Death to " harsh " light

My apologies to Jay Patel's previous thread " Ignored in the pursuit of passion " and all who thoughtfully posted in response. I've made a personal promise to myself to eliminate the word "harsh" when describing lighting conditions. That word kept cropping up everywhere it's just "unfiltered sunlight" which with proper techniques, can be over come to make beautiful and stunning images. I'm not advocating avoidance of any "light" but it does seem as if that some find other activities during the hours other than dawn or sunset. Perhaps they operate under the axiom only maddogs and englishman go out in the midday sun. To me it's a "challenge" just like dealing with the magic hours light with it's own set of "challenges" that are overcome with tools and technique, Nuetral density filters and mutiple exposures for blending to name a few. I'm throwing this out there to see what the "community" thinks.

Paul

I've dredge up my mantra from the 60's: "Go with the flow, man. Just go with the flow." That means I work with the conditions I have.

I'm with Hank. What light I have is what light I have!

At the very least, I'm perfecting my techniques in other areas. My recent series of mating avocets at 1 pm was in very tough light, but the images were still acceptible.
When I'm out shooting for the day, I'm usually far from home and am not about to take a nap for 4 hours around noon.

I've gotten stunning duck reflections and beautiful water at noon, although it's often "non-ideal" light. Note I did not use the "h" word.


Sandy r

I see your point. "Good light" really depends on what you're shooting. Midday sun is great for the classic tropical beach shot, so they say. Fluffy cloud cover diffusing the sun and functioning as multiple white reflectors to open up shadows can make midday light workable for other landscapes. However, no matter what you do with filters, hdr, blending, etc, midday unfiltered sun on the classic landscape is just not attractive light in MOST cases, and therefore can not be 'overcome'. Sometimes folks just want an excuse to not get up early or have to walk back after dark!

Paul, although there truly is no need to surrender entirely to the out of "prime-time light" so to speak, I do think for me at least there are minimized options. Much of that is because I choose to shoot transparencies, the latitudes can be very, very, narrow. Again, for me there is no sense in wasting the additional expense for something that will have "inked/blocked-upped" shadows, and or, 'bleached/blown-out" highlights. However, all that said one should try other options that will permit work to be performed in open shadow areas where the light may not be too contrasty for the media being used. I'm sure most landscape photogs would say 99% of all their good work is caught in "prime-time light". Where as a good close-up or macro shooter might say they never even recall what time of the day the image was captured, as there was only an excellent outcome with many of the shot(s) taken.
As you stated, there are the challenges, but also some of the tools you mentioned can indeed assist with those issues.

Paul,

I realize that for format photographers and other film capture shooters they are limited by what is in the camera, and with the expenses involved in processing etc . However digital cameras give the photographers many more options as far as ISO is concerned and sensitivity. I love dawn and sunset light in fact they are my favorite time of day depending on where I am Dawn I prefer mountains and Sunsets the ocean. However I'm in the camp of finding the subjects to match the light whatever the time of day and weather. Which includes the midday sun unfiltered.

Doug,

Midday light is not an excuse to get up later for me. I don't sleep in the car close to the place I'm going to shoot the next morning. I'll get up 2 to 1 and a half hours before first light and drive to the spot, depending on where I am lodged. I will also stick it out all day and not quit until the purple of dusk fades from the sky. I just believe that midday light is stigmitized and denigrated unfairly.Over the years and because of the some the limitations Breitkruz mentioned with film the magic hours have been conquered, and because digital cameras are basically film cameras with brains and electronic image capture as opposed to chemical; digital has followed film. There is "Bad" light for image capture at any time of the day. I've seen Alpenglow fizzle and Sunsets with no color. But I will continue to search at all times and all conditions for the next "wow" image. You'll find me out there with the maddogs and englishmen.

Hank,

I almost made child of the 60's born just a little late but flow sounds good to me.


Sandy,

Non use of the "h" word noted...can't tell the birds and bees when is the time...I hope you post some of your Avocets at play.


Paul

Two of my favorite approaches for bright light are putting the sun right behind me and getting low to hide the shadows, or simply to shoot smaller, especially in the shade. Strong comps are required for both, but hey, that's what landscape is all about to me anyway. This is an example of the first type of shooting from my recent trip to Arches. Probably shot about 10AM, well past "golden" but not quite midday.

In response to Doug's comment...

Sometimes folks want to learn how to get more from a day of shooting. Sometimes folks need to learn to get more from a day out with others (try asking my wife to hit the trail at 3AM). Sometimes folks want to learn to get more from the time they have available to shoot.

Is a mid-day alpine shot with perfect composition and great content going to be as dramatic as first light with a clearing storm? Probably not. Will it sell? You betcha.

I'm working on a sale of large prints (32"X40" to 40"X60") right now and out of all the prints the client is considering, not a single print he selected was taken at first light. The first light images selected for the portfolio have already been eliminated and of those eliminated, some have been selected into juried shows and exhibitions.

Written as I contemplate whether to get out and shoot in some possible good light and fog this morning after 4 hours sleep. Nah - going back to bed.

Excellent observations and example Mel. Producing images that fulfill your own vision likely won't be the same as shooting for art competition or for sales. Jurors, especially non-photographers, are a different lot and playing that game can easily require you to shoot differently than you do for the drools of fellow photographers on a web site. And the folks with the checkbooks can require entirely different shooting.

Bottom line for me is recognizing the differences.

Unless I'm on a job and shooting to a client's specifications, I shoot for myself first. Then as long as I'm at a great location, I'll also compose and expose the same scene for as many diverse "audiences" as I can think of. Call it "market bracketing."

Compose both horizontals and verticals. Frame tight for prints, then open up the top of a vertical frame to allow for text drops. Do it again with the bottom of the frame. Now compose horizontally for a gutter, then compose for a wrap around cover. Now shift positions for a different foreground and do it all again.

If I shoot only one comp of a scene, I might be fulfilling my own vision, but I'm really doing an injustice to the sales opportunities the scene represents.

I just counted, and I did 18 different compositions using the puddle in the shot I posted above. The one you see was shot for me, but the one shot while lying flat on my belly with the puddle closer to the Gossips and extra sky at the top has much more potential for commercial aps. And the low horizontal shot with discrete "scenes" on either side of the frame has great potential for gutters and wraps, but is probably worthless for anything else. They're all in my portfolio now, and they provide many times more sales potential from the same setting than that single posted shot.

Heck, with all that shooting going on, it's inevitable that my days stretch into midday light!

Perhaps they operate under the axiom only maddogs and englishman go out in the midday sun. To me it's a "challenge" just like dealing with the magic hours light with it's own set of "challenges" that are overcome with tools and technique, Nuetral density filters and mutiple exposures for blending to name a few. I'm throwing this out there to see what the "community" thinks.

Paul

Well said....Besides tools creativity can overcome the harsh midday light with some stunning results. Creativity is not something that can be easily thought, but can be developed by a photograph who is willing to step out of the box.

What may seem like a harsh light to one photographer often motivates other photographer to look at things differently. The thread was a more a reminder to myself to step out of the box...and what others thought about shooting at midday.

-Jay

Yet these threads never seem to be accompanied by great photos shot in midday sun. It is possible to get adequate/competant photos of some landscape subjects in average bright light. Especially with B&W.

But like HDR it's more talk than great landscape photography. There's no getting around shooting great light, especially produced by weather conditions. Landscape photography is slow going for people who don't have the motivation to chase the light.

I'll add that wet and cloudy can be shot all day, especially if one excludes the sky.

I would rather enjoy a clear and sunny day rather than take landscape shots that don't have a chance to make the 'A' list for the year.

Ok Folks Mr. Miller has dropped the guantlet. I chase light all day long. In fact my photo excursions aren't much for walkabout like the Aussies more like driveabout. I'm going to post two photo's here in response to this reply. Basically asking " Show me" Photo 1 Purple Graze. Think of this as a spectacular sunset landbound upside down. ( Turn your monitor over)

Photo 2 Both were taken today on driveabout in the Antelope Valley. Joshua's Gift. I was resting in the shade of a solitary Joshua tree. Both phtotos were taken with my old reliable E-500 Iso 100 f-16 1/125

@Don: Here is one taken at mid day:

Here is one by Varina taken in the afternoon. This one was published in Popular Photography couple of years ago.

Does anyone feel they can "beat" harsh light? I'm not sure beating is the right word, and "work around" might be better. I'm talking about things like picking your shot angle to manage shadows, adjusting a polarizer to beat reflections, and even post processing. Then there's the question of "when." Midday in winter gives lower sun angle than summer, with gradations between the extremes spring and fall.

This was shot at midday this March in White Sands National Monument with shadows at a minimum but still available. But midday in July would mean the sun was a lot higher and virtually no shadows. I used a polarizer to manage reflections on the sand, plus I used Selective Color in post processing to manage shadows.

Don kinda asked for the gloves to come off. This is a general discussion thread, not an image posting thread. However....

This particular image, the high sun was needed to get the intense color out of the water. A CPL was used.

Like Hank, I don't typically have much love for blue skies. They're a much bigger motivation killer than high noon for me. I can shoot in moderate overcast, rain and fog happily. I love popcorn clouds on a blue sky. But blank blue skies are tough for me, both in the sky and on the ground. Luckily I can retreat into some nearby canyons to seek shade.

Another where the high sun was needed to get the color from the lake. Shot on Fuji Reala 100 with a CPL.

Bright and cheerful alpine flowers (wish I'd shot it on Portra 160VC instead of digital).

And apologies for one last shot. I grew up in Key West and was amazed by the color of the water as we drove down the first time (I was 8 or 9 at the time I think). The late morning sun brings out the colors of the water better than any other time of day.

This of course is Dry Tortugas, but its a great reminder for me of the colors where I grew up.

A good collection of what works and what doesn't.
BTW, the point was midday sun, not just midday.
IMO Hank's shot and Mel's first shot show the best color, but both have the sky modifying direct sun.
As mel points out, most tropical water shots have to be shot with the sun up to avoid gray water.

When I decided to come out of lurking mode and began posting on this site a few years ago, the status quo for many seemed to be to call anything shot outside the magic hours as "harsh light". In my opinion a notion of the benefits of soft light taken to beyond the practical. So over a period of months I occasionally posted images that grated against that and responded to any that chose to use that term inappropriately. Obviously not something that went over well with some on this board and not a subject I welcomed becoming involved in. Midday light at USA latitudes during summer usually is indeed harsh, beyond the range of either film or sensors and accordingly usually unproductive. Better to take a siesta or scout shots for better hours. Note one still can shoot even at noon sometimes depending on subject like Mel's beautiful lake water image above. But there are other periods beyond what Rowell called magic hours where one can capture fine images. Rowell certainly made many in fact. Of course during winter periods at our northern latitudes, one can at times shoot all day as the sun's altitude and harshness never become a factor with many subjects outside of extremes such as front lit snow, granite, or bright sands.

During summers at our USA latitudes when the sun rises at or before 6am daylight time there has always been a sweet period of light between about 7am and 9:30am that makes for beautiful light if well captured. Likewise the 5pm to 7pm afternoon period. It is what photographers used generally before Velvia or this succeeding generation of digital camera users. My own body of work has a number of images shot at all times of day including magic hours and the above sweet hours in both sunny and cloudy weather conditions. During the last month I spent a couple back to back weekends with my view camera shooting vast hilly areas of wildflowers using Provia. The first weekend was mostly cloudy and the second mostly sunny. Most of the best images were those under sunny conditions because much like fall leaves, wildflower petal colors being translucent, glow providing greater color saturation and brightness versus simple reflective light conditions if one is positioned well with respect to the sun. The cloudy images with more muted colors are all very appealling nonetheless and a couple I would choose over their sunny counterparts. It is also true one can subject the straight muted cloudy diffuse light images to post processing manipulations of contrast and saturation to make the resulting saturation very appealling. If that is the nature of one's style.

Interesting topic, very educational. Being less than a year old as a photog I find it very difficult to get a decent image in full sunlight. Most of my shots to date have been in diffused light of some degree because that is what we get most often in the Pacific NW, but summer is coming and I'll definitely be chasing the golden light.
But even when viewing images of highly skilled and experienced photographers taken in full sun even the best of these seem flat with little depth. Many are certainly beautiful but they rarely give me that sense of "being there'. Is it the direction of the light or its intensity that causes that. A earlier poster on this thread said they like to shoot with the sun a their back in these conditions. I have found that this position creates the worst results, for me at least.

A earlier poster on this thread said they like to shoot with the sun a their back in these conditions. I have found that this position creates the worst results, for me at least.

That was probably me. And in some settings I agree. But the point behind doing it is to minimize or eliminate those deep black shadows when you expose for the ambient bright light. Those are the real killers for me.

Then there's the question of location. Some places just work better than others. The desert in particular lends itself to over-the-shoulder shooting, especially if you're prepared to fill shadows in the foreground. In the shots above, picture Paul Duval's joshua and Mel's final photo with some fill into those shadowed areas. Not picking on them, so much as pointing out situations where fill can be used to great advantage. Sounds weird, but when shooting at midday, I always have a strobe handy.

I would have definitely liked to have had my strobe or reflector with me when I shot the stony pass flowers (#3 in my group). I didn't have room in my pack on that trip. I'd have needed one helluva stobe to light up the shadows in the Dry Tortugas shot though.

I'd have needed one helluva stobe to light up the shadows in the Dry Tortugas shot though.

No kidding! Every photographer's dream- a track-mounted strobe powered by Hoover Dam.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/05-H3-2.jpg

An example of how flower landscapes work well in sunlight with April sun about 3pm PST at Shell Creek. Note except between about 10am and 3pm the poppies will not even be open. Notice the shadows cast by the mid ground oaks. The sun was off to the right and above so this is off axis partially backlit with the sun altitude maybe a modest 45 degrees. When working such areas I usually circle about subjects paying attention to how it subtly effects resulting color and saturation. In this case I had scoped out the shot hours before and kept returning till it looked best.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/05-E5-4.jpg

This image in Death Valley during the epic bloom of 2005. Mid March mid morning sun off to the right maybe at 45 degree altitude, so this again is off axis partially backlit image. The key here was on previous days I had watched this area south of Golden Canyon for when the shadowing brought out the eroded badlands features best and then revisited on one a rare calm morning to freeze the otherwise bobbing desertgold sunflowers. Early morning this landscape that faces west slightly southwest is in shadows. Late afternoon light is appealingly frontlit though features appear flat.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-gg9-3.html

Here we have an alpine environment with Mount Conness left and North Peak right in early September with sun at mid morning nearly perpendicular off to the left. Normally snow in images is a difficult contrasty element. However one ought not make such a black and white rule because if the sun is nearly perpendicular to the plane of the subject snowfields (as it is here for all 3), textures can still be captured and without harshness. Generally as the sun rises higher, one ought best look to work increasingly off axis directions. Earlier in the morning, the shadows cast by the ribs on North Peak tended to blend in to each other without separation while this worked better with each shaddow delineating its particular avalanche chute. The reddish turf areas are arctic willow a ground hugging plant whose leaves change color in early fall. That color is not prominent until the sun rises enough in altitude because the intensity of the color depends upon glowing translucence more than reflection.

Generally a photographer needs to have a keen sensitivity to the variations in lighting and not make any black and white assumptions. If elements look good while viewing, seek out understanding why such light works then learn to exploit such on future subjects.

If you're in the shade how is light harsh??? It's not!

If you're in overcast weather is light harsh? No, it's not.

Big brownie points to photog that creates many shots in the summer when the harshest light of the year is blasting open sunlight with out a cloud in the sky. The people using photomatix do it all the time.

Technically, the light is "harsh" few minutes after the sunrise. I'd keep shooting anyway. It's nature, it's beautiful. For instance this shot here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=147690&CGISESSID=60e94cc279a6f21ec3da02dfdd1ae039&u=31921
It's by far one of my most popular image with the local mountain folks. 3 comments on NPN (there is a harsh light comment there also if you read it). I've posted similar one about a month ago, totally red and it gathered around 20. What does this tell me? That after all, we shoot for us and for our audience, not for nature photographers.

The other thing that keeps appearing is the: "how it's supposed to look issue". On all my reflections shots, I choose (and believe me, I know about exposure) to bring the upper part down with a GND to the level of the reflected light, it's a personal choice, it's an ABSTRACTION, and I keep reading from nature photogs that it SHOULD look darker, not just here on NPN, on other forums also. And my question is: what's the big difference between a totally perfect reflection and blurred water? Both are abstractions we use to enhance our vision, and the reflections are far more natural than a milky river. However the "milky" rivers get a lot of kudos from the photogs crowd and other abstraction (and done in camera by the way) keep catching shrapnel.
I'm not defending the shot, I'm just curious to read about the "valid" and "non-valid" abstractions

I'm not defending the shot, I'm just curious to read about the "valid" and "non-valid" abstractions

It's 99% style, fashion and fad. It pervades life, not just photography.

Consider the "ideal" female model 100 years ago compared to today. Today's fashion says "Yish, she sure is fat," but folks 100 years ago would have called current styles "wasted." And a simple cup of coffee? You're a real Nobody if you order brewed. Better to have a skim decaff latte (more familiarly known as a Why Bother?). And heaven forbid you be seen at a landscape icon with a P&S camera!

And heaven forbid you be seen at a landscape icon with a P&S camera!

Well... I'm in the process of making my own 4x5 P&S, good thing I have no icons here :)

I quick look at weekly pics revealed no shots in unfiltered light. Moderator conspiracy?

I quick look at weekly pics revealed no shots in unfiltered light. Moderator conspiracy?