clouds or sun with negative films

[Bruce Watson]

This thread is about negative films, not transparencies. The reason is I don't want this thread to degenerate into yet another "negative vs. tranny" thread. Humor me please ;)

I'm curious about what kind of light people like for landscape work. I know some people like to work only in cloudy conditions no matter what. Some like to work with direct sunlight. What kind of lighting do you like, and why?

Since I'm starting this thread, I should probably go first. I like direct sunlight with B&W because I like the contrast and like to show the textures that are often not noticed. With color film I like more subdued lighting (cloudy to weak direct light) because color is another tool to use to tell the story and having lots of contrast and showing lots of texture often feels like I'm overloading the image.

So... what kind of lighting to you like and why?

[cyrus]

Since I can't control the skies, I work with whatever's there! Seriously, I really like dramatic clouds for landscapes. But of course an evenly lit overcast day is good for portraits.

[Curtis Nelson]

I like shooting before the sun has risen too far. Since I usually shoot in the canyons near my home, that gives me a good couple of hours of nice soft light before the direct sunlight causes too many shadows.

[roteague]

I guess your questions is more about stylistic approach than the film type - I guess you have been bitten by the negative vs transparency issue before. I like light that is just on the verge of changing (I particularly like warm light), for that reason I tend to shoot early in the morning or late in the afternoon.

However, I've also found that shooting when the weather pattern is changing can also produce stunning results as well. For example:

http://www.visionlandscapes.com/Images/HI5115A.jpg

This image was done just as a storm was clearing, from the west side of the island.

[Ole Tjugen]

I like sunlight, it's rare around here. I also like shooting around noon, but at 60 degrees latitude the sun never gets really high except in midsummer.

[Capocheny]

I prefer light that isn't too, too contrasty... therefore, a little bit more on the cloudy side of things.

Like Cyrus, I, too, like lots of clouds...

For color... I really like the lighting after a summer rain shower. All the colors are nice and saturated!

Robert,

Great image... a beaut! :)

Cheers

[PMahoney]

I can agree that it is somewhat a question of style. Most of what I do are landscapes here in Florida and prefer strong, contrasty light for open shots, otherwise it just doesn't feel 'right'. More intimate, below-canopy shots, I prefer a little softer light, although it varies depending on the subject. For architecture, I prefer softer light, but have seen some cool 'hard lit' arch shots from the southwest.

Peter

[ronald lamarsh]

I prefer some cloud drama going on for most of my B&W landscape work since vast expanses of cloudless sky just don't seem to translate too well in a B&W image. On the other hand: here in the PNW we get some very unique lighting on totally overcast days when there is a very bright sun behind a veil of clouds that illuminates ferns,foliage etc in a spectacular way. I prefer this light for images taken in the deep woods here.

[Eric Leppanen]

My lighting preferences vary considerably with each photographic subject. I can't really correlate lighting preferences with film type (chrome versus color neg versus B&W). Film choice for me is based on what is needed to technically record the image properly, once I've decided what that image is to be.

To hazard a few generalizations, for grand scenics my ideal is warm afternoon lighting right after a passing storm: dark, dramatic storm-cloud filled sky in the background and brilliantly lit subjects in the foreground makes for a dramatic image, particularly with color. For fall colors, I prefer slightly hazy lighting to dampen contrast while retaining enough light to retain brilliant highlights (I'm partial to brilliant yellow cottonwoods and red maples in the southwestern U.S.); I've found overcast to be too boring and unfiltered sunlight too harsh for such subject matter. On the other hand, for waterfalls, flowers and intimate landscapes I've found overcast skies to be just the ticket; such understated lighting helps retain tonal nuance and shadow detail. Mellower, cloud-filled skies and overcast lighting can be good for understated, "mood" type photographs (e.g., great expanse of still lake in the foreground, with maybe only a few small cloud reflections or breakers interrupting the stillness; overcast sky in the background with moderate texture). These of course are all generic, film independent ideals.

Compared to chrome, color neg can be relatively understated by nature (prior to Photoshop, of course), and this trait can certainly facilitate certain kinds of photographs. In general, my photographic style tends to eschew highly contrasty prints, emphasizing instead lots of shadow detail (blacked out shadows are anathema to me, I much prefer Zone 3 shadows to Zone 1 or 2). This constraint limits how contrasty a subject can be, or how much I can push the film, and therefore sometimes limits how much texture I can reveal. Even when shooting high latitude B&W film, I've found myself waiting many times for a cloud to partially cover the sun to bring the scene contrast under control. So I keep trying to push the envelope for maximizing contrast (and texture) without blocking up the shadows; I usually shoot at least two sheets of B&W film (sometimes I even bracket a bit) of each image so that I can determine an optimal processing time. For chrome film, I'll often bracket; for color neg, I'll meter for chrome film and then open up one, two or even three stops (to open up those shadows!). (BTW, I've been using Pro 160S lately and have been very impressed with its fine grain and ability to hold highlights even when I increase exposure considerably -- great stuff!).

[Maris Rusis]

If I am lucky I will get a day which is both cloudy and sunny. Ideally clouds cross the sun every few minutes for a minute or two. This gives me an opportunity to bridge otherwise impossible contrast gaps. Heres how.

First, the camera must be able to do double exposures and it must be on a rigid tripod. Wait until a cloud covers the sun. Expose the ground on zone V. Then wait until the cloud leaves the sun. Expose again for the high luminosity values placing them on zone VI 1/2. Now the typical sunny day contrast range of about 3 stops is reduced to about 1 1/2 stops.

This technique is particularly powerful if you have to photograph forest scenes where the contrast range may be 10 stops between the shade under trees and raw sunlight patches. By judicious selection of exposures in the double exposure mix you can wrangle virtually any brightness gap.

How many days of the year do these blessed shady/sunny conditions happen here in Tewantin, Australia? About six and I try not to miss any of them.

[Ed Richards]

Depends on the subject, although I do not have much luck with heavy overcast no matter what for black and white. Even our hard light is probably not has hard as in higher, drier places, except on some rare winter days. Cloudless skys do not bother me too much as long as they are blue - I put on the red 29 and take the edge off them. I will also do minus development in really hard light if I care about the shadows. My biggest problem is dappled light - I can never seem to get to look like a natural scene, rather than some horrible development problem.:-)

[John Kasaian]

Once again it depends on the subject. I like the mystery of fog, the drama of clouds, the glorious clarity of CAVU. Sometimes a subject just looks better in a different light. I used to take it as it comes using whatever light was available but I've gotten harder to please and if the sky refuses to co operate I will refuse to take it's picture.