Soft Light vs Hard Light

I've noticed that preferences and tastes on the NPN seem to be split between those who prefer hard light/high contrast and those who prefer softer light. I invite everyone to post their opinions on this issue. Do folks consider this a matter of "taste" or is that taste supported by more fundamental reason(s)? And is it that folks dislike one option, or prefer the other?

For example, I prefer hard light/high contrast because I believe it provides more "punch" or attractiveness and I mostly photograph during the light of midday. I believe we all ought to be able to photograph even during midday attractively.

We're all familiar with the traditional preference for the hours surrounding sunrise and sunset, and I photograph then whenever possible (because I like the angles and greater length of shadows) but I dislike being photographically confined to those hours.

Any other thoughts?

I prefer soft light.

I prefer shooting to napping.

Subjects and format also can determine which is "best," as can markets or fates for photos.

Therefore light choice is often circumstantial. If it's not "right" you either have to pass, come back later or try new and different approaches to see if you can rescue the situation. I'm more likely to work on the new stuff than to wait for later, but more likely to come back later than completely pass on a setting.

Then for near subjects we get into the whole prospect of fill flash.

And for static subjects there's always split ND or blended exposures.

I'm convinced that "right" is limited only by the photographer's creativity and willingness to work with a subject, including timing.

I'm of the opinion that darn near EVERYTHING related to photography boils down to a matter of taste. If you like it, and it suits your tastes, then that's the area you should capitalize on. That said however, we must realize that perhaps not everyone will share in our opinions or tastes, and that's fine too. As for me, if the image is good, I don't care if it's hard or soft.

Since I use transparency film (4x5 mostly), I prefer more diffuse light in order to have good detail in the high and low values. I do agree with Hank insofar as that the subject and the 'objective' of the photograph plays a large role in determining the quality of the light that will bring the photograph to life.

For a working pro who shoots assignments, the client determines the look and feel they need. It is then up to the photographer to use the quality of light that is required, regardless of their personal taste.

The bottom line, I suppose, is to capitalize on the light that best conveys the story or the intent one is attempting bring to life.

-PB

Well that to me depends on outcome of the image.

example is, If a client wants to sell their house and needs images that will make that house look the very best it can, I as the photographer would shoot the outside shots under the soft light of morning or evening. Why? Simply because that is the time of day that will make that house look the nicest.

With landscape I feel the same, if I was to shoot a scene, midday sun it would look the same as any tourist that had just jumped off the bus at the time and snapped away. The harsh light probably has not helped the subject look it's best.

So getting up at 4am in the morning an hiking/driving whatever to a location and shooting the first rays of light that bath that same scene in a golden glow or soft light makes the image now stand out. It's different than tha tourist bus peoples images and that's the reason they buy the postcards/poster/calanders/prints, because they can't shoot them, It's not just the soft light but we all know a lot more goes into making a nice image, filters/postprocessing for the digital guys/film/scanning and printing/framing.

So I prefer softlight and so do most of the buying public

There's no debate in nature photography between soft and hard light. Patrick, do you have a link to ONE professional nature photographer who's work suggests he/she prefers hard light?
If we could show up mid day on most days and take the shot this would be a much easier and less interesting vocation/avocation.

The 'best' light is never dictated by the photographer, always by the subject, and often by the viewer in their willingness to pay for it to hang on their wall. Of course, determining when that best light occurs is one of the toughest parts of natural light landscape photography (nobody said this should be easy), but it's a good bet that the best light isn't occuring when you've found your image. If I want to do best by my subject/scene, then I'm obliged to make the photograph when the light best compliments the subject (and that is rarely sunrise or sunset for the type of stuff I do). It takes sensitivity and time to make this determination - the 'best' photography is rarely rushed or done out of convenience.

And I have to agree with Mr. Chambers 101%: "I'm of the opinion that darn near EVERYTHING related to photography boils down to a matter of taste."

My thoughts are very much in line with Michael's, though looking through my own personal favorites I do find that I personally like softer/warmer light for most of the work I like to create. Still - there's no room for arbitrary limitations on creativity. Use what works best for the subject/scene at hand.

I also found this audio blog interesting:

Brooks Jensen on The Decisive Landscape Moment

Guy

I too agree with Hank and Micheal above. My thinking has always been that as an outdoor photographer, I don't control the light. I have to use what I am given, or walk away. I agree with Micheal that the subject (and message) determines what kind of light works best. My own preference is to shoot during blizzards. The light is very dull and gray, and objects in the image are very soft and sometimes they are just hinted at. My second favorite time to photo is actually at night, LOL! Often the light is artificial and has a weird color cast. But it works! I even take landscape photos at night, especially in winter.


Kent in SD

Good morning Fellas,

I'm enjoying this Debate about light types it seems toi be a point of preferance of the individual photographer, we here at Stawell Camera Club in Victoria, Australia, regulally take up on this same mater of light as a number of us are inclined to Macro work, most of us use the early morning & late evening light. We tend this way as it gives us the air conditions and light for our Study of the vast aray of wild flowers and plants that provide our district with so much natural beauty.

I start before the frost thaws in the morning and after it sets at night.

But I still love the challenge of the hash hard lights of mid day in this wide brown land of ours, it is real challenge to when the day gets so dry and hot that the film starts crackling.

Charles,

To be honest, this subject is kind of a pet peeve of mine. It bothers me when people refer to midday , harsh light as "bad " or some other negative description.

I'm the type that goes out and photographs what I see that interests me , at the time.

I feel I'm just a witness in a way to what Nature is revealing. I find things in Nature interesting and beautiful, in any kind of light, any time of day.

Interesting topic, for example , go look at the ESS gallery right now, how many images are taken in the "golden hours" versus the midday sun? Tim

Rowell had an interesting explanation of how shadows are perceived differently in print than real life. I'll try and find the quote rather than paraphrase. This explains part of the reason why direct sunlight usually doesn't work.
We all have a few direct sun shots that are great, but usually these shots are accompanied by unusual weather. All good landscape photographers learn to see the good light. I don't believe it's helpful to those learning the basics to give an overly flexible answer to the basic question of hard versus soft light.

Ok, I looked at the ESS gallery. Most of the photographs were taken at the edges of light: the sun was at a low angle. I like to compose photographs, but if the light ain't right, I get dinged every time. (Of course, when the light is right, I get dinged everyother time.)

I arrange my triangles to lead the viewer seductively through the image, but when the light isn't right, I lose 'em. The right light is soft light. Recording media increase contrast. Nothing looks like I saw it, so I must find light that makes things record like I want. When I shoot mid-day (and I do) most images wither.

Pete D.

Way too many new photographers seem to have a narrow mindset towards early and late warm light. Part of that is do to the fact for over two decades high saturation films like Velvia have dominated what the mainstream wanted and such films often do work better early and late while being too contrasty otherwise. Many of those have been using such films exclusively and wouldn't know what they might be able to do with films like Kodachrome or Provia. So much of this discussion is really just about what film an individual has been using. And today with digital there is of course a goldrush into taking images of scenery in dimmer conditions than our eyes even perceive to the extent there are likely many that are having such a fine time doing that they haven't focused on what possibilities midday light offers if used wisely. ...David

I, myself, prefer a soft/diffused light. When you see a subject and your immediate reaction is "Ooh what wonderful light!!" then that is when I want my camera in action. I'll generally pass on midday light because of the high contrast and the flatness that is usually the result. Midday is the perfect time to scope out future shoots (when I have time!).