White skies etc.

[Shen45]

I've had a dilemma for years now that I cannot stand white skies - in my own images. The dilemma is I can look at other photographers work and not be bothered by a featureless sky. Very often here the skies are very uniform completely cloudless. A filter will give tone but many photographers simply shoot and allow the sky to go almost paper white and not worry about it. If I do that myself I really don't like the result in my own images yet get past the sky in someone else's work to appreciate the image. Frustrating but true.

Are there aspects of your approach to image making that block your flow but can sought of go unnoticed in someone else's work, have you found a way to rationalise it for yourself ?

[Vaughn]

It is not that we "simply shoot and allow the sky to go almost paper white and not worry about it." Instead the tonality of the sky is a conscience (artistic) decision. And because the tonality of the sky is a conscience decision, it meshes with the rest of the image...thus (hopefully) adds to the image as a whole.

As far as your Question, no. Why support an approach that blocks one's flow?! If I hear myself saying something like "I cannot stand white skies" then that tells me that I need to examine my motivations a bit closer on that subject and perhaps work a little with images that do have light skies, for example.

And I have to constantly be aware of saying such things...one that keeps crawling around my brain is "I don't shoot portraits." So I kick it out by doing a long series of portraits of my boys.

(another one I have heard myself say is 'I don't like dark skies" and a bigger one for me is "I usually do not include the sky in my images." LOL!)

My most recent (this summer):
The Boys, 2012
Lufenholtz Beach, CA
scanned 11x14 contact print

And an older one:
The Boys
Yosemite Nat Park
scanned 8x10 Pt/pd print

[Shen45]

Let me rephrase that to featureless skies regardless of tone. Maybe I will start taking a series of landscapes regardless of the sky to get over my dilemma

My point is that it bothers me in my photography but not in someone else's.

[Vaughn]

My point is that it bothers me in my photography but not in someone else's.

The question is --why does it bother you. I don't need to know the answer...you do!

Don't take photos regardless of the sky -- but because of the sky!

[Shen45]

I know why it bothers me - I'm not looking for therapy. I'm hoping to stimulate discussion with other photographers who encounter the same or different things that are perhaps issues they have to deal with and how they reach a compromise within their own creative space.

I believe for me it comes down to the fact where I am we get very few days of "fluffy" clouds. Magnificent weather but often bland skies.

But enough of me. Anyone else want to contribute?

[rdenney]

If you are making a cloudscape and there are no clouds, it might have a rather minimalist result. (That was a joke; you can laugh.)

Rarely do we get cloud views like that around here, so I generally don't look for a reason to include skies in the picture, or I try to fill the sky area with earth-bound subject material like trees or buildings.

But sometimes I am going for the minimalist look, and don't mind a featureless sky. In those cases, my subject is not the sky in any case, and I need it to be--in artistic terms--a ground against which to superimpose figure.

I want a dark sky as the background when the figure or subject is bright, and a bright sky as background when my subject has lots of middle and dark texture that would get lost against a dark background.

I've heard people complain that the photo opportunities are lacking because there are no clouds, but that never seems to bother me. I'm perfectly happy find something else to fill the sky, even if it's nothing.

My own issue is the fear of large black shadow areas. I'm always afraid to let large parts of the image just go featurelessly dark, though I often (not always) like the effect in others' work. If I used negative materials and there's information in that shadow, I keep trying to bring it out and it isn't always useful to do so.

Rick "who has been dealing with figure-ground effects on a recent photo not yet ready for posting" Denney

[ROL]

I feel your pain, but I don't necessarily agree that it is a symptom of some kind of creative block. I also appreciate cloudless, "high key" skies in others' work (i.e., a few of Robert Adams' prints), but only if it supports the composition and the intent of the artist (i.e., a large blank sky in a broadly blank landscape). But too often it may be only a symptom of a lazy photographer. Only you can decide that for yourself, whether it is something you personally need to investigate in your own work.

For my part, I generally shoot interesting skies, as that is my artistic and academic bent, in what I believe to be interesting natural landscapes. And yes, they may become dark (relative to others' work) when resolving cloud structure under the enlarger and dependent upon shooting location. High altitude cobalt blue skies generally suggest a darker tone than the grey summer sky of California's Central Valley or a hot desert landscape. FWIW, AA said something to the effect of, 'there's nothing worse than a bald sky'.


Two disparate examples:

1) The sky is "allowed" to retain its high zonal character, so much so that the receding background ridge of the La Sal Mountains seems to be absorbed by it. This both suggests the dawning heat of new high desert day, as well as not competing visually (tonally) with the overarching "rock sky"'

Sunrise, Mesa Arch

2) The sky is burned in along with the clouds to both resolve the clouds themselves and provide contrast between their snowy white tops and the general atmosphere. BTW, I wouldn't have even bothered to get the camera out, without the present sky.

Cloud's Rest and Mt. Starr King

[swmcl]

I think I'm going to have to sympathize with the OP. I too have become very wary of the sky in any photo simply because I've forgotten to deal with it more effectively in my photo at the taking and when I get the film back it seems to dominate the image in a negative way. Skies are very bland on mainland Australia in the main and forgetting about their impact in the image is something I tend to regret afterwards. In fact, I'm waiting for a day with featured sky to re-shoot a local train station.

Rgds,

[Vaughn]

Well, Shen45, I thought I answered your question quite well. If you know why you are bothered and frustrated, yet remain so, then I can only assume that you prefer to be so. All the more power to you.

I prefer not to compromise within my own creative space. If I am in a place that always has blank empty skies, it seems a bit strange (based on my own personal way of seeing/working) to lament about the lack of clouds. While clouds do make for a pretty, or more 'interesting', picture, that is not my goal.

I am reminded of a story about a woman who photographed in New Mexico -- her work was dismissed by a critic from the East Coast because the sky dominated her landscapes. Having never been in New Mexico, he had no understanding how the sky does dominate the landscape. The closest I have been to the Aussie Outback is the New England Tablelands and down to Bathurst...barely on the edge, but the sky is a tremendous thing there. The world is full of pretty pictures, but few that truly speak about Place.

[Shen45]

It has been reasonable being here since 1999 but have to say the tone of this forum is bizarre of late. Vaughn I don't care if you feel you have answered my question well or otherwise. Thanks for your contribution but I was also after discussion from other photographers as well as yourself. In reality I have no real idea if you are a reasonable photographer whose advice I should consider. In fact as far as I'm concerned you are just another internet expert and there are many of those. In fact by your manner I can't see what you really have to contribute other than a belligerent attitude. This forum seems to be transforming into a toxic waste dump for ego driven individuals. I don't perceive any real sense of community here so mods if you can, delete this thread as I don't feel it will contribute anything from now on.