Restricted photography between noon and five p.m.

[Experiment_626]

Look at Edward Weston. Henri Cartier-Bresson. Walker Evans. Diane Arbus. Dorthea Lange. And lets not forget Lee Friedlander. ... I could go on, there are so many to list. You find hard shadows. Uneven light. It's all over what is considered by most to be fine art photography. Not that you want that for a family portrait, but art isn't confined to that.

No — but neither is it defined by those you listed.

There is no bad light. There are only photographers who can't see how to use the light.

If the light doesn't fit your vision of the image you want to make, then I think it is fair to call it "bad light." I often want to make particular image that I've "pre-visualized" in my head. Sometimes I might react to the light not giving me what I want by finding some other way to use it, and sometimes not. If I want sunset light, the middle of the day will produce a spectacularly poor sunset — so to speak.

And as for the photographers you mentioned — those (other than Evans) are almost all portraits of one sort or another. I think William was talking mostly about landscapes/scenics. At least, I know that's what I'd be thinking of. For the most part, the type of photography those people did doesn't appeal to me. I know they are considered giants of photography, but I don't hang reputations on the wall.

SSB

 

[WDWFigment]

No — but neither is it defined by those you listed.
If the light doesn't fit your vision of the image you want to make, then I think it is fair to call it "bad light." I often want to make particular image that I've "pre-visualized" in my head. Sometimes I might react to the light not giving me what I want by finding some other way to use it, and sometimes not. If I want sunset light, the middle of the day will produce a spectacularly poor sunset — so to speak.

And as for the photographers you mentioned — those (other than Evans) are almost all portraits of one sort or another. I think William was talking mostly about landscapes/scenics. At least, I know that's what I'd be thinking of. For the most part, the type of photography those people did doesn't appeal to me. I know they are considered giants of photography, but I don't hang reputations on the wall.

SSB

The point stands that 'art' can be made of photos in any conditions. To argue otherwise requires an artificially constrained definition of art. Just because you or I may not like shooting in harsh light doesn't mean that photographic art cannot be made in those conditions.

 

[photo_chick]

No — but neither is it defined by those you listed.

SSB

Abolutely true. What constitutes art is really subjective. Which is why it's pretty narrow minded to dismiss a type of light in general and say you can't make art with that. That was my point. You may not be able to make the art YOU want, but someone else might love that kind of light.

Landscape with shadow and hard light... Ansel Adams. Edward Weston. Margret Bourke-White.

edited to add... back to the point at hand... we're talking about shooting at Disney here. a place with a wide range of lighitng conditions. To me tying one hand behind your back by not shooting at a certain time seems like a huge missed opporunity.

 

[wbeem]

I'm going to have to disagree here.... Avoid harsh shadows if you're trying to make art? Maybe you should pick up a book on the history of photography as art. Go visit some galleries and museums and really look at what is there.

Look at Edward Weston. Henri Cartier-Bresson. Walker Evans. Diane Arbus. Dorthea Lange. And lets not forget Lee Friedlander. ... I could go on, there are so many to list. You find hard shadows. Uneven light. It's all over what is considered by most to be fine art photography. Not that you want that for a family portrait, but art isn't confined to that.


There is no bad light. There are only photographers who can't see how to use the light.

Jesus, could you be a little more condescending with your reply? I mean, seriously, who pissed in your Cheerios?

With that said, we'll disagree. You can drop all the names that you want, but at the end of the day, the light you use has a major impact upon the results of your photos. There may be a use for hard shadows in some cases, but it's usually a sign of a photographer who doesn't know what she's doing.

 

[wbeem]

Quick question. If the mid day sun is too harsh and would prevent you from shooting at all, why not look at a circular polarizer? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what they're made for?

Seriously, if I'm wrong correct me before I finally pick one up!!!

A polarizer doesn't change the shadows cast by harsh light.

 

[wbeem]

Couldn't it also be said that there can be 'beauty in the imperfection' in art?

I know a lot of artists who couldn't care less about technical perfection, but are hell-bent on capturing/creating emotion provoking works. To that end, a lot of the "rules" of photography (or other crafts) go out the window.

I think you're mostly right with your 'it depends upon your intent,' though. Lighting is very important to a lot of photographers, but not so important to others.

I'll shoot whenever, but I do find myself shooting less during those hours.

There is nothing technically imperfect about shooting in harsh light. A correct exposure is a correct exposure. Is it artistic? That's in the eye of the beholder.

For example, I could put down a small flash on the ground, fire it at a model, and make a photo of the person next to a huge shadow. That's harsh light and somewhat artistic. I wouldn't do the same thing for a portrait, though, since gore lighting is generally unflattering.

 

[WDWFigment]

There is nothing technically imperfect about shooting in harsh light. A correct exposure is a correct exposure. Is it artistic? That's in the eye of the beholder.

For example, I could put down a small flash on the ground, fire it at a model, and make a photo of the person next to a huge shadow. That's harsh light and somewhat artistic. I wouldn't do the same thing for a portrait, though, since gore lighting is generally unflattering.

You're right, it's not technically imperfect. I think think of quite the right term for it, though. I think you know what I mean, right?

My point is that it can still be 'art' and in certain circumstances might even enhance a shot. I agree with what you're saying in general, I just thought your 'you get lousy results' in harsh light was a bit strong. I think that statement is right at least 90% of the time, and I'm not trying to split hairs here, I just think that (as with most things photography-related) you can't speak in absolutes.

 

[photo_chick]

Jesus, could you be a little more condescending with your reply? I mean, seriously, who pissed in your Cheerios?

With that said, we'll disagree. You can drop all the names that you want, but at the end of the day, the light you use has a major impact upon the results of your photos. There may be a use for hard shadows in some cases, but it's usually a sign of a photographer who doesn't know what she's doing.

Good to know that I don't know what I'm doing. I'm so glad you told me otherwise I might never have known. LOL

You are obviously are missing the bigger picture here. No pun intended.

 

[handicap18]

As for shooting in the afternoon on a bright sunny day.... I try to avoid it as I don't like the shadows it casts over the subject. I will use a flash if I'm photographing people and try to line them up behind the light as much as I'm able. The flash helps fill in the shadows, but its taken me a while to get the right amount of flash power. I rarely shoot with the flash at full power and almost always use a diffuser.

I don't like shooting landscape shots during those hours because on a bright cloudless sunny day you'll more than likely end up with part of the image properly exposed and another part either over or under exposed. Some of it can be avoided using a polarizing filter, but not always. I'll use a polarizer if I'm shooting towards the sun and want to get the sky to be better exposed.

But like others have said, I'd rather take the picture with bad light than not have a picture at all. Especially if its someplace that I can't visit often or is a one time visit.


As for Art,,, I work with a guy named Art and as much as he can be obnoxious, loud, and always wanting to be a part of other peoples conversation and has an opinion on everything, sometimes you like him and sometimes you don't want to be around him, when it comes down it, if you need help he's always one of the first to step up, lend a hand and do the right thing. Everyone has a different view about Art and not everyone comes to the same conclusions. I tell people my view, but if their experiences is different who am I to change them or tell them their wrong. Art is Art. Take him or leave him. He is who he is.

 

[Experiment_626]

The point stands that 'art' can be made of photos in any conditions. To argue otherwise requires an artificially constrained definition of art. Just because you or I may not like shooting in harsh light doesn't mean that photographic art cannot be made in those conditions.

The subjectivity of art is more or less the point I was trying to make. There are masters of photography — and other forms of art — whose work I frankly just don't like very much. And that's okay — just as I have no problem with those who think the same work is the cat's meow (whatever that means). I do have a problem with those who tell me that I'm somehow at fault for not holding something in the same regard that they do, or for liking things that they don't think should be liked. My former co-worker couldn't understand how it was that I didn't care for the work of Jackson Pollock, for example, and would sometimes resort to reminding me that he (the co-worker) had an art degree and I do not — which made me have to remind him that an art degree isn't meant to make it so that your opinion trumps the opinions of others, but rather to help you understand why you like what you like and to guide you better in your own artistic endeavors.

I can think of at least one place where I'd shoot a scenic in the middle of the day; in the Caribbean, that intensely blue water you see in photos is at its most vivid when the sun is high overhead. But most of the time, I'll stick to sunrise and sunset and the vicinity of same for a landscape, if I have the luxury of doing so. But by all means, I'd certainly not pass up a once in a lifetime shot because the sun wasn't at the angle I'd prefer. The result, however, might never convince me that it is all it could be. Just my own opinion, one with which many would agree, and many would not. That's the beauty of art — each person can take what they find in it.

SSB

 

[meanpc]

When my wife told me Magic Hour at EPCOT was at 7am tomorrow, she caught me off guard. I thought she had been doing research and had even scheduled the two magic hours each day. Turns out she didnt know what the real magic hour was,she was referring to extra magic hours.

Art arguments are tough, because you can never prove anything. Realistically, I think most of us know that most people seem to make images that please the most people in softer light. Ive seen tons of products photogs use to make hard light soft, but if you look for a light hardener you might find a smaller selection.

Ive found when talking about art, it is usually a good idea to say exactly what you want first, then throw a few appropriately placed 'often, sometimes, usually' hedgers to soften the tone or to give myself a way out when I'm wrong. It might weaken the position some, but you might not have to argue semantics and split hairs quite as much.

Harsh light is a valid light to use, but it's a lower fidelity medium by nature. It's more of an on/off medium as opposed to 256 shade grayscale. Maybe like sharpies vs. Charcoal? Sure, you could create art with the sharpie but it's generally relegated to more mundane tasks.

 

[photo_chick]

When my wife told me Magic Hour at EPCOT was at 7am tomorrow, she caught me off guard. I thought she had been doing research and had even scheduled the two magic hours each day. Turns out she didnt know what the real magic hour was,she was referring to extra magic hours.

Art arguments are tough, because you can never prove anything. Realistically, I think most of us know that most people seem to make images that please the most people in softer light. Ive seen tons of products photogs use to make hard light soft, but if you look for a light hardener you might find a smaller selection.
Ive found when talking about art, it is usually a good idea to say exactly what you want first, then throw a few appropriately placed 'often, sometimes, usually' hedgers to soften the tone or to give myself a way out when I'm wrong. It might weaken the position some, but you might not have to argue semantics and split hairs quite as much.

Harsh light is a valid light to use, but it's a lower fidelity medium by nature. It's more of an on/off medium as opposed to 256 shade grayscale. Maybe like sharpies vs. Charcoal? Sure, you could create art with the sharpie but it's generally relegated to more mundane tasks.

There are a number of products we use in the studio that confine the spread of a light source to make the light harder so there is a more abrupt change between light and shadow.

I think a lot of people overlook hard light in some really great images because they don't realize that is what was used. There are genres of film and photography that need hard light to achieve their aesthetic. It's not every one's cup of tea but to say it's less aesthetically pleasing or that it's relegated to more mundane tasks.. well I'm really glad my professors didn't feel that way when I spent a semester exploring film noir lighting in the studio.

Soft, even light is easier to work with. It's in the comfort zone of a lot of photographers. There's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean beautiful images cannot be made with harder light or that they're lacking tonal range or are somehow clumsy as you imply.

 

[wbeem]

Soft, even light is easier to work with. It's in the comfort zone of a lot of photographers. There's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean beautiful images cannot be made with harder light or that they're lacking tonal range or are somehow clumsy as you imply.

Hard light is no more or less difficult to work with than soft light. It isn't a matter of skill or comfort, it's a matter of creating a pleasing result.

I would love to see some of your hard light examples - particularly if they were taken in one of the Disney parks. Studio light shaping is fun, but that's a controlled environment, and this thread seemed to be about shooting outside of the studio. Please, show us some of your examples from mid-day sun.

 

[photo_chick]

"It's a matter of creating a pleasing result".

Exactly. But what is visually pleasing is different for everyone. Just like what constitutes art is different for everyone.

 

[Experiment_626]

I'm working under the presumption that when we say "pleasing," we all mean as it satisfies each particular photographer. And sunrise and sunset light, I think, isn't always particularly "soft" the way the light is on an overcast day — it can still be very directional and has a different color, for sure, but can be just as "harsh" (for lack of a better word) as midday sun. But it is often less intense, so one difference is that the exposures made during that time of day can be longer, so that more shadow detail is revealed. Of course, if shadow detail is desired, HDR is one way to get it even at high noon.

Sunrise and sunset are perceived by many people (certainly not just photographers) as a "magical" time of day, probably because of the color and the look of the sky more than for the directionality of the light. It is that which makes me find those times so compelling, I think.

One other thing I should have mentioned earlier … some of the work of the photographers mentioned earlier in this thread falls into the category of art that I like but wouldn't want on my wall (in the same way that I think The Dark Knight is a great film but is too grim to watch all that often) and then there's that I appreciate but don't really enjoy, per se (I'd compare that to Schindler's List, a fantastic movie that makes me cry). I recognize the merits of using photography to artistically present the human condition, but that isn't the sort of art I want to make. In my opinion, there are plenty of examples of art and other things that serve as variations on the theme that life sucks. I don't feel a need or desire personally to express myself in the direction nor to spend most of time looking at such photography, but I certainly wouldn't presume to tell another artist what he should or shouldn't do. How could I do that, really, and then claim my own right to express myself as I please?

SSB

 

[Experiment_626]

would love to see some of your hard light examples - particularly if they were taken in one of the Disney parks. Studio light shaping is fun, but that's a controlled environment, and this thread seemed to be about shooting outside of the studio. Please, show us some of your examples from mid-day sun.

I'd like to see some as well. I welcome anything that might cause me to reevaluate my opinions (and I'll take inspiration anywhere I can find it, to be honest).

SSB

 

[photo_chick]

My personal stuff is pretty much all the gallery in my signature. But what you'll see is only going to be inspiring if you like cute kids. LOL

If you want real inspiration in this type of photograph seriously look at the masters. There's a reason they force art students to study them in school. I don't personally like all the work either but if you keep looking at enough photographers you eventually find one or two whose work you connect with.

 

[meanpc]

I guess I'll defer to your art education, all I have is my limited experience to work from and I'm learning all the time. I certainly don't think beautiful art and images can't be made with hard light, especially in the studio.

Even though I'm a soft light guy usually, I like using hard light to "find the edges" sometimes. I'll throw up a few hard-light images, since so far it's been all talk and no pictures in this thread.

 

[meanpc]

 

[wbeem]

I guess I'll defer to your art education, all I have is my limited experience to work from and I'm learning all the time. I certainly don't think beautiful art and images can't be made with hard light, especially in the studio.

Even though I'm a soft light guy usually, I like using hard light to "find the edges" sometimes. I'll throw up a few hard-light images, since so far it's been all talk and no pictures in this thread.

Let's go back to the original post in this thread where the question was about shooting in midday harsh light at WDW.

Do you have any pictures under those conditions that you'd like to share? Hard light pictures in a controlled, setup studio aren't really addressing the initial subject.