What the @#$% is "Harsh" Light???

If I sound frustrated, it is because I am. I used to think I knew what harsh light was and how to deal with it (even if I didn't). But that obviously is not the case. It seems that no matter when I shoot (I try to limit it too the few few hours after sunrise and last couple of hours before sunset), where I position myself, whether I use fill of not, or try to control any of a myriad other factors, at least one, if not several, folk(s) will jump in and the say the light looks a bit harsh. This is not aimed at any single person since the comments come from different people at different times.

I am leaving shortly for an early morning visit to Sandy Hook for shore birds. I don't even know what to do any more. I'll get there for sunrise. Am I already too late. Maybe I should be shooting at night?!?!?

Can someone help me here? What is harsh light? How does one deal with it? Is harsh light just one of those "stock" responses?

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Ed, you and I seem to have similar issues. I'm still scratching my head over why a background of leaves is "busy" when my subject lives in the woods.

Just yesterday, my husband asked (at about 2:00) if I wanted to go check out a park we haven't been to,and shoot some pictures. I almost hopped up - and then explained - no, no point - it's 2pm. I explained to him that I'm finally having to realize that the light is the reality - no matter what my eyes see, the camera can't express it in certain kinds of light because the sensor range is not capable of handling it.

I think this is why some photographers are dragging animals into simulated habitat studios (as was mentioned in another thread about ethics) - so they can control that critical factor: Light.

It appears that any time the light prevents fine details from being visible (shadows, highlights) in an area where those details would be desirable, THAT is what people are calling "harsh".

It's frustrating. It seems like just the conditions where I CAN really use my slow lens without worrying about movement (fast shutterspeed) seems to be just the conditions when the light is harshest. Shade, overcast, etc., finds me hand-holding at shutter speeds that make things too soft.

That's why I'm going for a faster lens - even if not a longer one.

Good post. Thanks for expressing something I get frustrated about too!

Amy

As one who is often times flustered with his own photography in trying to catch that 'perfect' image, it's important to remember that critiques given here are going to be very nit-picky. It's rare that any one person can take an image in which everything is absolutely perfect and we do the best with what we get-and even the more rarer when it's done in camera if it happens at all anymore. Having said that, it can be a big help to have your image picked apart so that you can try to figure out ways to compensate next time thus getting an image perhaps (if just) a bit better than what you shot last time in similar circumstances.

As far as harsh light goes, it only really seems to be a problem when you're shooting light subjects such as white birds and water and stuff like that where sun wash can be a factor. Sure, its best if you are going to make commercial quality images to avoid high sunlight as it will wash certain parts of your photo (sometimes) no matter what you do....but I hope it does not stop you from going out to shoot and have fun. Most of us are not pros but I do gather a lot (believe it or not) from getting my stuff picked apart. I hope this helps with the frustration factor. I feel it too sometimes when I get some good results only to have something pointed out that I didn't consider....good luck in the field.

I just wanted to add one thing...when it comes to harsh light, don't put a time on it. Yes, its
true light is harsh at noon, when there's a full sun. BUT! When you have those cloudy days
when the clouds are hiding the sun, you can shoot all day.

Doug

To paraphrase an old saying (ok bumper sticker) "The best time to be taking photographs is when you can". Unless you are a pro who spends all his/her time in the field don't pass up an oppertunity to get out there. There are situations almost anytime that can be good photos. Plus practice makes perfect.

I agree with what everyone is saying and would suggest that you look into learning how to use a few tools in Photoshop that I have found make a real difference in my final images. First off, shoot in RAW and learn how to process your images in the raw format. Now that I have learned how to do this I have far more freedom in controling the harshness of the light in my images and recovering those lost details in bright whites.

The second tool that can help is the shadow/highlight adjustment in PS. If the light feels "harsh" when I'm photographing something outside, I'll bracket the exposures and underexpose the image up to two f/stops. Then I process the best exposure in camera raw and then use the shadow/highlight adjustment to add light back in where I want it. This can sometimes help with a harshly lit image.

Another option is to learn all you can about blend modes and masking. Using different blend modes and masks layered on top of each other can really tone and adjust your lighting and create a whole different feel in many cases.

My final suggestion is to shoot in the heavily wooded areas during peak hours and outside in the open sunlight in the "golden" hours. And, anytime the day is overcast, get on out there and take advantage of the soft light!

There will always be instances where the lighting can be so harsh that it will ruin your image but until you really try to master Photoshop you'll never know what you can save from the trashcan. It's made a world of difference in my processing.

Don't know where to learn Photoshop? Try www.kelbytrainingonline.com. For $20/month you can take any class, any time. That and a good book on the Photoshop basics can make a huge difference in how you handle the post-processing of the images you create in a little time.

Just my opinion - but my images have come a long way very quickly and it is all due to me sitting down and really working to learn basic and advanced PS skills.

Amy, as for the "busy background" problem...I totally understand what you're going through there as well. I have no problem with something having a busy background as long as it doesn't detract from the main subject. Obviously, big bursts of white light coming in between leaves can totally distract one from seeing the main subject properly in an image. Try subduing the BG with lower contrast and raising it on the main subject and see if that doesn't help a bit. Also, when in the field, move about, finding the best angle to make the least distracting photograph. And remember that we all take 100 images and maybe process 10% on a good day...sometimes a distracting BG is just too distracting. Make the image and do what you can to get around hot spots and distracting colors in the background and the patterns will become less of an obstacle.

Photography is very subjective. I've been photographing nature for 25 years, avidly read books and looked at the magazines, calendar images, etc.. I personally disagree, sometimes strongly, with many of the critiques given on this site. Unlike many sites, this one seems to have more of a uniformity in view toward images and the way they are critqued. For example, they are heavily into front-lighting (point your shadow at the bird--certainly good advice for the beginner); the infamous "head angle" obsession; and extensive cloning out of unwanted elements). This uniformity can certainly sometimes stifle creativity.

I suggest that you post on some other sites, in addition to this one, for a greater variety of opinions. Also, work at becoming a good self-critic. Look at the types of images that you really like and critically compare yours to them. Don't take anyone's opinion as gospel. I personally think that if someone anonymously posted some of Frans Lanting's images here, many of them would be heavily criticized.

Also, as previously noted, become adept at Photoshop so that you can control the presentation of the information captured by your camera. There are many excellent books and web tutorials that show before and after treatments.

Ed Erkes
http://members.photoportfolios.net/ederkes

Ed,

Remember why you go out in the first place, because you enjoy the time spent taking images and it brings you satisfaction! I do not go out to please anyone else, period. I love photography and shot when I can. If I could go out 24/7 I would. But until my gold bullion is delivered to my front door, I have to work, just like everybody else here on this forum. Even James, Art and most of the others here work at something, be it tours or selling batteries. Nobody is perfect or takes perfect images.

Some on the forums here, and every other website as well, have the tendency to say more than they should. Once someone sees a flaw, others will jump on the bandwagon and drive the point into the ground. To be honest, some just do not know how to critique an image and then offer constructive advice afterwords. I am not trying to start a firestorm here, just a dose of reality.

On the other hand, some images have major flaws. And some photographers are slow to learn and keep making the same mistakes. Their eye is still lacking the experience to "see" what someone else more experienced sees. From personal experience I have seen a huge difference in my work from when I just went out and snapped a few frames to where I am now. I go out with purpose and when it is all over with, I throw out many I might have kept long ago.

I also concentrate more now on a subject than I used too. This summer is my 3rd year focusing on loons. I spent 3 hours every day, 4 or 5 times every a week, all spring and summer in my Kayak just imaging loons. I did the same thing with my lighthouses, and will do so again all winter long this coming season. And I do it for me, no one else. I do sell some work, give a few tours etc. I cant count the free phone calls etc etc etc I give to other people. And I do that because I want too.

In short, you have to do this for you, no one else.

If you like what you do, where you are and know where you want to be in the future, then what else matters. When you post an image here to critique, you open the door for all to offer an opinion, good, bad or just plain ignorant. Most here are trying to be better photographers. And for certain the publishers here want you to be. I know the Shadles personally. I grew up with James. He cares! You also have to learn to pick who you trust and can respect. Find someone who has your best interests at heart and will give you an honest critique, then listen. All of us can improve. No one has the monopoly on knowledge or talent.

I feel your frustration. Please do not give up. Keep posting and learning. Do it for you.

How to control harsh light by James Shadle
This is only my opinion. And not a complete list.

On Sunny days I prefer the first and last 2.5 +/- hours of each day.
If you find photographic opportunities that present themselves outside of those hours, set your camera contrast to it's lowest level, using the white balance warm up the image and reduce your exposure in bright areas by 1/3 stop more than you would earlier in the day.

Staying on axis is very important in reducing the "harsh light" look.

If close enough, use fill flash. Reduce the ambient falling high on the subject and fill in the shadows on the side.

Overcast days are different story, lower contrast light can keep you out all day.
I do tend to use a WB that is warmer than "Sunny" on those days.

First off, thanks to all of you for the comments, thoughts, encouragements, advice, etc. I will do a string of replies since you all have made good points. But first I want to say a few things that I should have (would have) said in my original post had I not literally been on my way out the door on my way to Sandy Hook (NJ) for sunrise (that's another story!).

I should have made it clear that I was not being critical of BPN or its moderators and participants. I had spent considerable time on another board before finding BPN and begged and pleaded for critiques of my images and could not get much more than "nice image" or some other innocuous comment. I also have full respect for the moderators who do yeoman's duty. I have tried, at times, to respond to every image posted on the macro/flora board here on BPN and know how tough it is.

I will also say that my experience on the macro/flora board here on BPN has been beyond my wildest dreams. The critiques offered by Robert O'Toole, Mike Moats, Julie Kenward and the participants have made me a much better macro/flora photographer. I have learned so much from the folks there that it is just unbelieveable. All I have to offer is my humble thanks to them all.

My original post was the consequence of frustration over receiving continual "harsh light" comments on "bird" images despite making the image no later than an hour or so after sunrise, despite using fill flash on occasion, and despite trying to get into the best position possible (not the best but the best possible under the circumstances). It got to the point where it seemed any "bird" image that I made with the sun shining (even just after sunrise) was being critiqued as having harsh light. That's not to say that I don't get "harsh" light comments on the macro/flora board. I do. But those comments are few and far between and typically well deserved.

As I said, you all made good points and hopefully I will have time to comment on them all. My only criticism of BPN is that I wish I could multi-quote multiple posts in one response. I can't seem to find a way to do that so I will have to do a string of single posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amy DeStefanis

Ed, you and I seem to have similar issues. I'm still scratching my head over why a background of leaves is "busy" when my subject lives in the woods.

Amy

---

Good point, Amy. I think we all, myself included, must remember that this board is a reflection of the team that built it and staff it. They have developed a style and espouse it here. They believe it is "right". But there are other approaches.

I look at my Audubon calender everyday. There are bird images for each day. I often look and say to myself. No head turn there. Look at that busy background. No catchlight in the eye there. Should have cloned out that branch. But you know. Each and every one of those images was published.

I do a lot of reading of photography books. I am now reading Moose Peterson's book on "Wildlife Photography". Now Moose is a very well know photographer and author. And as I look at many of his images, particularly of birds, I can't help but wonder how they would be critiqued. Backgrounds look busy. Branches are sticking up that would probably be critiqued as in need of cloning out of the image. And the eyes looks solid black. But Moose is doing very well, thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amy DeStefanis

Just yesterday, my husband asked (at about 2:00) if I wanted to go check out a park we haven't been to,and shoot some pictures. I almost hopped up - and then explained - no, no point - it's 2pm. I explained to him that I'm finally having to realize that the light is the reality - no matter what my eyes see, the camera can't express it in certain kinds of light because the sensor range is not capable of handling it.

---

Light matters. There is no denying that. Your story brought a smile to my face since my wife and I were talking about this point on our pre-dawn drive (about and hour and 45 minutes) to Sandy Hook this morning. We get down to the Jersey shore as often as we can from September through about April/May. Often we would leave around sunrise, spend the morning photographing at a few ponds with wintering ducks, stop at one of our favorite restaurants for lunch, go back out in the winter sun to photograph in the afternoon before heading home. I was explaining to my wife the need to leave earlier and call it a day earlier. Things change.

Again thanks for your comments, Amy.

Hey Ed,
I definitely want to hear about the Hook........but I feel i need to respond to you and especially Ed Erkes.........
I won't even get into the light issue.........as it has been pretty well covered.........I want to suggest.......that the best thing you can develope as a photographer is "teflon skin". You need to be able to listen and respect comments.......but they need to roll off easily. Are all the critiques wrong or too harsh as EE suggests???............no editor or publisher is going to be nice with your feelings..........trust me...........the sooner you learn to deal with/roll with rejection and critisism........the sooner you will strive forward in the photography endeavours.

Ed Erkes........As for bashing Frans Lanting..........one of my favorite photographers........doesn't mean i find every one of his images perfect or my favorite....are you saying that all of frans's images are all the best you've seen???...not subject to critique???.......even as one of my favorite photog's........if I didn't like his image......i would offer my critique still.........and remember....even he is still subject to photo editors.

Listen to the critiques given here.........digest them.........put them in the appropriate bin (trash or keep)........and move on to the next subject. Not everything I do is the "greatest" or perfect.........yet i still respect the opinions offered........even when i strongly disagree with them Teflon skin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Pagano

...it's important to remember that critiques given here are going to be very nit-picky... it can be a big help to have your image picked apart so that you can try to figure out ways to compensate next time thus getting an image perhaps (if just) a bit better than what you shot last time in similar circumstances.

---

Couldn't agree with you more, Paul. As I said above, I have learned a lot from the critiques received here particularly on the macro/flora board where probably over 500 of my 750 posts have been but also on the bird board.

I made a comment under one of my bird posts a little while back. I said that I try to get everything right but ultimately I try to make the best image I can with what I have to work with - light, position, etc. I do wish that the critiques would offer a bit more on how to improve the image that is "the best image I can (make) with what I have to work with" in addition to telling me that the light is harsh and I should point my shadow at the bird. I think we need both!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug West

I just wanted to add one thing...when it comes to harsh light, don't put a time on it. Yes, its
true light is harsh at noon, when there's a full sun. BUT! When you have those cloudy days
when the clouds are hiding the sun, you can shoot all day.Doug

---

The other point I made to my wife this morning. Instead of hoping for sunny days for our winter drives to the North Shore, I am going to be hoping for clouds so I can shoot all day. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julie Kenward

I agree with what everyone is saying and would suggest that you look into learning how to use a few tools in Photoshop that I have found make a real difference in my final images. First off, shoot in RAW and learn how to process your images in the raw format.

---

Hi Jules,

First off, I do shoot in RAW. Second, I openly admit that post-processing and PhotoShop, in particular, is my Achilles heel. I do some basic PP in Lightroom and then dump it into PS primarily for resizing, sharpening with USM and noise reduction with the Neat Image plug-in. Your Kelby Training recommendation is a good one. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Erkes

Unlike many sites, this one seems to have more of a uniformity in view toward images and the way they are critqued. For example, they are heavily into front-lighting (point your shadow at the bird--certainly good advice for the beginner); the infamous "head angle" obsession; and extensive cloning out of unwanted elements).

---

This is an interesting point, Ed. I would say it is definitely NOT true on the macro/flora board here. I find that the critiques I receive from Robert O'Toole, Mike Moats, Julie Kenward and others are often different and almost always very helpful.

However, I do feel it is more true than untrue on the bird board. Why? No doubt a reflection of the founding fathers (and mothers). This is after all, BIRD Photographers Net and most are disciples of the founding fathers. So its not surprising I guess that they all are "obsessed" with head angle, front-lighting, cloning, etc. etc. As I said above, I do wish they would also deal with the image as presented and how to improve that as well as just pointing out the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grady Weed

In short, you have to do this for you, no one else.

If you like what you do, where you are and know where you want to be in the future, then what else matters. When you post an image here to critique, you open the door for all to offer an opinion, good, bad or just plain ignorant. Most here are trying to be better photographers. And for certain the publishers here want you to be. I know the Shadles personally. I grew up with James. He cares! You also have to learn to pick who you trust and can respect. Find someone who has your best interests at heart and will give you an honest critique, then listen. All of us can improve. No one has the monopoly on knowledge or talent.

I feel your frustration. Please do not give up. Keep posting and learning. Do it for you.

---

Very well said, Grady. In the final analysis if I didn't want the critique, i wouldn't post the image. And I have learned a lot in a relatively short time. The harsh light comments just started to get to me especially when I think I did everything I could to not have harsh light! I honestly began to feel I was missing something important when it came to light but all I was getting is harsh light, harsh light, harsh light!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Shadle

How to control harsh light by James Shadle
This is only my opinion. And not a complete list.

On Sunny days I prefer the first and last 2.5 +/- hours of each day.
If you find photographic opportunities that present themselves outside of those hours, set your camera contrast to it's lowest level, using the white balance warm up the image and reduce your exposure in bright areas by 1/3 stop more than you would earlier in the day.

Staying on axis is very important in reducing the "harsh light" look.

If close enough, use fill flash. Reduce the ambient falling high on the subject and fill in the shadows on the side.

Overcast days are different story, lower contrast light can keep you out all day.
I do tend to use a WB that is warmer than "Sunny" on those days.

---

Thanks James. Appreciate the list and tips. This was one of the things I was looking for with this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak

Hey Ed,
I definitely want to hear about the Hook........

---

It was a circus today. We arrived around 0630 and were in a line of cars with park service and temporary police everywhere. Seems there was some kind of woman's triathlon going on. Bumper to bumper. I wanted to go up to the Fisherman's Trail and North Beach but that was closed off as a staging area. We were pushing into the Gunnison lot, begged our way up to the North Beach lot and walked to shore line around from North Beach to the Fisherman's Trail.

Usual suspects. Sanderlings, Semipalmated Plovers, Piping Plovers, Pipers, a couple of Oystercatchers, Willets, and a group of four Ruddy Turnstones. Given all the traffic and traffic control. we didn't even stop anywhere else. We were out by 1100 and home in time for football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Kurywczak

Hey Ed,
I want to suggest.......that the best thing you can develope as a photographer is "teflon skin". You need to be able to listen and respect comments.......but they need to roll off easily.

Listen to the critiques given here.........digest them.........put them in the appropriate bin (trash or keep)........and move on to the next subject. Not everything I do is the "greatest" or perfect.........yet i still respect the opinions offered........even when i strongly disagree with them Teflon skin!

---

First and foremost, I am here to learn. The problem was that I wasn't learning anything from the "harsh light" criticisms particularly when I felt I was, often but not always, doing what I could to work with it - getting out early, using fill, etc.

Thanks for the kind words Ed. And I hope you got some kepers today with your wife. Please post some for us to see. Thanks for all your contributions and hard work. When I have any advice or ways to improve, I will post them on your images. Keep at it.

James has summed it up nicely, and it reflects pretty much what I works in the field for me too. Sometimes only one of these points will work, other times you must apply most or all of them. Harsh light will give you unattractive very contrasty images, and that is the effect you will have to try to negate by using these tips. The shorebirds you posted this past week are species that can come rather close, therefore the fill-flash method will usually work. Underexpose your subject a bit and let the fill do the work. You will have to experiment as results will vary depending on which flash unit you have, if you use a Better-Beamer or not, and how "harsh" the light is.

Ed, I know the forum you mention and remember you literally begging for critique over there - but to almost no avail (except "dancad" we he spotted your requests!! ;) ). That forum does have its merits but I am very proud of being part of BPN for the exact reasons that the other one is not. This is the only place that I know of where we push our members and contributors to strive for the very best they can possibly do...and then have them try to surpass that by continuing to push and point out some stuff that could be still better. You can photograph for yourself, ignore the critiques, and never improve (or slowly improve at a frustrating snail's pace)...or you can still photograph for yourself, listen to the critiques, ask questions like you have here, and steadily improve. I think you are on the right path:).

Actually, IMO there is no bad light...only poor use of it. If the present light at hand does not fit the envisioned subject/image then modify the image to best fit the circumstance, by shooting tighter to exclude those areas that contain dappled light and/or areas of greater tonal difference than that of your subject. Moreover, fill flash has allowed me to shoot images in light never before considered. And, a good flash image is one in which you cannot tell flash was used.

At times you may have to change venues...flowers, macro, and more can often be better when taken in bright light that has been diffused, or supplemented with flash.

Having more tools and techniques at your disposal ("crayons in your box") will allow you to take control of your imagery. Knowledge is power. Adaptation is one of a nature photographers greatest assets.

Best all,

Chas

Could someone please post some images or links to images that have been criticized as harsh light? It seems that perhaps people have different views of what harsh light is. I'll start.

In general, my view of light on this subject is as follows:

Light is "harsh" when it is directional and overhead. The problem this type of light creates is the direction of shadows. For example, on people, their eyes appear as dark sunken shadows. On mountains, shadows are gone and it is shadows that generally gives them depth and texture.

When the sun is low, it can still be harsh. If the atmosphere is very clear, most light is from the sun. With clouds and/or haze, more light is diffusely illuminating the subject.

So it is not simply shoot near sunrise and sunset to avoid harsh light. Some days are simply difficult, on others one can get superb images all day on one subject. On other days, one must adapt and photograph different things depending on the light.

Here is an example of harsh light, shot around 10am at the Venice Rookery:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...744.d-750.html
I was ready to leave for the day, but the bird activity was too interesting.

Now here is another image from Venice, taken at the moment of sunset at about 90 degrees to the sun, so one might expect harsh very dark shadows:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...149.f-700.html
There are no harsh shadows because clouds overhead were illuminated by the setting sun which illuminated the birds.
This I call: "A Puffy Cloud Day." Puffy cloud days are best in my opinion when clouds cover about 50% of the sky.

Anther harsh light condition is photographing birds/wildlife on cloudy days in water or in trees with the bright white background. On such days, photographing things looking down (e.g. the forest floor) works very well.

Taken at 2pm in summer when the sun was very high (~6 hours before sunset) and the light is not harsh (a puffy cloud day):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...01a2-600b.html

I like Puffy Cloud days ;-)

Roger

Most associate so-called Harsh Light with light being high in intensity and off axis. This combination often produces a definitive sharp edged shadow transitional zone, with a large difference in highlight and shadow tonal values. Expose for one value and the other is typically very dark or very light, making it difficult to capture the full dynamic range of the scene in-camera without some sort of supplemental lighting...such as a diffuser or flash
<O:p</O:p

Learning to see and understand light, its quality, quantity, and physical properties and how they relate to your subject and capture medium will allow you to take control of your imagery. Being aware of the lighting direction relative to the subject will allow you to choose a camera position that will enhance your unique vision.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p

You may find this of interest http://www.naturescapes.net/042007/cg0407.htm <O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p

BTW- if you remember the shadow is always 180 degrees opposite the light source, it will help you visualize the final image when using flash.


Warmest Regards,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Most associate so-called Harsh Light with light being high in intensity and off axis. This combination often produces a definitive sharp edged shadow transitional zone, with a large difference in highlight and shadow tonal values. Expose for one value and the other is typically very dark or very light, making it difficult to capture the full dynamic range of the scene in-camera without some sort of supplemental lighting...such as a diffuser or flash

---

<big>Charles,
I disagree with this definition. Intensity has nothing to do with it, as that simply changed exposure.

Harsh light in my opinion is a combination of undesirable direction for the subject, the angular spread of the light, and the color of the light. For example. when the sun is rising, the color is reddened by our atmosphere and the light is more diffuse for two reasons: 1) the light passes through more atmosphere so is coming from scattered light away from the sun, and 2) the proportion of overhead light from the atmosphere (e.g. the blue sky), which tends to fill in shadows. The additions of clouds and haze further diffuses that light.

As the sun rises (let's assume no clouds), the color of the light becomes less red, the angular size of the light from around the sun decreases, and the proportion of diffuse light from the blue sky decreases. The clearer the sky the more rapid the effect happens with solar altitude, The position on the Earth dictates how long it takes to reach that altitude. E.g. at the equator the sun rises pretty much straight up and the light becomes harsh quickly, whereas the sun is always low near the poles and the light can be great all day.
<o></o></big>

[quote=Charles Glatzer;146936]Learning to see and understand light, its quality, quantity, and physical properties and how they relate to your subject and capture medium will allow you to take control of your imagery. Being aware of the lighting direction relative to the subject will allow you to choose a camera position that will enhance your unique vision.[/quote]

<big>I agree.<o></o>
</big>
[quote=Charles Glatzer;146936]You may find this of interest http://www.naturescapes.net/042007/cg0407.htm [/quote]

<big>Nice article but I have a couple of disagreements, Detail in a subject is not simply due to shadows. Your statement "<big>What visually separates the white feathers of an egret? Fine shadow. Eliminate the shadow, and you have no apparent separation of feathers," is not correct. It is the color and reflectance that also show fine detail, and shading simply adds to those physical properties. For example, macro photography is often done on cloudy days with completely diffuse lighting and still shows wonderful texture. The new bear image on my home page,
http://www.clarkvision.com has the sun over the bear's shoulder, so is back lit, yet shows wonderful texture from very diffuse light of a cloudy day in the fur (no flash was used, and the sun was peaking through a small hole in the clouds). In the case of egret feathers, the edges of the feathers have different reflectance than the center as you view them, due to the light refracting through and reflecting off of them. That is an inherent property independent of shadows. Examine some hair and feathers under a microscope sometime.

Here is another image, with the sun at 90 degrees. I do not think the light is harsh:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...0554b-700.html
and in fact I believe the shading adds drama.
</big></big>
[quote=Charles Glatzer;146936]BTW- if you remember the shadow is always 180 degrees opposite the light source, it will help you visualize the final image when using flash. [/quote]

<big>Yes, but light so close to the axis has another undesirable effect: is is called coherent backscatter. The effect is constructive interference of light coming from the subject. The effect reduces contrast due to color and reflectance variations, lessening fine detail. An example is the light of the full moon. The full moon shows less color as well as less detail from shadows. The coherent backscatter effect goes away a few degrees off-axis, and is a good reason to photograph the moon a day or more away from full moon if you want to show color in the moon. It is also a good reason for moving the flash away from the camera.

In my opinion (and there are scientific reasons) shooting about 10 to 30 degrees off axis from the sun works very well: it is enough to fully illuminate the subject but minimizes coherent backscatter and creates some shadowing for added texture. Of course there are always situations where other angles work well too.

The general description of the direction of the light source is called the "phase angle." The phase angle is 0 degrees when the sun is directly behind you fully illuminating the scene. At 90 degrees the sun is to your left or right (or in a plane going from left to right and extending straight up overhead). At 180 degrees, the sun is behind the subject. The bear image on my home page that I referred to above has a phase angle of about 130 degrees. When the phase angle is greater than 90 degrees, the subject is back lit.

Roger
</big>

RNCLARK said:

"I disagree with this definition. Intensity has nothing to do with it, as that simply changed exposure. "

"Harsh light in my opinion is a combination of undesirable direction for the subject, the angular spread of the light, and the color of the light. "

How about overcast days? The intensity is lower!:) ( I know the light direction,
the angular spread of the light, and the color of the light have also changed)

RNCLARK said:
"there are scientific reasons".
Personally, I prefer the artistic reasons.;)

You guys are both fart smellers, I mean smart fellers.
And understanding creative control is of critical importance to all photographers.

However, boiling it all down to a mathematical formula does not work for me.
Trust me, I can do math. It's just that I prefer to create beautiful images (subjective I know).

I suggest that the best technique to use, is the one that produces the results you prefer.

Go out at noon and try every technique presented here. You will find that there is more than one way to skin a cat! (no animals were harmed in the preparation of this reply or during the implementation of harsh light photography techniques).

What can I say, I'm a Bumpkin.

Roger,

You can slice and dice it any way you wish...

Color is a separate entity unto itself. Desaturate the image and see if the detail rendered changes. You are confusing color with tonal difference and reflectance.

James,

So when a participant asks WHY, I need only tell them HOW

Respectfully,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Roger,
Color is a separate entity unto itself. Desaturate the image and see if the detail rendered changes. You are confusing color with tonal difference and reflectance.

---

I disagree. Color is absolutely inter-related to reflectance. The attached image is an example. Desaturate the image (photoshop: image -> desaturate) and significant perceived detail goes away.
[IMG]file:///E:/data/photo/posted.bpn.forums/color.vs.desaturated.a.jpg[/IMG]
These microscope images illustrate the different optical properties of the edges of the strands in feathers versus the center:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/i...d/feather.html

If you want to get into the math and science, the reasons are described by equation 3 in:
Clark, R. N., Chapter 1: Spectroscopy of Rocks and Minerals, and Principles of Spectroscopy, in Manual of Remote Sensing, Volume 3, Remote Sensing for the Earth Sciences, (A.N. Rencz, ed.) John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 3- 58, 1999. http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS.refl-mrs/refl4.html

Roger

Roger,

In your example it is as you state that "perceived detail goes away", but not the physical detail rendered by shadow.

I cannot duplicate the effect with any of my images, perhaps it shows more with iridescence.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

Roger,
In your example it is as you state that "perceived detail goes away", but not the physical detail rendered by shadow.

I cannot duplicate the effect with any of my images, perhaps it shows more with iridescence.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Chas

---

Chas,
The larger the phase angle (the angle between sun and viewer at the subject), the deeper the shadows, and the shadows will dominate the luminance. Your original statement was for small sun angle when the shadows go away. In that condition, reflectance and color variations dominate the spatial detail.

I looked through my egret images and could not find any at really low phase angle. They all seem to be phase angles of around 20 degrees and higher, which gets back to my statement about don't image at phase angles less than about 10 degrees to avoid coherent backscatter. So (for James) there is a scientific reason, and that translates into art. Many of the things that photographers learn to do are based on solid science, whether they know it or not! James was also correct about a cloudy day. The light intensity is is down and the light is from all angles from the hemisphere of the sky. We see no shadows, and most of what we see in all subjects is the color and reflectance differences of the things in the scene. So if you photograph an egret on a cloudy day, do you see any detail in the egret? Yes; the bird is not simply all white. That detail is dominated by reflectance and subtle color variations in the bird's feathers.

Roger