain of modern
conditions. The expression, of course, was intended simply to convey
a sense of the immensity of suspense to be endured. In such a flotilla,
owing to the smallness of its components, and to the simplicity of
their organization and functions, is to be found the best sphere for
naval volunteers; the duties could be learned with comparative ease,
and the whole system is susceptible of rapid development. Be it
remembered, however, that it is essentially defensive, only
incidentally offensive, in character.
Such are the main elements of coast defense—guns, lines of
torpedoes, torpedo-boats. Of these none can be extemporized, with
the possible exception of the last, and that would be only a
makeshift. To go into details would exceed the limits of an article,—
require a brief treatise. Suffice it to say, without the first two, coast
cities are open to bombardment; without the last, they can be
blockaded freely, unless relieved by the sea-going navy.
Bombardment and blockade are recognized modes of warfare,
subject only to reasonable notification,—a concession rather to
humanity and equity than to strict law.[40] Bombardment and
blockade directed against great national centers, in the close and
complicated network of national and commercial interests as they
exist in modern times, strike not only the point affected, but every
corner of the land.
The offensive in naval war, as has been said, is the function of the
sea-going navy—of the battleships, and of the cruisers of various
sizes and purposes, including sea-going torpedo-vessels capable of
accompanying a fleet, without impeding its movements by their loss
of speed or unseaworthiness. Seaworthiness, and reasonable speed
under all weather conditions, are qualities necessary to every
constituent of a fleet; but, over and above these, the backbone and
real power of any navy are the vessels which, by due proportion of
defensive and offensive powers, are capable of taking and giving hard
knocks. All others are but subservient to these, and exist only for
them.
 What is that strength to be? Ships answering to this description
are the kind which make naval strength; what is to be its degree?
What their number? The answer—a broad formula—is that it must be
great enough to take the sea, and to fight, with reasonable chances of
success, the largest force likely to be brought against it, as shown by
calculations which have been indicated previously. Being, as we
claim, and as our past history justifies us in claiming, a nation
indisposed to aggression, unwilling to extend our possessions or our
interests by war, the measure of strength we set ourselves depends,
necessarily, not upon our projects of aggrandizement, but upon the
disposition of others to thwart what we consider our reasonable
policy, which they may not so consider. When they resist, what force
can they bring against us? That force must be naval; we have no
exposed point upon which land operations, decisive in character, can
be directed. This is the kind of the hostile force to be apprehended.
What may its size be? There is the measure of our needed strength.
The calculation may be intricate, the conclusion only approximate
and probable, but it is the nearest reply we can reach. So many ships
of such and such sizes, so many guns, so much ammunition—in
short, so much naval material.
In the material provisions that have been summarized under the
two chief heads of defense and offense—in coast defense under its
three principal requirements, guns, lines of stationary torpedoes, and
torpedo-boats, and in a navy able to keep the sea in the presence of a
probable enemy—consist what may be called most accurately
preparations for war. In so far as the United States is short in them,
she is at the mercy of an enemy whose naval strength is greater than
that of her own available navy. If her navy cannot keep the enemy off
the coast, blockade at least is possible. If, in addition, there are no
harbor torpedo-boats, blockade is easy. If, further, guns and torpedo
lines are deficient, bombardment comes within the range of
possibility, and may reach even the point of entire feasibility. There
will be no time for preparation after war begins.
[The remainder of the essay considers the vital problem of
supplying the navy with trained men, both in active service and in
reserve. It is pointed out that, of the two systems, compulsory
enlistments for short service and voluntary enlistments for long
service, the second system, which is the one employed by the United
States, produces fewer though better trained reserves; and it
therefore necessitates a larger standing force.—Editor.]
 PART II
SEA POWER IN HISTORY
 15. A Nation Exhausted by Isolation[41]

France under Louis XIV

The peace signed at Ryswick in 1697 was most disadvantageous to

France; she lost all that had been gained since the Peace of
Nimeguen, nineteen years before, with the single important
exception of Strasburg. All that Louis XIV had gained by trick or
force during the years of peace was given up. Immense restitutions
were made to Germany and to Spain. In so far as the latter were
made in the Netherlands, they were to the immediate advantage of
the United Provinces, and indeed of all Europe as well as of Spain. To
the two sea nations the terms of the treaty gave commercial benefits,
which tended to the increase of their own sea power and to the
consequent injury of that of France.
France had made a gigantic struggle; to stand alone as she did
then, and as she has since done more than once, against all Europe is
a great feat. Yet it may be said that as the United Provinces taught
the lesson that a nation, however active and enterprising, cannot rest
upon external resources alone, if intrinsically weak in numbers and
territory, so France in its measure shows that a nation cannot subsist
indefinitely off itself, however powerful in numbers and strong in
internal resources.
It is said that a friend once found Colbert looking dreamily from
his windows, and on questioning him as to the subject of his
meditations, received this reply: “In contemplating the fertile fields
before my eyes, I recall those which I have seen elsewhere; what a
rich country is France!” This conviction supported him amid the
many discouragements of his official life, when struggling to meet
the financial difficulties arising from the extravagance and wars of
the king; and it has been justified by the whole course of the nation’s
history since his days. France is rich in natural resources as well as in
the industry and thrift of her people. But neither individual nations
nor men can thrive when severed from natural intercourse with their
kind; whatever the native vigor of constitution, it requires healthful
surroundings, and freedom to draw to itself from near and from far
all that is conducive to its growth and strength and general welfare.
Not only must the internal organism work satisfactorily, the
processes of decay and renewal, of movement and circulation, go on
easily, but, from sources external to themselves, both mind and body
must receive healthful and varied nourishment. With all her natural
gifts France wasted away because of the want of that lively
intercourse between the different parts of her own body and constant
exchange with other people, which is known as commerce, internal
or external. To say that war was the cause of these defects is to state
at least a partial truth; but it does not exhaust the matter. War, with
its many acknowledged sufferings, is above all harmful when it cuts a
nation off from others and throws it back upon itself. There may
indeed be periods when such rude shocks have a bracing effect, but
they are exceptional, and of short duration, and they do not
invalidate the general statement. Such isolation was the lot of France
during the later wars of Louis XIV, and it well-nigh destroyed her;
whereas to save her from the possibility of such stagnation was the
great aim of Colbert’s life.
War alone could not entail it, if only war could be postponed until
the processes of circulation within and without the kingdom were
established and in vigorous operation. They did not exist when he
took office; they had to be both created and firmly rooted in order to
withstand the blast of war. Time was not given to accomplish this
great work, nor did Louis XIV support the schemes of his minister by
turning the budding energies of his docile and devoted subjects into
paths favorable to it. So when the great strain came upon the powers
of the nation, instead of drawing strength from every quarter and
through many channels, and laying the whole outside world under
contribution by the energy of its merchants and seamen, as England
has done in like straits, it was thrown back upon itself, cut off from
the world by the navies of England and Holland, and the girdle of
enemies which surrounded it upon the continent. The only escape
from this process of gradual starvation was by an effectual control of
the sea; the creation of a strong sea power which should ensure free
play for the wealth of the land and the industry of the people. For
this, too, France had great natural advantages in her three seaboards,
on the Channel, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean; and politically
she had had the fair opportunity of joining to her own maritime
power that of the Dutch in friendly alliance, hostile or at least wary
toward England. In the pride of his strength, conscious of absolute
control in his kingdom, Louis cast away this strong reinforcement to
his power, and proceeded to rouse Europe against him by repeated
aggressions. In the period which we have just considered, France
justified his confidence by a magnificent, and upon the whole
successful, maintenance of his attitude against all Europe; she did
not advance, but neither did she greatly recede. But this display of
power was exhausting; it ate away the life of the nation, because it
drew wholly upon itself and not upon the outside world, with which
it could have been kept in contact by the sea. In the war that next
followed, the same energy is seen, but not the same vitality; and
France was everywhere beaten back and brought to the verge of ruin.
The lesson of both is the same; nations, like men, however strong,
decay when cut off from the external activities and resources which
at once draw out and support their internal powers. A nation, as we
have already shown, cannot live indefinitely off itself, and the easiest
way by which it can communicate with other peoples and renew its
own strength is the sea.
 16. The Growth of British Sea Power[42]

England after the Peace of Utrecht, 1715

While England’s policy thus steadily aimed at widening and

strengthening the bases of her sway upon the ocean, the other
governments of Europe seemed blind to the dangers to be feared
from her sea growth. The miseries resulting from the overweening
power of Spain in days long gone by seemed to be forgotten;
forgotten also the more recent lesson of the bloody and costly wars
provoked by the ambition and exaggerated power of Louis XIV.
Under the eyes of the statesmen of Europe there was steadily and
visibly being built up a third overwhelming power, destined to be
used as selfishly, as aggressively, though not as cruelly, and much
more successfully than any that had preceded it. This was the power
of the sea, whose workings, because more silent than the clash of
arms, are less often noted, though lying clearly enough on the
surface. It can scarcely be denied that England’s uncontrolled
dominion of the seas, during almost the whole period chosen for our
subject, was by long odds the chief among the military factors that
determined the final issue.[43] So far, however, was this influence
from being foreseen after Utrecht, that France for twelve years,
moved by personal exigencies of her rulers, sided with England
against Spain; and when Fleuri came into power in 1726, though this
policy was reversed, the navy of France received no attention, and
the only blow at England was the establishment of a Bourbon prince,
a natural enemy to her, upon the throne of the two Sicilies in 1736.
When war broke out with Spain in 1739, the navy of England was in
numbers more than equal to the combined navies of Spain and
France; and during the quarter of a century of nearly uninterrupted
war that followed, this numerical disproportion increased. In these
wars England, at first instinctively, afterward with conscious purpose
under a government that recognized her opportunity and the
possibilities of her great sea power, rapidly built up that mighty
colonial empire whose foundations were already securely laid in the
characteristics of her colonists and the strength of her fleets. In
strictly European affairs her wealth, the outcome of her sea power,
made her play a conspicuous part during the same period. The
system of subsidies, which began half a century before in the wars of
Marlborough and received its most extensive development half a
century later in the Napoleonic wars, maintained the efforts of her
allies, which would have been crippled, if not paralyzed, without
them. Who can deny that the government which with one hand
strengthened its fainting allies on the continent with the life-blood of
money, and with the other drove its own enemies off the sea and out
of their chief possessions, Canada, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Havana,
Manila, gave to its country the foremost rôle in European politics;
and who can fail to see that the power which dwelt in that
government, with a land narrow in extent and poor in resources,
sprang directly from the sea? The policy in which the English
government carried on the war is shown by a speech of Pitt, the
master-spirit during its course, though he lost office before bringing
it to an end. Condemning the Peace of 1763, made by his political
opponent, he said: “France is chiefly, if not exclusively, formidable to
us as a maritime and commercial power. What we gain in this respect
is valuable to us, above all, through the injury to her which results
from it. You have left to France the possibility of reviving her navy.”
Yet England’s gains were enormous; her rule in India was assured,
and all North America east of the Mississippi in her hands. By this
time the onward path of her government was clearly marked out, had
assumed the force of a tradition, and was consistently followed. The
war of the American Revolution was, it is true, a great mistake,
looked at from the point of view of sea power; but the government
was led into it insensibly by a series of natural blunders. Putting
aside political and constitutional considerations, and looking at the
question as purely military or naval, the case was this: The American
colonies were large and growing communities at a great distance
from England. So long as they remained attached to the mother-
country, as they then were enthusiastically, they formed a solid base
for her sea power in that part of the world; but their extent and
population were too great, when coupled with the distance from
England, to afford any hope of holding them by force, if any powerful
nations were willing to help them. This “if,” however, involved a
notorious probability; the humiliation of France and Spain was so
bitter and so recent that they were sure to seek revenge, and it was
well known that France in particular had been carefully and rapidly