What is good light?

[Fabs Forns]

We recently had an interesting discussion about "harsh light";

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40183

This time, I'm asking, motivated by a private discussion with Sabyasachi Patra, one of our wildlife moderators, the opposite question, what is considered "good light".

For the sake of the majority of readers, let's keep this at a level easy to understand to an average photographer, not too technical or too scientific.
In plain old colloquial average language, what IS good light?

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

For me personally, any light I can use AF in whether it's at dawn, dusk or midday - I will take a shot even if the sun is high in the sky. :) Seriously.

Although, for ideal shots, as most would have been conditioned on sites like BPN and seeing the majority of photography that is deemed "good or great" out there I suppose - early morning or late afternoon light coming from behind the photographer at the subject so it is lit evenly would be best choice. These times of day also give the beautiful warm feel to the light quality that is so pretty. However, I don't mind subject being side or backlit at all depending on the mood the light creates. I hope this is put simply enough.

[Ken Watkins]

I have to say I agree entirely with Akos, I am not going to take an image just because the light is not "perfect".
Early morning or late evening are clearly better but to my mind the most important thing is the subject or the action, if it is not as well lit as it could be so be it. Sometimes too much attention is paid to technical aspects rather than the moment.

[arash_hazeghi]

I guess a light that is uniform as opposed to very directional so you don't get shadows that are hard to recover and very bright areas that are blown up, preferably lower angle like early morning or late afternoon. Other than that it is all subjective, there is no technical definition for "good" or "harsh" light. For example this is a late evening shot with very warm colors, some people may find it visually pleasing some may not.
There are always exceptions when even a "harsh" light can also create a dramatic photo.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/birds/kestrel%20with%20prey.jpg

Kestrel with 40D good or harsh light?

[Roger Clark]

This is an area where I think most photography books have fallen short. It is very complex and poorly understood.

For example, in this image:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40491
the light appears to be high (look at the sharp shadow on the jackal from its nose). Same with this image:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42985
where light is high. But even if the light is high, the environment for both these images helps make the shot. There is a lot of light reflected from the brown vegetation adding to the warmth of the scene and filling in the shadows in both of those scenes.

This image was done near mid day, which would normally be harsh light, but the light was nicely diffused by clouds:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=43113

The image posted here of the dirt road though aspens, shows a situation that in another setting, might be considered harsh light. The sun is up high in a clear blue sky. The subject is back lit and one would normally have harsh shadows. Further, this image is a scan of 4x5 Velvia transparency, very high contrast film. But the light is very warm, being transmitted light through yellow aspen leaves. Even though the view is into the sun, the diffusing nature of the light transmitted through the leaves fills in the shadows, drastically reducing contrast yet intensifies the color. But its not good light--it's GREAT light.;) The contrast of the yellow with the clear blue sky helps too.


So the light depends not only on the light sources but the subject and the intent of what you want to portray in you photo. One often wants the sun at your back for bird and other wildlife photography, but to the side in landscape photography (e.g. to sow a majestic mountain), and flowers usually need diffuse light.

I have been working on a web page about light. it is not finished, but is coming along:
Lighting, Composition and Subject

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...sition.subject (http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/lighting.composition.subject)

Comments welcome.

For my web page above I've been trying to find a model of a bird that is detailed enough to look realistic. For example, glass eyes with pupil. Good feather detail. I would photograph the model in various lighting conditions. The teddy bear I'm using now is cute but eyes on birds have different placement so lighting effects can be different. if anyone knows where a I might get such a model, please let me know.

Roger <!-- / message -->

[Alfred Forns]

For photographing my usual subject which are birds and macro I would say is light that doesn't exceed the dynamic range of the sensor ... good light.

Do have another term which I call "Great Light" which is the magical time right before Sunrise to a hour after ... hour before sunset and after sunset.

btw I'm not going into harsh light and its problems since at times can be good. One example is sun up in the sky around eleven and a backlit subject on the water, can make compelling images !!!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Fabs,
Thanks for starting this thread. I personally feel this is a poorly understood subject. Unless and untill we discuss in detail here, people are bound to get flummoxed by the harsh light comments or get a pat on their back about soft light.

I don't know if there is any definition of soft light.

If you would have asked a kid, you would get the answer “Soft light is a light that is not hard”. :D

After learning a few photographic terms one can substitute the word hard by harsh. :D

Soft light is a light that is low in contrast, where shadows are minimal and diffused. Soft lighting results in saturated colours. Soft lighting results when the light from the Sun is diffused ie. when there is a cloud cover and the sky acts like a big diffuser or soft box. Soft lighting also is found during fog. Soft lighting is found in early morning and in the evening. This is because Sun’s rays passes a longer distance through the earths atmosphere.

What is not soft light?:
Any light which directly falls on a subject without being diffused by any medium. That means if you are raising your pop up flash or directly attaching the flash on the camera and firing it after that “say cheese” (well somepeople do that to animals as well) then the light is not soft light, as it creates deep shadows.

Similarly, the light that falls on the subject when the sun is overhead or very near to noon, on a clear cloudless day produces deep shadows and hence is not considered as soft light.

In the days of slides, we were careful about the shadow of the upper eyelid on the eye. These days ofcourse, we have eye doctoring techniques and the images are salvaged.

The soft light produces warmer colour temperatures and at other times it is mostly bluish. Except when the sky is cloudy.

People tend to increase the white balance to impart that warmer colour cast on their images. At times, they look good from an aesthetic angle. However, from a natural history perspective they would not hold true. People photographing small birds often fumble for id, as the colour of the white feathers can change due to artificially warming the colour temp and the bird can resemble that of another species.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Jim Neiger]

To me the the most important thing is the angle of the light. This determines what parts of the subject are evenly lit and where the shadows fall. I prefer soft direct light such as early in the morning, or late in the afternoon. I also like indirect, even ambient light that you might see on an overcast day or in the shade. The important thing is that the light is evenly distributed accross the subject. Of course there are times when a mix of light and shadow is desireable. Like with anything in photography there are times when it is good to deviate from the usual preferences. Since I do a lot of bif photograpy I often wait for the bird in flight to catch the light at the best angle. The lower the angle of light, the more likely that this will happen.

[Tony Whitehead]

I think the size of the light source is the important issue. This may seem confusing with sunlight as the size of the sun doesn't change but diffusion is the factor that largely controls the size of the source and thus "softness of light". With the sun low in the sky even on a clear day dust and especially moisture in the air act like a big scrim or softbox to make a large area glow giving soft edged shadows due to natural fill light. In my experience in areas with very clear skies (Southern African winters with very dry air and high altitude) light starts to look harsh within 10-15 minutes of sunrise even though the angle is low. (Images are quite often posted and attract comments about harsh light and the EXIF shows a capture time before 6 a.m.) Once the sun gets higher it acts like a small point source with sharpedged deep shadows which we see as 'hard light". In the studio it is analagous to a bare bulb flash versus a giant softbox.

[Randy Smith]

My pennies worth are:

Good light is light that is complimentary to the subject being shot. Good light, generally speaking in terms of contrast does not exceed the light range of the final pre visualized image, so a lot rides on the skill of the craftsman. If you like what you see, reason the way to shoot it.

Ansel Adams generally felt that the range of light of the print often looks better if the image represents a full range of light values from light to dark, even when shooting in low contrast lighting.

Sunny Midday over head light can generate glare that a quality polarizer filter can help to cut back on returning color saturation to the image and clearing up the atmosphere haze some.

Overcast is great for going into forest, or shooting flowers, it harder to shoot these well in full sun.

Early morning and late evening light can provide a reduce intensity specular light from the sun while also providing a broad soft fill light source from the sky. This helps to place the range of light within the capture range of the image sensor of your camera, excluding the general shooting into the sun scenario, but hay those look nice also.

And lastly if you have a busy schedule, but a little time right now and you have a camera, ..... it's Good Light, get out there and find an image that looks well in that light.

Maybe there are no real rules, just good tricks that help improve the final results.

[Ed Cordes]

To me good light depends on the subject. It may be dramatic low, soft early AM or late PM warm light. It may be soft overcast light for flowers and waterfalls and the like to minimize contrast. It may even be the extremely scarce light well after or before Sunset or Sunrise when the digital sensor can see things at long exposures our own eyes cannot see.

That said, like the others, I do not pass up an image opportunity because the light is not "right"

[Charles Glatzer]

I always tell participants there is no such thing as good or bad light, but there is poor use of it. In truth a successful/competant nature photographer knows how to assess light and determine how to make the most of what is available. That may included using supplemental sources such as reflectors, diffusers, on/off camera and multiple flash, etc. Example-while the light at mid-day may not be considered best for wildlife, it can be put to excellent use when diffused and reflected for flowers, or when used in conjunction with flash for birds.

I cannot express this enough...if you seriously want to develop your photographic potential you must understand lighting fundamentals quality, quantity, and direction and how they relate to the scene and subject before you.

Note-If you see everything as a ratio between light and shadow, rather than simply illuminated you will be on your way to becoming an even better photographer ;).

Best to all from AK

Chas

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Chas

We were talking about the light available and not creating or modifying light with devices.

Fully agree with all your comments but could you say what is good light for you?

[Jim Buescher]

Good light is simply the relation of the quality of the light to the subject and how you want to present it, therefore, "harsh" light could be good light if you're after a dramatic, hard edged image whereas a soft, diffused light wouldn't convey the mood and emotions that you're after in that image. So, without a subject it's just hard or soft (or something inbetween) light, it's how you want to use it that makes it good.

[Charles Glatzer]

Good light is simply the relation of the quality of the light to the subject and how you want to present it, therefore, "harsh" light could be good light if you're after a dramatic, hard edged image whereas a soft, diffused light wouldn't convey the mood and emotions that you're after in that image. So, without a subject it's just hard or soft (or something inbetween) light, it's how you want to use it that makes it good.

Jim,

Well said, could not agree more.

Best,

Chas

[Alfred Forns]

I guess what this thread was intended to show is not doing at all?

Even in my first remark I mention about taking advantage of harsh light and making a compelling image. Any time your are out there you should do the best you can under the circumstances.

btw Chas I remember in Newfoundland shooting with you and waiting for the light to be "good" ... just past O'Brian's at a dilapidated dock. We were killing time doing gulls and you mention it was good practice!!!! .... basically what you were waiting for is what the question is all about ... what is good light. Helps to mention were were basically doing birds and most had lots of white parts.

[Jim Buescher]

OK, how about this...Good light is of a sufficient amount to illuminate the subject allowing for desired f-stop and/or shutter speed and producing detail in both highlight and shadow areas, from a direction that doesn't produce any unwanted shadows or reflections. The light should not have any unwanted colorcast from reflections such as; blue sky, green grass, painted walls etc. and be of a desired quality (hard or soft) to render the subject in the most pleasing way to the viewer.... That's a general definition for me of good light. I don't know if that's what you are looking for.

[Alfred Forns]

Sounds good to me Jim and it seems to describe the light you mostly find early/late in the day.

For me ideally I would like (and talking birds) zero clouds early late in the day for the most part and cloud cover for the rest. Understand clouds can be a good thing ex early morning at Bosque etc.

I imagine it all depends from which point of view we look at it and no real right or wrong but circumstances and how to apply techniques !!!

[Roman Kurywczak]

I always tell participants there is no such thing as good or bad light, but there is poor use of it. In truth a successful/competant nature photographer knows how to assess light and determine how to make the most of what is available. That may included using supplemental sources such as reflectors, diffusers, on/off camera and multiple flash, etc. Example-while the light at mid-day may not be considered best for wildlife, it can be put to excellent use when diffused and reflected for flowers, or when used in conjunction with flash for birds.

I cannot express this enough...if you seriously want to develop your photographic potential you must understand lighting fundamentals quality, quantity, and direction and how they relate to the scene and subject before you.

Note-If you see everything as a ratio between light and shadow, rather than simply illuminated you will be on your way to becoming an even better photographer ;).

Best to all from AK

Chas

Hi Chas,
In principle.....I agree with your philosophy 100%........but if you are on a landscape shoot........there is bad light for the situation.......going to macro and using diffusers is fine.........if there are flowers/macro situations available to shoot.......the danger in your philosophy is that people almost always misinterpret what you say....."Chas told me there was no such thig as bad light"........so they feel they can shoot a landscape at 12 noon in poor light! This is not your fault...and remember.... I agree with your philosophy 100%.....but people tend to leave off/ignore the 2nd part of your statement! I always also stress to them.....read his entire comment......if you do not have flash or are not capable of using it correctly ....your day is over until later and better light. Many people do not have the equuipment/proficiency to deal with those situations. Do not misconstrue Chas's comments justify shooting in poor light......rememenber he stated that there is a great deal of proficiency involved in shooting in less than ideal conditions......if you are not capable.....stop shooting! I think that is why many people call it bad/wrong light....they were photographing the wrong subject at the wrong time of day and not adapting to the situation presented to them....adapting to the lighting conditions is key......knowing when to put down the camera.....is just as important! I think many of us are in agreement with the philosophy....just that we often see it perverted in practice.

[Jim Buescher]

For me ideally I would like (and talking birds) zero clouds early late in the day for the most part and cloud cover for the rest. Understand clouds can be a good thing ex early morning at Bosque etc.

Often, the weather (specifically, light) dictates what I will be photographing... no clouds, early morning or late evening, yes, I'll be shooting birds. If, on the other hand, it's heavy overcast, maybe even foggy, I might shoot landscapes. But for bird photography I agree that the best light is early morning / late evening with little or no clouds...or wind...or bugs.:D

[Alfred Forns]

... forgot about the bugs Jim ... thanks :)

[Michael Lloyd]

This is a question that I try to find the answer to almost daily :D

One thing that I feel strongly about- Good light is not found in Photoshop or ACR or BreezeBrowser or any other piece of software. You can make an image shot in poor light better with software but it will not be it's best... at least not with my skill sets it won't.

I understand what Chas, et al are saying. From what I've seen and experienced, there comes a time in a photographers career, be it amateur or otherwise, when you know what good light is even if you can't explain it with words. It's that moment when your heart stalls... and un-commanded by your mind, your mouth opens and you say "oh... look at that" in a low voice... if you're lucky, you snap out of it in time to capture it for other people to see. That's what good light is to me...

[Don Railton]

Good light is simply the light that allows you to take the shot that you want... its a simple as that...:)