Restricted photography between noon and five p.m.

[MICKEY88]

I said earlier in the thread: "I'll shoot whenever, but I do find myself shooting less during those hours."

Upon further review (looking at EXIF in Bridge from our last trip), I took far more shots between noon and 5pm than I did during golden/blue/magic hours. During the latter, things like sleep, dinner, and random 'vacation stuff' seemed to get in the way.

It could be said that those who 'settle' for midday photos are content with mediocrity. It could also be said that those who shoot at ANY time of the day are so hell-bent on chasing perfection that they don't need the 'crutch' of perfect lighting and are willing to put in the extra effort to make lemons into lemonade. That is, if your angle is trying to think of this in some abstract emotive way that categorizes photographers into 'lazy' or 'dedicated' based upon what times of day they shoot.

So I'm either lazy or awesome depending on how you look at it. I would like to think that I'm awesome at being lazy.

I vote for Awesome

 

[photo_chick]

But when it comes to better times of the day to take pictures, my opinion (subjective) is that the kind of light is going to affect the end result.

The kind of light absolutely will absolutely affect the end result. And in the end it's totally about the kind of image you want to make. That doesn't mean because a certain kind of light isn't what you want for your images that it's bad. Which is where this all started way too many pages back.

And I didn't quote this part of the post.. but there is nothing that says family photographs can't be amazing images and you have the implication there that they can't be. There are photographers who have built their careers as professional artists off of their candid family photographs and many more used family members as models. You mentioned phones... There is also a growing movement among artists to use cell phones for their photography. I know the majority of the people you see are not doing this, but some people are. There's also the huge low fidelity movement in photography that has many artists picking up toy film cameras which were the point and shoots of their day which I 'm sure would have had them laughed at back when those cameras were made. And my point with all that is what it's been in this thread... there are no limits to what you can use to create images, art, anything. We're only constrained by our own imagination.


And WDWFigment... For whatever it's worth... Awesome.

 

[WDWFigment]

Tom, can you share what post processing was done on those photos you posted? Are they HDR's?

Increased fill light, vibrance, blacks, and contrast (among a few other insignificant adjustments) in Adobe Camera Raw, probably did a curves adjustment layer in Photoshop, too.

No HDR. Those are like 5 minute edits, tops. The SSE one in the middle might've taken 10, as I think I cloned a stroller or something out of that shot.

I vote for Awesome

Hmmm, I was leaning more towards "lazy," myself!

I posted another shot today where I settled for mediocrity.

 

[MICKEY88]

Increased fill light, vibrance, blacks, and contrast (among a few other insignificant adjustments) in Adobe Camera Raw, probably did a curves adjustment layer in Photoshop, too.

No HDR. Those are like 5 minute edits, tops. The SSE one in the middle might've taken 10, as I think I cloned a stroller or something out of that shot.



Hmmm, I was leaning more towards "lazy," myself!

I posted another shot today where I settled for mediocrity.

well you create awesome photos, while being lazy

 

[2Tiggies]

And I didn't quote this part of the post.. but there is nothing that says family photographs can't be amazing images and you have the implication there that they can't be.

I didn't think I implied that at all. The vast majority of my somewhat enormous collection of photographs and digital images over the last ten years are of my daughter and they are very important to me. Some of them I think are really great (considering I took them ) and others are far from perfect as images, but have a perfect place in our collection of memories. I absolutely believe that candid family shots can be great, but the discussion on here started out regarding shooting them in the midday sun vs in the cooler parts of the day. I DO take pictures midday because I WANT to have those memories and I will continue to do so. Looking at my own pictures, the ones taken at midday have a tendency to be a bit more 'washed out' looking and yes, the squinting eyes and harsh shadows kind of messed some of them up, whereas there are others taken in softer light or even in artificial light with a flash which are more pleasing to my eye. They are all special to me - but I recognize that some LOOK better. But that's how I feel about them. I'm not saying it's the only way to get great pictures. Heck, I have yet to take any worth posting on here!

And WDWFigment... For whatever it's worth... Awesome.

There are photographers who have built their careers as professional artists off of their candid family photographs and many more used family members as models.

I prefer candid to more formally posed family photos and absolutely agree with you. But they usually do that in a studio where they create what they believe to be the ideal lighting for these photos.

We're only constrained by our own imagination.

On that point we do agree!

 

[photo_chick]

I didn't think I implied that at all. The vast majority of my somewhat enormous collection of photographs and digital images over the last ten years are of my daughter and they are very important to me. Some of them I think are really great (considering I took them ) and others are far from perfect as images, but have a perfect place in our collection of memories. I absolutely believe that candid family shots can be great, but the discussion on here started out regarding shooting them in the midday sun vs in the cooler parts of the day. I DO take pictures midday because I WANT to have those memories and I will continue to do so. Looking at my own pictures, the ones taken at midday have a tendency to be a bit more 'washed out' looking and yes, the squinting eyes and harsh shadows kind of messed some of them up, whereas there are others taken in softer light or even in artificial light with a flash which are more pleasing to my eye. They are all special to me - but I recognize that some LOOK better. But that's how I feel about them. I'm not saying it's the only way to get great pictures. Heck, I have yet to take any worth posting on here!

Yeah, it started about midday shooting and jumped the rails because of the implications made that you wouldn't want to make art at that time. Then it became a larger discussion about what is art and what can be art. Again, because of implications made in various posts about only shooting snapshots at that time of day or that only a certain type of photo is art.... and it's been an interesting discussion. Which is the point of a forum, right? To discuss things. If we all had the same thoughts and ideas and simply answered the same questions it would get pretty boring.

I prefer candid to more formally posed family photos and absolutely agree with you. But they usually do that in a studio where they create what they believe to be the ideal lighting for these photos.

Do you mean the photographers I'm talking about whose candid family photographs are thier art? I'm just clarifying here because I'm not sure I follow you. The photographers I'm thinking of, and they're pretty well known, are not known for being studio photographers. They shoot candid family in a variety of lighting situations, one that comes to mind very often makes use of the type of full sun that we've been discussing here.

 

[wbeem]

So I'm either lazy or awesome depending on how you look at it. I would like to think that I'm awesome at being lazy.

Doesn't that feel so much better than being mediocre at being lazy?

Most of this has really been blown out of context, but I'll throw another kink in the mix. Think about the definition of "work." You have to produce a result in order to do work. If you go push against a wall, you haven't done any work - even if you're exerted every muscle in your body.

To put that spin on photography, you can work all day long and make some very interesting compositions and photos that you enjoy. That doesn't mean they're the best photos, though, if other circumstances (e.g. Lighting) could have improved the result. It doesn't mean that a person took a bad photo. However, that person may not have taken their best photo.

So as I said at the outset, take all the photos you want. Just don't use excuses to make it seem better than it is, though.

Most people viewing a photo have no interest in what it took to create it. They don't care if we caught it perfectly in a snap or if we went back time & again until the scene came together. They may like a photo...until they see someone else who took a better photo of the same thing. Then their opinion changes as to what is "great." Even then, those opinions will differ from one person to the next.

 

[photo_chick]

Most people viewing a photo have no interest in what it took to create it. They don't care if we caught it perfectly in a snap or if we went back time & again until the scene came together. They may like a photo...until they see someone else who took a better photo of the same thing. Then their opinion changes as to what is "great." Even then, those opinions will differ from one person to the next.

I agree with you here. Most people look at an image and if it appeals to them on a personal level it's good in their eyes. If not, it's bad. And people's opinion will change as they start to learn more about art and/or photography as well. Whether it's learning enough to see the technical flaws in what you previously thought was good, or appreciating what went into what you previously considered bad.

It's all relative to the viewer.

 

[WDWFigment]

Doesn't that feel so much better than being mediocre at being lazy?

Most of this has really been blown out of context, but I'll throw another kink in the mix. Think about the definition of "work." You have to produce a result in order to do work. If you go push against a wall, you haven't done any work - even if you're exerted every muscle in your body.

To put that spin on photography, you can work all day long and make some very interesting compositions and photos that you enjoy. That doesn't mean they're the best photos, though, if other circumstances (e.g. Lighting) could have improved the result. It doesn't mean that a person took a bad photo. However, that person may not have taken their best photo.

So as I said at the outset, take all the photos you want. Just don't use excuses to make it seem better than it is, though.

Most people viewing a photo have no interest in what it took to create it. They don't care if we caught it perfectly in a snap or if we went back time & again until the scene came together. They may like a photo...until they see someone else who took a better photo of the same thing. Then their opinion changes as to what is "great." Even then, those opinions will differ from one person to the next.

Really? Someone might want to notify a few (read: most) people in Washington!

 

[wbeem]

Really? Someone might want to notify a few (read: most) people in Washington!

I tried on my last trip there in February, but they were all out of the office.

 

[WDWFigment]

I tried on my last trip there in February, but they were all out of the office.

Well, to be fair, you were there on National Zamboni Awareness Day, which is like the 34358th biggest holiday of the year!

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok, I have been following this thread from the beginning and just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. Take it for what it is worth. 2 cents.

The OP asked about lighting at WDW. Why not noon to 5pm? Here is my take on this. I would guess that at this point in my hobby, I tend to avoid these hours for taking landscape and architecture type shots at WDW. In general, I think that the harsh shadows and lack of color (washed out by too much light) is not the result that I want. I tend to go for these types of shots earlier in the morning or later in the evening during the "Golden hour" times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28photography%29. I particularly like night time shots but that isn't what we are talking about here.

However, with that being said, I would also like to add that if you take a photo of a memory (child, event, etc) then there is no time limit to when they are taken is there? Do you come back at 5,6,7 pm and ask your child to have that same look on their face or that ice cream on their nose? NO. Snap those photos when they happen, of course. If you are going for a family photo, maybe it is better later in the day because it is staged anyways and can be taken whenever you want.

Most of all, remember that you are on vacation. Enjoy the vacation and don't sit around worrying if a shot will look better at a certain time. Enjoy your family and friends while you have them around.

DSLR vs phone vs point and shoot cameras is an argument for a different day. Shoot with what you have.

Art is so subjective that I personally think an argument about it is a waste of time.

Enjoy your hobby and if you aren't getting the results that you want, learn more about it. It is really that simple. Your question to the fine folks on this board shows me that this is exactly what you are doing. I hope that you have gotten a sufficient answer throughout all of this discussion.

 

[wbeem]

Well, to be fair, you were there on National Zamboni Awareness Day, which is like the 34358th biggest holiday of the year!

I'm proud that our elected officials are willing to shirk their responsibilities in honor of Zambonis across America. Otherwise, I never would have been able to visit the Speaker's Platform overlooking the National Mall - which, of course, was under construction.

 

[photo_chick]

Yes, but does your image of the National Mall include a flying dead cat?

 

[meanpc]

Yes, but does your image of the National Mall include a flying dead cat?

That's a good illustration of how useless it is to have a debate about what is art and what is not art.

 

[photo_chick]

That's a good illustration of how useless it is to have a debate about what is art and what is not art.

Or that one person's art is another person's insanity.

 

[Cafeen]

Or that one person's art is another person's insanity.

Or than one person's insanity is another person's (or that person's ) art!