Shoots leaves

[marlene]

One of my clients frequently gets landscape photos (some slides, but mostly digital these days) that we use in various offset printed publications. A lot of the photos we get were shot on overcast days, so the sky is white (or almost white) and there's not much contrast in the photo. If that's the right term. The photos look sort of muddy.

Someone has provided my client with guidelines for shooting landscape photos. Shoot right after dawn or just before sunset, avoiding the midday sun (when there is "too much contrast").

And -- this is the bit I really don't understand -- try to shoot on moderately overcast days with gray skies. And just crop out the gray sky,

I'm not a pro, but this doesn't make sense to me. All of the photos I get that were shot on overcast days require a lot of Photoshop work to make them usable. The photos that were shot on sunny days always look much better to me, and require less tweaking.

So am I out to lunch? Do professional photographers aim to shoot outdoors on overcast days and avoid sunny days?

mxh

[ElyseC]

So am I out to lunch? Do professional photographers aim to shoot outdoors on overcast days and avoid sunny days?Not the photog I used for years! Amongst other subjects, he was well known and respected for his architectural photography. No matter what the lighting conditions he could make silk purses from sow's ears. He'd often do multiple exposures with a locked-down camera, then layer them in Photoshop and mix & match bits of the scene (each layer or selection enhanced as necessary) to get the final photo.

One December he shot our decorated house at night, changing the lighting from a lone, handheld spotlight for each shot. The camera was locked down on the tripod, so every shot was in perfect register with the rest. We then composited them together to get the final photo that could only be done with this multiple shot technique. The scene looked like your eyes perceived it in real life, but would be impossible for a single camera shot to capture.

[Bo Aakerstrom]

There's not much contrast in the photo. If that's the right term. The photos look sort of muddy.
You have identified the problem correctly. Low contrast results in a percieved loss of sharpness in most cases.

Shoot right after dawn or just before sunset, avoiding the midday sun (when there is "too much contrast").
At dawn or sunset there will be a slight yellow cast on your pictures, that can be corrected in whatever software you are using (if you want to - I think it can add something positive to nature photos, myself). Early in the morning the air is usually clearer than later in the day which is good for telephoto shots.

At midday if the sun is out in full force, the results can be a bit too contrasty It is important to remember that the eye can perceive a greater range of shades from dark to light that either film or digital media and too much contrast can result in areas being either blocked out (black) or burnt out (white), with no actual detail in them.

Try to shoot on moderately overcast days with gray skies. And just crop out the gray sky
Gray skies results in low contrast, as you have already noticed! Cropping out the sky might prove more work than it's worth or even downright impossible if you want a realistic look, depending on what's in the picture.

A very slight haze is the best conditions, but perhaps it doesn't always occur when you need it.

Use a slow to medium film, or a low to medium ISO setting if you're shooting on digital, together with a slight gray filter, or a polarising filter if used with caution.

[iamback]

So am I out to lunch? Do professional photographers aim to shoot outdoors on overcast days and avoid sunny days?Depends...

Every light has its own qualty and advantages and disadvantages depending on subject matter. Here's an excellent article I just read about light, by Alain Briot:
How to Find the Best Light for a Specific Photograph (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/composition-4.shtml)

(Other articles in the series are quite good as well.)

[marlene]

Wow, he sounds like a really fixated photographer (but I mean that in a good way)!

The photos I get are usually not from pros -- they are from company owners who happen to have their own digital cameras (which they think makes them photographers).

mxh

[marlene]

Gray skies results in low contrast, as you have already noticed! Cropping out the sky might prove more work than it's worth or even downright impossible if you want a realistic look, depending on what's in the picture.

So you don't agree with the writer who recommends shooting on an overcast day? I don't agree with him, but I need backup!

mxh

[iamback]

Wow, he sounds like a really fixated photographer (but I mean that in a good way)!And a good teacher as well, and on top of that very readable. :)

The photos I get are usually not from pros -- they are from company owners who happen to have their own digital cameras (which they think makes them photographers).The cameras actually could, in a sense - but not immediately. A big advantage of digital cameras is that you can get immediate feedback - disappointed with your shot? Try again! Not everyone will do that - but some people will and thus the camera becomes a teacher - in a way an analog camera never can.

[marlene]

Very interesting article. Briot also likes overcast days.

Maybe the real problem is not the overcast sky per se, but that the photos I receive which were shot on overcast days were shot by bad photographers!

mxh

[Bo Aakerstrom]

So you don't agree with the writer who recommends shooting on an overcast day? I don't agree with him, but I need backup!

mxh
There is a saying here in the UK: horses for courses: if it is what you want then go for it! Although from an aesthetic point of view it doesn't look very pleasing (my subjective view).

If it involves getting rid of the sky, then it is a no-no! What do they expect you to do? Replace it!?

The other issue with shooting in that kind of conditions (apart from the contrast) is under exposure, even if modern cameras cope quite well in most situations.

[Michael Rowley]

Bo:

The other issue with shooting in that kind of conditions (apart from the contrast) is under exposure, even if modern cameras cope quite well in most situations.

I thought that landscape photography didn't offer exposure problems: after all, it doesn't move, and you can use a tripod, can't you? But often you must insert your own sky, and that seems a problem only in digital photography.

[Bo Aakerstrom]

I thought that landscape photography didn't offer exposure problems: after all, it doesn't move, and you can use a tripod, can't you? But often you must insert your own sky, and that seems a problem only in digital photography.
Any type of image with a significant area that is either lighter or darker than the average reading will need an exposure adjustment of some kind.

An overcast sky is usually much lighter than the rest of the scene.

As regards to exposure times; it is really a different issue altogether.

If you have got a tripod you should use it, as you pointed out, nature scenes are pretty static unless it is windy or if you have an earth quake (!) - you will get much sharper pictures that way.

Perhaps there is less margin for error when it come to digital photography compared to negative film stock, some transparancy stock have hardly any exposure latitude at all.

[gary]

Shoot right after dawn or just before sunset, avoiding the midday sun (when there is "too much contrast").This sounds like advice given (by Kodak) for film-based photography; morning and evening light reduce contrast and make it easier to avoid washing out highlights -- like shooting F8 (F11?) at one over film speed in normal sunlight or adjusting the exposure for the conditions.

[iamback]

Perhaps there is less margin for error when it come to digital photography compared to negative film stock, some transparancy stock have hardly any exposure latitude at all.Negative film tends to have a lot more exposure latitude than slide film.

[iamback]

This sounds like advice given (by Kodak) for film-based photography; morning and evening light reduce contrast and make it easier to avoid washing out highlights -- like shooting F8 (F11?) at one over film speed in normal sunlight or adjusting the exposure for the conditions.While at the same time an overcast sky acts like a great big natural diffuser, avoiding overly-strong contrasts and giving you much more detail in shadows. (And there's overcast and then there's overcast: a thin veil is going to give you very different light - and a very white sky - than a sky with heavy rainclouds which can look very dramatic, too.)

What's best? It simply depends on your subject!

No choice of when to take your picture? Then make the best of what you have - correct exposure to start with, choice of subject and the way to shoot it if you can. And a digital camera can do different things than an analog camera can - and vice versa - it may help to carry both, or even attempt the same shot with both.

Partly cloudy sky? That may be nice if it's going to be in the picture; but depending on your subject it may be worth it to wait a while until the sun comes out from under a cloud - or the opposite: wait until a cloud gets before the sun. And if you have the time and patience it gives you the option to try both and see which works best for your current subject.

[Michael Rowley]

Bo:

An overcast sky is usually much lighter than the rest of the scene.

I must confess that I was only seriously interested in photography until I was about 25, i.e while I was at university. But then it was generally ackknowledged that (a) as a rule, skies are not interesting, while landscape often is; (b) that landscape photography doesn't usually offer exposure problems, because you can take as long as your stop & light meter indicate. Digital cameras (about which I know nothing) may probably offer more sensitivity to light, but lenses haven't become much more better designed (although cheaper); and a semi-professional camera costs about as much (£500 to £1000) as it ever did.

[ElyseC]

The photos I get are usually not from pros -- they are from company owners who happen to have their own digital cameras (which they think makes them photographers).Oh yeah, they're everywhere. <g>

[Bo Aakerstrom]

I must confess that I was only seriously interested in photography until I was about 25, i.e while I was at university. But then it was generally ackknowledged that (a) as a rule, skies are not interesting, while landscape often is; (b) that landscape photography doesn't usually offer exposure problems, because you can take as long as your stop & light meter indicate. Digital cameras (about which I know nothing) may probably offer more sensitivity to light, but lenses haven't become much more better designed (although cheaper); and a semi-professional camera costs about as much (£500 to £1000) as it ever did.
Technicalities aside, photography is as sujective as any other visual artform and it would be boring if everybody had the same opinions.

IMHO, the sky is an integral part of the landscape in the picture and therefore it is important.

Modern cameras (even point and shoot cameras) are pretty good at evaluating scenes these days and very few people, except professional photographers, carry lightmeters.

Indeed, lenses aren't any better, quite the contrary, due to the use of zoom lenses and plastics (I'm sure the manufacturers have a technical sounding word to use here!) instead of glass I would say lenses are not as good as they once were. It is part cost and part convenience, why carry several fixed focal length lenses when you can just use the one lens for everything...

[Michael Rowley]

Bo:

due to the use of zoom lenses and plastics

Plastics? Good Lord! I'm not one to knock plastics, since I worked in the industry, but no one would deny the vastly better durability of glass, and I can't think of any use for plastics in lenses, apart from their use for spectacles.

[iamback]

Plastics? Good Lord! I'm not one to knock plastics, since I worked in the industry, but no one would deny the vastly better durability of glass, and I can't think of any use for plastics in lenses, apart from their use for spectacles.One use is the lenses in discardable cameras. "Durability" is not what they're made for - quite the opposite! And given that they are plastic, they can actually be surprisingly good.

I was certainly surprised at what I got from two of such cameras on a "spare" day in Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh - a photographic impression (http://www.xs4all.nl/~iamback/travel/1999/CHI-99/show/index.html)

I'm told some camera phones also have plastic lenses, but those are getting better now; I'm pretty sure mine is glass.

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

given that they are plastic, they can actually be surprisingly good

Suitable plastics have the disadvantages of having a lower refractive index than glass and of being rather easily scratched. For the comparatively long focal lengths generally required of spectacle lenses, the lower refractive index is not a problem (and the lower density decreases their mass), but for camera lenses I can't see any advantages.

I'm told some camera phones also have plastic lenses

Now there you have two useless (for most people) applications in one!

[Bo Aakerstrom]

I'm told some camera phones also have plastic lenses, but those are getting better now; I'm pretty sure mine is glass.
They'll soon be made from liquid, if this article (http://www.theregister.com/2004/12/01/varioptics_liquid_lens/) is anything to go by!

[iamback]

They'll soon be made from liquid, if this article (http://www.theregister.com/2004/12/01/varioptics_liquid_lens/) is anything to go by!Interesting...

Note that was published Wednesday 1st December 2004. And then (...a little googling...) we also had this (Friday, March 05, 2004): New Liquid Lens Digital Camera Tech (http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/6605/new-liquid-lens-digital-camera-tech/); and later (Wednesday, Aug 17, 2005) this: New patented lens made of liquid paves way for slimmer digital cameras (http://digitalcamera.101reviews.com/news/new-patented-lens-made-of-liquid-paves-way-for-slimmer-digital-cameras).

Note all the different companies and institutions claiming to make liquid lenses: Varioptics, Philips, Singapore-based A*STAR’s Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE), PGS Precision...

On 2 December 2004 (one day after the Register article) Roland Piquepaille writes in Liquid Lenses For Camera Phones (http://www.primidi.com/2004/12/02.html): "It's worth noting that the Register published in March 2004 a story named "The $5 ‘no moving parts’ fluid zoom lens -- twice" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/15/the_5_no_moving_parts/) in which it compared the Varioptic patents with another one filed by Philips. As the Philips patent clearly made references to the Varioptic ones, it is highly possible that Philips needs to license the Varioptic technology if it wants to use it." That explains Philips, apparently - but what about IMRE with yet another patent?

And, or course, what about the claim in the Register article that "Paillard expects products will be on the shelves by Q1 2006 at the latest, and maybe even in time for Christmas next year."?
This (Tuesday 07 February 2006): Varioptic Liquid Camera Lens Ready for Production (http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/varioptic-liquid-camera-lens-ready-for-production-153150.php).

So now things are getting really interesting. ;)

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

'So now things are getting really interesting'

Because a thing can be done doesn't show that it's desirable. Cameras have been sufficiently portable for years (desirable), but there ought to be requirement for a licence for a portable telephone, to be granted only to those that can show sufficient need; that would provide silence in railway carriages and considerably less noise on the streets.

[Cristen Gillespie]

I'm not a pro, but this doesn't make sense to me. All of the photos I get that were shot on overcast days require a lot of Photoshop work to make them usable. The photos that were shot on sunny days always look much better to me, and require less tweaking.

So am I out to lunch? Do professional photographers aim to shoot outdoors on overcast days and avoid sunny days?

mxh

You've received a lot of answers, but one that isn't mentioned is the pro photographer is often thinking of what can be done after to the "negative," whether a la Ansel Adams in the darkroom, or today's digital darkroom.

In general, the a raking light reveals (to us) detail that overhead light flattens and washes out. In a large subject, such as the landscape, you would want to avoid high noon on a sunny day. That's why the hours up to 10 am or so, and after 3 pm or so, are flattering to landscapes. The angle of light reveals texture and form, and the contrast isn't so high that it exceeds the latitude of any film, even digital (currently).

In general, shooting on an overcast day increases color saturation. Bright light washes out color. Such a day also opens up large shadow areas so you can see detail within them. In general, that's a good thing. Pros often avoid the blank white skies by using filters, especially graduated ND filters, and possibly polarizers, depending. They don't usually shoot blank skies on purpose!<G>

But none of these general rules preclude the need for any post-processing. Usually some post-processing makes better pictures, whatever the light. And if the photographer isn't very good, softer light is probably going to produce better results (that is, results that can be post-processed into something decent) than the harsh midday light of full sun, but you'll still get pretty bad pictures.