what do you do when shooting mid-day?

[Darin Boville]

The question is made most difficult since the example photograph suggests that you are after a classical landscape photograph look, with dramatic side-lighting. So if that is the goal of the photo it is perplexing how one might reach that goal without the side-lighting.

Shooting at mid-day is not the problem, I think. You just need to be clearer about your goals for the image.

--Darin

[Daniel_Buck]

The question is made most difficult since the example photograph suggests that you are after a classical landscape photograph look, with dramatic side-lighting. So if that is the goal of the photo it is perplexing how one might reach that goal without the side-lighting.

Shooting at mid-day is not the problem, I think. You just need to be clearer about your goals for the image.

--Darin

could very well be I don't usually have a goal, or a message, or a theme for my photographs, other than to get an image that I am pleased with Maybe I should have more realistic expectations for the scene at the given time of day.

[r.e.]

Daniel,

I agree with Ed and Darin. With respect to my own post, the key sentence is this one: "The quality of light, and whether you roll with it, and compose accordingly, is in my humble opinion what is important." Note the phrase "and compose accordingly".

The easiest way to learn how to compose in, and use, hard light is to look at hard light photographs. The subject doesn't matter; in fact, I think that it helps to look at how hard light works across subjects. That's why I referred to several subjects/genres in my comments. Apart from looking at examples, Ross Lowell's book Matters of Light and Depth talks about, and has some good examples of, hard light images. Grab your digital camera and start taking photographs on the street under hard light conditions, during the day or at night - doesn't matter what the subject is - and you'll find out soon enough what works and what doesn't.

If I had to put this in a nutshell, it's a matter of composing for blocks of light and dark rather than for a gradual continuum of light to dark.

One of the points that Ed made is that it gets bright in the tropics. That is why the film I Am Cuba is worth studying. The people who made that film did a brilliant job with the cinematography in the kind of conditions that you are talking about. It isn't the only example, but it's a good one. Maybe look at some of the Italian neorealist films too.

If you aren't above a little manipulation, a big white card or a white bed sheet might come in handy too, assuming that your subject is smaller than several square miles of California

I do a lot of street photography of people. I look for light that will give faces a dimensional quality, and I am constantly passing on photographs because the light is too flat/even. Hard, or at least harder, light is welcome.

[Bruce Watson]

Ok, so, any suggestions for the scene I posted up?

Yep. You won't like it though: Learn from it then scrap it.

The problem, to me, is you seem intent on photographing a scene that doesn't lend itself to the lighting at hand. If you are really intent on this scene, consider waiting for light that complements it more. But what I suggest is to learn to use the light you have; find a scene that works better with the light as it is. The more you photograph under these conditions, the better you'll get at it. Which is true of all lighting conditions of course.

You can't force it. When you try, you'll get results that look forced.

[Sevo]

Well, in more cloudy parts of the world that really is not an issue. Elsewhere, it may be hard to find good light at noon - but whenever you find it, it also has advantages to have a setting not lit by a orange sun and ultramarine blue sky where trees and buildings do not sport shadows bigger than themselves...

[Ken Lee]

"How would yall do it...?"

We might not have taken that picture at all, because while the overall arrangement is fine, the tonality is not up to the same high standard.

By tonality, I mean the interplay of adjacent tones. For example, this classic image has very nice tonality:

Closer to this forum, Christopher Broadbent's images always show elegant and pleasing tonality. Since much of his work is arranged in the studio, he can make it so. He is consciously aware of principles of visual harmony, of which many of us, are largely unconscious.

Like any other visual element, we don't see good photos made up of just tonality - and most would agree that Weston's Pepper Number 30 has more than nice tonality going for it. Which begs the question... what was wrong with the other 29 ?

[cjbroadbent]

I hesitate to use the bad word that starts with H and ends in R. But it has made shooting at midday possible and rewarding.
I live half way down towards the equator and previously was in great envy of you Northerners who have a sun that goes round low and only three stops stronger than the sky. The preeminence of US landscape photographers is a result of their being able to get up later and work all day.
In my experience (doing shoes, razors, bikes and stuff), I can do two hours work in a day in Sardinia against ten hours in Ireland.
Nowadays (if the subject is standing still) I just do HDR and compress the glory of the midday sun - like mad dogs and englishmen - of which I am one.

[bobwysiwyg]

There's always the Frankencamera.

[sanking]

I second and third the recommendations to try IR. IR opens up a world of exciting image possibilities that are simply not available with normal B&W photography at mid-day with a bright sun. IR seems to work best where regular B&W film does not, in bright sunny conditions with big skies and clouds and green foliage.

Your choices are rather limited with LF IR films but a digital conversion of a DSLR will give you great quality and a whole world of creative possibilities.

Sandy King

[paulr]

Shooting at mid-day is not the problem, I think. You just need to be clearer about your goals for the image.

--Darin

Or about your goals more generally. The question presumes that pictures are supposed to look a certain way. Bathed in romantic light. Or maybe even that they should be about that kind of light.

If your definition of a succesful photograph is this limited, then your choices might be dawn, dusk, cokin filters, or photoshop!

I happen to think there are many ways that a photograph can be interesting. And there are many different esthetics and kinds of light that can serve different photographic explorations.

For classic examples, look at the 19th century survey photographers. Look at what they did mid-day in the harshes light and the harshest environments. Back in the age of Romanticism, when they did the work, people had a hard time seeing it as art. But with the perspective we've gotten from the last 100 plus years, I think their work is monumentally beautiful.

But really, it comes down to what you're trying to see, to explore, to accomplish with the camera. Not all times of day are appropriate to all goals.