Printable View
Hi all,
I've always learned that when shooting landscape, it's better to wait for the golden hours (sunrise-sunset) because the light will make the photos more interesting. However, I wonder if I can make my picture POP even under cloudy weather and weird lighting situations? Also, i would like to have minimum post processing...so it would be more natural to the eyes.
It depends on what type of "cloudy weather", some types of cloudy days make very interesting background.Quote:
Originally Posted by francongphotography
Sure you can make it "POP" with less than ideal lighting. My first thought is the use of filters, (neutral density, graduated density, polarizing and a whole assortment of other creative filter types). Not that I am claiming to be an expert on their use by any means, I just know the options are there and there are those that make very beautiful pictures from mediocre situations.
In regard to your last statement, if you want to make something that is drab and lifeless that does not on its own "POP", then you have to modify it. Whether it be at the camera or at the computer. I believe in getting it right at the camera, this year at Yellowstone there were times I spent a half hour on one shot. The amazing part about this is my brother didn't complain once. If you do not want the time in post processing, invest the time in getting it right at the camera. (waiting on the golden hour, messing with settings and filters).
I know you specified "minimum post-processing", but cloudy days can be a good time to try a HDR shot. Doing so can often generate the desired pop. This is a three-shot HDR from the Isle of Canna, in the Scottish Hebrides:
http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Tra...MG678567-L.jpg
I'd say it depends on the clouds. I actually think some clouds are often better than no clouds. Especially if they're moving, you can wait for a pattern to complement your composition. Even at 'golden hours' a cloud pattern can add interest and sometimes striking colors. Low, dark clouds give a moody feel.
OTOH, with a high, solid overcast, it's hard to do much with that. A CPL is useless - overcast is a giant diffusion filter, there's no directional light to be polarized. A grad ND will let you show some cloud detail vs. blown out white, but that detail is usually uninteresting. A grad tobacco filter, etc., can color the clouds, but IMO it's not that helpful. Often, the best you can do is a composition that minimizes the amount of sky in the shot.
I agree with the others especially if you plan to include the sky, but a landscape does not have to include the sky. An overcast day helps to control the shadows in the shot. If the clouds are interesting, then make sure they are a prominent part of the shot. However, if the clouds are boring and just a dull gray, then you compose so you show very little or none of the sky. Ugly overcast just means you switch philosophies, and maybe zoom in and isolate an aspect of the landscape. Waterfalls are great on overcast days by keeping the light more even and diffused, and you do not get that washed out areas were the sun reflects off the white water. If you can get fog or mist, then all the better (in fact, I look for those days to go shooting).
Here is an example of when it was a dreary day at noon to mid-afternoon, but the atmosphere made the shot. In this case you make sure the foreground is interesting and it lets you get the idea of what the rest of the background looks like. Also notice I only showed a small amount of the sky so you get a faint hint of the horizon on a rolling hillside.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6217/6...a875ebe8_z.jpg
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I will try to focus on the subject rather than the uninteresting cloudy sky, or use filters when necessary. Maybe one day i will touch on that HDR kinda thing. Anyways, I took these photos a couple days ago and it was really cloudy..I wanna know if these are 'good' shot for a cloudy weather picture? I know my first shot's shaky..Don't have IS with my lens..and didn't use my tripod (my velbon tripod takes forever to set up and I was in a hurry to go to a tutor session, and yes I try to take pictures whenever i can even in a tight schedule) I should have used a tripod for a sharp photo..but other than that, please criticize my photos..hopefully I will learn a thing or two from you pros and senior photographers
Attachment 384Attachment 385
Nice composition and both of those Franco.
Hi Franco and welcome. +1 on the great composition for these. For me, the first one needs the exposure boosted a bit....the second on works well as a silhouette.Quote:
Originally Posted by francongphotography
Shot on Burnaby mountain, right? Yes, a tripod would've been a benefit but kinda cumbersome carrying your tripod while running to class I imagine. Is there a way to strap it to the side of your back pack? Good luck with the tutoring.
Cheers,
Damian
Franco:
I think they look good. I do like the first one best. You use the path and beches to lead into the shot and the horizon introduces some nice color.
On the first one, if it was me, I probably would have cropped some of the sky off the top to avoid centering the horizon and getting rid of some of the gray sky. If you shot it in RAW, then you could play with the white balance (it seems a little blue) to warm it up a bit. However, all that is a mater of personal taste, and everyone will look at it a little differently.
Nice job.
Pat
Thanks for all your comments guys, really appreciate it. Gonna definitely try out all the suggestions.