Flat lighting conditions?

I recently posted this photo in the ESS gallery and made the statement "I would love to hear any comments on how this or shots like this can be improved when over all lighting is not so hot."

I caught a little break in this one with a little brighter but still soft light hitting the foreground. For most of my trip the light was more like the back portion of this one only the fog was usually thick and solid not patchy. (at least up in the higher elevations where the better color was.)
What I really would like to know is in general how can you improve your photography and what do you look for when you mostly have flat lighting conditions? I am talking about cloudy, hazzy flat midday light not soft morning light with that wonderful glow about it. Also with your post-processing you you try to render the scene like you remember it or do you "punch it up" even though it may not look like the same lighting conditions than what you really had.

I will start by giving the few things that I usually do. I tend to hang out around the streams, falls, and cascades, using the flat light to help keep from blowing the highlights in the whitewater.
I know these conditions are usually better than bright mid-day sunshine but I could use some more ideas than just the stream shots.
So what are the things that you look for?

Bruce

I look for strong, compelling foregrounds Bruce, then use the diminishing detail and contrast with distance to provide an interesting soft setting. In this case, imagine one of those trees very close and dominating the frame. The strong foreground holds viewers eyes for a while, before they explore the receding background. Without the strong foreground, viewers eyes just kinda keep on sliding back through the frame without finding any strong point of interest to keep them looking.

Without your discussion points, I would have moved right by this without a second glance, perhaps asking myself why the photographer took it. Others will certainly disagree, but I don't find the patterns and colors in it compelling enough to keep me looking.

Does that help?

When i'm on a trip, i always use the harsh midday light, to scout locations. I tend to scout for intresting foreground idea's and then i will return to them in the evening when the sun sets or in the morning when the sun rises. And when i'm in a spot where there are lots of idea's i useally draw them down and then when its evening or morning i see what sort of clouds i have and i pick a foreground that goes with them.

Wim.

Yes Hank, That helps and is why I posted this here. Thank You. I am looking for any ideas or points of view that can help me and maybe others to look for and create more interesting photos when the weather is doing it best to mess up our limited time in the field. I know bad weather can lead to dramatic photos when you can catch the right conditions in the right place at the right time, but other times it makes it hard to find an interesting image.
I posted this photo here just as an example of conditions and not to show "how" it's done.
Everyone is welcome to use elements in it in the positive or "rip it apart" if needed. (Not that I feel you did that Hank) As long as you give us all something to learn from. If you need to post an example photo here to show what you are talking about. I posted this to learn, not to have my back patted, so everyone say what you must just teach us someting in the process.

Bruce

Sure, Bruce, that's a great attitude to have about posting! Hank gave you a great tip, which is a good one for me, too! I often end up shooting in midday (awful) light. So I try to reduce or eliminate the sky unless it's full of interesting clouds. I concentrate on doing more intimate shots and macro/ close-up rather than wide angle "grand scenics." I use more tools in the field such as circular polarizer, diffuser panel, reflector panel to put light into the shadows. I look for open shade. I try to find subjects where side lighting or back lighting might help add some dimension and interest. Failing any of those opportunities, I do use Photoshop to control the lighting, adjust color, change contrast, etc. How much or how little to use PS tools? I usually decide in favor of artistic license; since I'm the artist, I make an image look pleasing to my eye and to show viewers the features in the scene that attracted me to take the shot. Flat light is wonderful for flowers and plants, streams, waterfalls and forests. Fog is a perfect mood generator. And anyway, if you like what you see, take the shot, anyway. Bring it home and see how you like it and what you can do with it in PS. For my style of shooting, I am grateful that film isn't my only choice, where everytime you trip the shutter, $$ float right out of your wallet! ( I assume you're gear is digital?)
Hope that helps some.

P.S. BTW, in your image, the light is great. Hank's suggestion is right on, but this is not a "loser" image. You have marvelous colors, diagonal lines to direct the eye somewhat, and those wonderful wisps of fog lying in the folds of the hills. You can also try different points of view: higher or lower angle of shooting, up or down the road a little, from the hilltop or the ravine, zoomed in, etc. It all depends on time and curiosity, I guess, is what I'm trying to say...

Bruce....when shooting in flat lighting conditions, I find that setting the EV at -0.3 helps quite a bit. After the fact, Selective color in PS editing can make quite a difference (thanks to Hank for that editing tip!).

Bruce,

First off, you did a great job on the re-work. You've boosted the color and sat just right and without over-doing it. I would say it looks quite natural.

This is an excellent topic and I enjoy reading and learning other photographer's perspectives. And can't this question really be saying, "what is your approach to photography?" Flat lighting is certainly one of those conditions that we run in to, but what's your approach when the light is beautiful? Or when there's great clouds?

Bruce, let me ask you, do you gravitate to water (streams, cascades, etc.) because the lighting is flat, or because you like water? Think about it, think about what it is that brought you to photography. What types of images are you drawn to? What kind of feelings or messages are you trying to come home with? In my opinion, the more one understands their own outlook and desires in photography, the more they will be able to communicate that to the viewer thru their images. I think this is a big piece of style and vision.

I hope I haven't taken this too far beyond what you were asking, but many times we as photographers lose sight of what we enjoy about photography and take pictures for the sake of taking a picture rather than creating a photograph. Back when I was still shooting 35mm film, I wasted a lot of film, went thru lots of rolls. There was a time when I actually counted how many "good" ones I got per roll. I was taking tons of pictures, hoping by the law of averages that I would get some winners. And I did get some good ones, but I never really understood why or how. Sure, dramatic clouds hovering over El Capitan in a misty January morning help just a little.... :-) but I was essentially taking snapshots in beautiful locations.

Now if you're thinking that one day I had a revalation and a beam of light struck my head from the heavens and I now understand photography and what my vision is.... well, you'd be wrong and I'd be lying. We're constantly learning. But over time, I have learned to slow down, absorb what's around me, become familiar with places, time of day, weather, seasons, etc. I also have become comfortable with the technical aspects of photography which allow the more creative aspect to take over. Lighting, gear, location, etc. may soon become secondary.

Ok, enough psycho-babble.... not sure if this makes any sense.

Lon

To some extent the approach to exposures and post processing in flat diffuse light will depend on film verus digital and specifics to each of those. With digital one can capture several bracketed images then immediately compare how the result on one's small LCD compares to an actual scene. Of course digital camera settings will effect the results tremendously such that with some settings one might be able to capture a near useful image that doesn't require any post processing while with other more neutral camera settings, the raw capture may be quite flat. With high saturation films likewise a raw captured result may be near to what one intends the result to be while use of more neutral color films may require post processing adjustments. And with post processing there is a division in one's intent and personal style between those that have a more creative artistic intent in creating the most aesthetic "in minds eye vision" result without regard to what the actual scene visually offered beyond keeping such believable, or those who choose like I do for a resulting image that is reasonably faithful to the visual experience without regard to whether or not the result is as attractive as it could potentially be from bumping up contrast/saturation.

For those with the latter intent, a full digital process given much better luminance dynamic range and instant feedback is far easier than use of tradition film techniques. Working in flat diffuse lighting conditions with neutral color film like Provia or Astia requires a considerable experience with those films in such light. And one is far more likely to get better results if they make use out of a digital lightmeter versus usual in camera metering because the former has the ability to gradually teach how a given film records at different EV levels bracketed both above and below optimal exposure. For instance Provia that I tend to use tends to capture flatter than the actual visual experience when EV levels drop below about 12EV to 13EV. Accordingly if I perfectly expose a landscape at say EV10, I know from experience that I am going to have to boost saturation/contrast in post processing by maybe 15% to bring the result back to a natural level. My own experience is some of the best diffuse light for Provia occurs at about EV13 when through thin sky blanketing overcast, a bit stronger sunlight filters through locally to the central subject in a landscape while the periphery remains slightly less. ...David

I made some of my best and favorite images in flat light. Even lighting can allow for subtleties of color and details that are just not possible under high contrast light. You just need to recognize what works best in what light. Not all scenes look best in all conditions (in fact most don't). Seek the ones that match the light you have to work with.

Here's one example I recently wrote about:

It's a Big-Brain/Little-Brain Thing

Guy

I want to thank everyone who has commented so far. You have all had helpful comments and ideas that a lot of us can learn from which is exactly my intent with this post.
Let me answer a few of the questions that have been ask of me or at least somewhat implied.
First while my gear is digital thus my question about post processing and the render "Naturally" or "Pump it up" processing, my main question will apply to both digital and film.

Lon, great questions, especially for those of us who are sill working on finding our own style. I have always enjoyed nature and wildlife. Wildlife is one thing that got me into photography, but wildlife photography, at least consistantly good wildlife photography, requires an even greater investment in quality lenses and time in the field (and or luck) which I don't always have. I move to the streams at first light and flat mid-day light because I love being there, being around them and trying to capture what I see and feel by being there. I have found those times and lighting conditions the best for trying to do this. I love good stream photography and would be proud to do it the justice that some on this site do. I won't name names for fear of leaving someone out. I don't want to get away from this type work I just want to find some other options.

Guy, great article and photo.

Bruce

I've come to think that as outdoor photographers, we can't do a whole lot about the light we have at a particular time except learn to work with it. The biggest mistake I see people make with the light on overcast days is they try to make the same kinds of shots as they would on sunny days. Rarely does this work. The low contrast light of a solid gray sky is the time to start looking for more intimate scenes, or those that just don't work when the contrast is high. Using this kind of light can make very effective images that match a more melancholy mood. I love to photo abandoned houses in the very soft gray light of February. I just can't get what I want in the summer.



Kent in SD

Well, you were there and I wasn't, but on my monitor this looks more like an unworked raw image than flat light. One way to find out would be to turn down the brightness and turn up the contrast some. Looks like there are actually shadows in the background.

Anyway, I do all three depending on what potential I see in the image:
1. Try to make it as I remember it(necessary if you expose to the right).
2. Try to make the image as it appeared in my mind's eye before I made the exposure.
3. Just pump it up.

Also, don't be conservative with post processing. Light meters suck, but histograms show you the way.

I think the most important part is not even technical. It is having a strong desire to be out there at that moment creating. I don't know anyone who is "on" 24/7, but when you are really feeling it then get out there regardless of what the conditions look like. The experience will translate to your imagery if you adequate skills. Just because the light looks awesome doesn't mean that your feeling inspired either. I've walked away from sunsets before not feeling anything and I've shot passionately in "bad" lighting as well. The opposite has happened too obviously.

My shooting strategy is that I'll come up with basic ideas for I want to express in my imagery and have an idea for what the conditions might look like then I go out there and improvise based on what comes to mind at that moment. Being able to adapt to different styles based on conditions is very beneficial in my opinion if you want to make the majority of outings a productive one. I don't scout a location looking for specific compositions beforehand. I'm more interested in experiencing what the place looks like in general and discovering what seasonal changes might occur. i think my answer is similar to Kent's.

[quote]Reply posted by Guy Tal on 11/13/07 at 8:40 pm EST


I made some of my best and favorite images in flat light. Even lighting can allow for subtleties of color and details that are just not possible under high contrast light. You just need to recognize what works best in what light. Not all scenes look best in all conditions (in fact most don't). Seek the ones that match the light you have to work with. [quote]

What Mr. Tal said, especially " You just need to recognize what works best in what light. Not all scenes look best in all conditions (in fact most don't). Seek the ones that match the light you have to work with."

I can only add, from my personal taste, a purely technical suggestion. Sometimes an image made under flat light can benefit from a little saturation and contrast boost ( how ever you wish to achieve this in your choice of editing software). But be careful, you can really overdo it and make the image look unnatural. When I capitulated to the pressure of logic and adopted a digital system I continued to use my favorite film, Kodachrome as my benchmark by which I measured my digital images, so my taste runs toward higher color saturation and maybe contrast under flat light. That benchmark doesn't work so well under harsher, more directional light and I have noticed a tendency among some of the photographers here to insist on "all natural" look. So it's pretty much a personal taste decision.

I prefer to work under overcast light much of the time and, as Mr. Tal said, you must be aware of what works under flat light but if you take a look at the cover of this month's Outdoor Photorapher you'll see what I mean.

I had a similar choice when on my day off (at a stream ) the sun rose and it was a NC blue but cloudless sky so I switched to smaller composition of rocks,water,leaves instead of longs shots of the whole stream. I'm repeating what's already been mentioned about finding what works for each situation-if it's not there it's not there that's what makes it so darned satisfyng when it is there. On this particular shot I would be drawn to a tighter composition of the mist rising through the trees.

All very good information, everyone! I'm enjoying this topic, Bruce.. I have a motto: "Making the ordinary extraodinary." I try to live in the moment with my camera.. I may never have the chance to return to a scene at a better time.. I'll look til I see what drew my eye and use every tool and setting I have and maybe with PS in mind too, try and capture it.. (low budget here) Most times I'm successful enough to share it. Sometimes, not so much.. Learning is the important part for me.. Learning about my surroundings, my equipment, myself.. It's all good.