Cloud Separation

[chris_4622]

When photographing storm clouds that have no break in them where sky is showing do you use a filter? If so which one?

I saw some beauties yesterday on my way home from work, guess I should have had the camera with me. They had dark areas as well as very light, almost white clouds mixed in.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup, sure, why not...but I usually don't go beyond a #15 wratten. Also depends how bright the clouds are relative to blue sky. If they are bright, then nothing stronger than #15....Depends how much drama you want. You have to consider everything that is in the scene as they may also be affected to some degree by the filter.

[Nathan Potter]

Chris, depending on the atmospheric conditions (haze, drizzle, etc.) I use only a polarizer for storm clouds if no clear sky is showing in the frame. This for B&W films. If you're lucky and have a rainbow visible the polarizer can also enhance the color saturation and sometimes help to render a double rainbow more clearly when using color films.

Nate Potter

[Vaughn]

No, filters would be of no or little use. Clouds are monochromatic, so without any blue sky, filters would just act as neutral density filters. One might try a polarizing filter...have no idea if it would do anything, but just holding the filter to your eye and rotating it should give you an idea if it does or not.

Using exposure and development to increase the contrast would be one tool to use.

Vaughn

[Kirk Gittings]

I disagree Vaughn. Clouds like these are oftentimes not monochromatic but have steely blue undersides and warm tops. I find that about a light orange filter and careful exposure will enhance contrast and make them feel three dimensional.

[lenser]

Even on very cloudy days, UV (near the deep blue spectrum) penetrates....hence the phenomenon of sun burn at the beach on a cloudy day and the need for at least a UV (if not an 81B) filter with transparency film.

(If you don't believe me, check it with a color temperature meter.)

Therefore, either a yellow or red filter will have some effect of seperating tones in the clouds by acting as a minus blue filter as well as increasing the overall contrast. This will not be as noticable as on a sunny day with white puffy clouds, but it will happen.

It will take experimentation to realize the effect, so shoot he same scene with and without filters to see what happens. There will be almost no effect if the clouds are near the same tone of gray.

The polarizer will also help, as already suggessted, by literally removing the glare from the countless microscopic water droplets in the air and removing that specific haze that reduces existing contrast.

As you will already be dealing with dark conditions, and the filters will subtract significant light, be sure to use a sturdy tripod (preferably wood if you're in or even near a thunderstorm warning).

It's not as predictable as good weather photoraphy, but you will see differences.

Tim

[Vaughn]

I disagree Vaughn. Clouds like these are oftentimes not monochromatic but have steely blue undersides and warm tops. I find that about a light orange filter and careful exposure will enhance contrast and make them feel three dimensional.

I've been wrong before and will likely continue the trend. -- thanks Kirk!:p

Vaughn

[lenser]

I just went back to the master. In "Examples, the Making of Forty Photographs" there is a detailed description by Ansel of the making of his famous 'Clearing Winter Storm' image in Yosemite. He very definitely talks of using the K2 (Wratten?) light yellow filter for the image.

It's all about tonal separation.

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

I assume you're talking about black and white photography. If there's no color in the sky or the clouds then no filter will create contrast. In b&w photography a filter creates contrast or tonal separation by passing some colors and holding back others. If the colors that the filter passes and holds back aren't present in the sky or the clouds then the filter won't do anything (except increase your exposure time). Using a UV or a polarizer to reduce haze is a different queston.

[lenser]

Brian,

I've always read, and found it to be accurate, that balck and white filters also reduce or eliminate atmospheric haze. That is the specific reason that Adams cites for using the K2 on the "Clearing Winter Storm' image.

Also, we can't see all the colors (back to UV) that the filters and film effect.

By removing both the UV and the haze, the filters do enhance contrast even though we may not recognize actual colors visually in a scene.

Tm

[Kirk Gittings]

I used to give my photo students a "color sensitivity" lesson. The students were to describe the colors they saw in clouds. It was a simple lesson in observation. I never talked to one of them that wasn't amazed by what they saw. The students had never looked closely at clouds before and had always assumed they were neutral. They almost never are truly neutral or monotone.

[Sheldon N]

Well... some of the clouds we get here in the Northwest can be monochromatic. We get that lovely sheet of solid gray with no shape or form. With this kind of sky, the only thing that a filter does is keep the rain off your lens!

Sometimes I think that we just get one big cloud that rolls in around November and finally passes by sometime in March.

:)

[Kirk Gittings]

I could have been clearer I guess. I was talking about clouds not completely socked in, slit-your-wrists overcast.

While I love the NW, I would have hated trying to make my living there shooting architecture. Here in NM you have to wait about a few hours for any major weather change so we can shoot like 98% of the days. I would starve to death there from Nov-March. Work Starbucks in the off season?

[Kirk Keyes]

I would starve to death there from Nov-March. Work Starbucks in the off season?

You could do that. A couple frappachinos every day has enough calories to hold you for several months.

And we have a Starbucks (or some other coffee outlet) on nearly every corner. I think they are the equivalent for college graduates (English, Humanities, General Studies majors) that gas stations are for high school dropouts.

And if you tire of coffee, you could always get a job at Powells Books...

[Vaughn]

I could have been clearer I guess. I was talking about clouds not completely socked in, slit-your-wrists overcast.

This is the type of overcast I am use to here in the NW..but actually it creates wonderful light to photograph in under the Redwoods (especially from about 10 am to 2pm).

But Kirk, I very much appreciate your observations about clouds. I will observe clouds differently now...and that is a fine gift you have given me. I hope I can return the favor, or at least pass it forward.

Thank you,

Vaughn

[chris_4622]

I was hoping Kirk Gittings would weigh in with his experience and love of photographing under these conditions.

Thanks to all. Just to clarify; there was no rain or mist present, there was a lot of contrast in the clouds. I wasn't sure if a filter would help.

I can't wait for stormy conditions to go out and "play".

chris

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

I've always read, and found it to be accurate, that balck and white filters also reduce or eliminate atmospheric haze. That is the specific reason that Adams cites for using the K2 on the "Clearing Winter Storm' image.

Also, we can't see all the colors (back to UV) that the filters and film effect.

By removing both the UV and the haze, the filters do enhance contrast even though we may not recognize actual colors visually in a scene.

Tm

Tim - I didn't say anything about using filters to remove haze except that it was a different question (i.e. a different question than the OP asked because he asked about using filters with gray and white clouds, he didn't say anything about haze). With respect to not seeing all the colors that filters affect, that's certainly true but I don't see that it's very relevant to using filers. If you can't see the colors why would you think of using filters in the first place (setting haze aside) and even if you did think of it, how would you know which filter to use?

[lenser]

Hi, Brian.

Of course you are right that you didn't mention haze, but I believe that it is a component of the answer to the OP.

Haze is made up of water vapor, microscopic dust particles, and UV.

No filter will deal with the dust. A polarizer and any contrast filter will help with the water vapor, and the range of contrast filters help to deal with the UV.

If you've ever shot transparency film on a cloudy day without filtration (especially a portrait in the shade) you'll recognize the UV in the blueish skin tones and shadows. At high altitudes the skies go nuts with blue (which can be wonderful) but the shadows go extremely blue without a warming filter. (Thinner atmosphere has a much higher UV to other colors balance.)

Since black and white films are usually very blue sensitive, the unseen, blue related UV actually seems to lighten skies and create more atmospheric haze.

Since a cloudy day produces a heavier balance of UV to the rest of the spectrum, it's extra blue related component might actually create a bit of a veil of extra exposure on the clouds. This will lessen contrast and tonal separation. So, the yellow, orange or red filters will enhance the contrast between the clouds unless there is no variation in tone across the sky.

You still have to make all the same decisions about which filter and the combination of exposure and development to create the print that you visualized to begin with.

As far as how do you know which filter (if you can't see the UV).....that's still a personal preference on how much contrast you enjoy in your prints. Nothing could have a richer range of tones than Adams "Clearing Winter Storm" and yet it needed only a light yellow K2.

After all that, do you need a contrast filter to shoot clouds? No. Does it have the potential to separate tones and create more contrast? Yes.

Like everything else we shoot, it's a matter of what we personally like in the prints.

Have a great day. (By the way, I love your signature quote.)

Tim

[Mark Sampson]

Trust me, don't over-filter. I have a negative from last week of clouds with shafts of sunlight on the beach- it's way too contrasty, the proof looks overdone. I'm going to have to a) work hard printing it and b) retire the #15 filter. 25 years of practice and still things to learn!

[Erich Hoeber]

I find that filtration will often make a big difference in separation even when no blue is obvious. There's still a lot of blue in there, although it's sometimes difficult to judge exactly how strong the effect is going to be. I frequently will make shots with two different filters, so I'll have an option.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Like I said previously...don't go beyond a #15.

[SAShruby]

Starbucks?

Bleah. :eek: Worst coffee franchise ever. Cofee is burnt, expensive and taste awfull.

[Kirk Gittings]

don't go beyond a #15......retire the #15 filter, Mark Sampson

My standard go to filter for clouds and landscape are a #16 yellow orange..... on a hazy or low contrast day maybe a 23a occasionally.

[CG]

Trust me, don't over-filter. I have a negative from last week of clouds with shafts of sunlight on the beach- it's way too contrasty, the proof looks overdone. I'm going to have to a) work hard printing it and b) retire the #15 filter. 25 years of practice and still things to learn!

Is it possible the issue was as much the underlying contrast of the scene as the selection of filter? Might have been that to make the combination work, you would have had to dial back the development quite a bit. If the #15 was there to create tonal separation or a tonal statement, that statement may have been entirely appropriate, but the range of exposure may have needed more control.

Just a thought / guess....

C