what do you do when shooting mid-day?

[Daniel_Buck]

So, looking back on some of my photographs from a few outings, and I noticed how bland my shots looked when shot mid-day. I usually don't shoot mid-day because I know the lighting isn't good, but I'll still ask the question to maybe start up a discussion on filtering when shooting B&W mid-day.

This one for example, would using a green filter help bring out the tree leaves? They just look so muddy to me, not much separation. I used a polarizer to darken the sky, but no extra filtering on this one I believe.

How would yall do it, if you were shooting mid-day with trees, sky, ground, a scene similar to this one:

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/rileys_04.jpg

[Ken Lee]

Some people don't even bother shooting outdoors at that time, except when making images in the shade, like portraits or flowers.

Every time of day has its own feeling. In classical Indian music, the different Ragas or melodies, are to be played only during certain muhurthas, or 45-minute periods. The word Raga means color or feeling. It's an old concept, highly developed.

I wouldn't be surprised if other mature cultures, developed similar schemas. Today we know about the influence of the seasons: this is just a further nuance, you might say.

No doubt great masterpieces have been made under noon day Sun, but it's not for everyone.

[Bosaiya]

Siesta-time. Or as Ken suggests, things that do well in the available shade.

Of course it really depends on what you're going for and what's around you. A typical pastoral tree-covered landscape-type shot might not be well suited for those conditions whereas a scorching desert along the lines of a Sergio Leone movie might be perfect. Is there something else you can be doing other than shooting during that time?

Raga? Isn't that what the nutty girlfriend in Spinal Tap listens to?

[Preston]

Daniel,

A green filter will help in such situations because it will lighten the tone of the leaves and will not darken blue. The shadows under a blue sky will have a high blue component, so any filter that darkens blue will will cause the shadows to be darker. You could also use a yellow filter if you want to darken a sky a bit. This will have less of an effect on the shadow values than a polarizer, and will help with tonal separation.

A polarizer will affect the shadows as it does the blue sky; it will darken them.

An option may be to use an orthochromatic film. It will give lively tones to green foliage. However, since ortho is not blue-sensitive, skies will be very light in tone. The affect could be very nice depending upon subject matter. I don't know if Ortho is still available, but if so, it may be fun to experiment with it.

-Preston

[Daniel_Buck]

well, I know it's not the best time to shoot, and as I said I usually try to avoid it.

I was more looking for suggestions to help out the mid-day lighting when I do find myself at a scene like this where I will not be there earlier or later in the day, but I'd still like a shot of the scene, which is exactly what the shot above was, I wanted a shot of the scene, but was not able to stay for very long.

(edit) thanks preston, for your suggestions :-) If I don't have ortho with me, maybe a blue filter might do something interesting?

[Robert Hughes]

But even Serio Leone would have banks of reflectors and arc lights at midday to fill in the squinty face of the Man With No Name.

[Bosaiya]

And he'd pull it off with panache, too!

Not every situation has a workable solution. Sometimes you have to make compromises and live with the less-than-ideal results. I don't think filters are going to get you what you're after, but they may get you better than nothing.

[Ken Lee]

I daresay that some of the images shown on this forum, would look much nicer, if only they were shot at less ho-hum times of day.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Noon in June can be dull indeed. But I welcome storm-clearing light and cloudy-bright (-1.5 stops from Sunny 16) at any time of day. An individual cloud passing over the sun can be a great light modifier, so long as you're concentrating on details and not trying to shoot a panorama.

Modifying the light can be as simple as a collapsible reflector or a translucent diffuser or using fill flash. X-sync at leaf shutter speeds can be really useful when combined with slow films and powerful flash, to separate a human subject from the background, even at midday.

I shoot color exclusively. If I've got to shoot under a bald blue sky I'll do it with neg film or digital, as the blue shadow crossovers are much harder to deal with shooting transparency film. Forget shooting certain emulsions in the middle of the day, their dynamic range simply won't handle it. Fujichrome Velvia 50 and Provia readily come to mind.

Around here the light gets too harsh within a half an hour of sunrise on summer mornings. A polarizer can be useful to knock down harsh reflections and to bring blown out highlights on leaves back into range. Later in the morning, however, the quality of light improves all by itself as the sun rises above the marine layer when natural polarization and a better saturated sky 90˚ opposite the sun returns at about 10AM. It happens again about 3 or 4 in the afternoon, depending on the season and the angle of the sun, but it only happens in one quadrant of the sky at a time.

[Donald Miller]

Surprising as it may seem there are some wonderful photographs that have been made at midday. Michael Smith has made a number of his beautiful images at midday in full sunlight. Ansel made several. One that I recall is looking outward from a darkened interior.

The problem for you Daniel is that you have an adequate density range on the negative from shadow to highlight but that leaves your shadows and midtones lumped down on an area of the films curve that not much in the way of separation is going on.
First I would choose my film on the basis of the linearity of it's characteristic curve. There are several that fit that bill.

Beyond the film choice, one thing that could be done is to give more exposure and use a compensating developer. This would be developers that are either highly dilute, water bath or two bath developing, or catechol based developers.

On a separate note, polarizers are not generally well favored in shooting BW because they can give some tonal variance in the sky regions. Additionally as someone else mentioned any filter that will darken the sky--typically a Y 12 or 15 will darken open shadow areas.

My experience indicates that green filters (58) do not work well to lighten foliage. This, I assume, is because this foliage emits a large amount of IR.

Donald Miller

[Bruce Watson]

I don't think there is any such thing as a time of day when the lighting is inherently "bad". The lighting you get is the lighting you get. It's up to the individual photographer to deal with it as he/she/it sees fit. I'm just sayin' it's not a limitation of the light -- it's a limitation of the photographer.

A lot of photographers seem almost afraid of full sun. Sometimes I think it must be a form of vampirism. :D

I'm attaching a couple of photographs I made in full mid day sun. The color Passion Flowers I made in full mid-day sun in June (northern hemisphere). The B&W Rock Face was made about an hour before noon in late January (again, northern hemisphere). Both are more interesting because of the sunlight I think. Others of course may disagree which is their right.

I'm just saying you should make the most of the light you have. There's always something interesting to photograph, it's just a question of seeing it.

[Daniel_Buck]

I don't think there is any such thing as a time of day when the lighting is inherently "bad". The lighting you get is the lighting you get. It's up to the individual photographer to deal with it as he/she/it sees fit. I'm just sayin' it's not a limitation of the light -- it's a limitation of the photographer.

A lot of photographers seem almost afraid of full sun. Sometimes I think it must be a form of vampirism. :D

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

[r.e.]

Daniel,

Drop by your local foreign film rental house and take out the film I Am Cuba: http://www.amazon.com/Am-Cuba-Ultimate-Sergio-Corrieri/dp/B000UJ48Q8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1256774881&sr=8-1

This movie rewards a bit of research; maybe you'll get an edition that talks about some of the techniques used. The latest edition includes a documentary, which I have seen and which is very good, about how the film was made. It does help, when you are trying to figure out why certain scenes look the way they do, to know that some of I Am Cuba was shot on infrared film. For your purposes, the infrared is only one element, just something you need to be aware of when watching this movie. Otherwise there are times in the film when you'll be saying to yourself "How the hell did they get that look"?

On the use of infrared, they say (maybe true, maybe not) that some of the scenes were shot with infrared because it's the stock that they happened to have. Kind of like Lindsay Anderson saying, about the film If..., that some of it was shot with black and white stock, not because of some grand artistic design, but because they were running out of money and got the stock cheap.

Enough digression. I Am Cuba will answer your questions, and maybe give you some ideas.

[Diane Maher]

I have found that the lighter green filters do help with the foliage. The one I use is the Lee 11 filter.

I would have to agree with Bruce when he says that it is a matter of seeing your subjects in a different light.

Alternatively, IR film is good to use at midday. :)

[Daniel_Buck]

I'm not really looking for examples of other locations at mid-day (those aren't like my scene anyway), more or less asking what people would do with the scene I posted. But thanks for posting.

[vinny]

Infrared film.

[Daniel_Buck]

Infrared film.

I have a feeling I would enjoy that! I've got an IR digital camera, maybe I should try some IR film :)

[r.e.]

It's a matter of seeing in terms of, and adjusting to, hard light. It's the same issue that one faces if one is photographing at night on the street or in a bar, or doing a portrait in the old Hollywood style or making high contrast/edgy fashion photographs. It isn't that "the lighting isn't good", although the ubiquity of softboxes might make one think otherwise, it's that it is hard and contrasty, which in fact can be exploited to make extremely good photographs. Maybe the conventional wisdom that one can't make good photographs in full sun, aka hard light, is nothing more than a sign that it takes more thought and more work, maybe even more skill.

To respond directly to the question that you raised, the problem is that you are fighting the light instead of using it. Reaching out for a magic bullet, whether it is filters or infrared film, is just symptomatic of the problem. The two examples that I posted, which I have deleted because you weren't interested in them, were in fact a lot more similar to your scene that you thought. The subjects may have been superficially different, although they were also landscapes, but that doesn't matter. The quality of light, and whether you roll with it, and compose accordingly, is in my humble opinion what is important.

[Ed Richards]

I actually like daylight, and it gets plenty bright down here in the near tropics. Since I shoot black and white, I find those overcast days really difficult.

You just have to make the light a more prominent part of the composition. Easy for architecture, where you have lots of shadow planes to work with. Nature is harder, esp. scenes with lots of little details. What I would do with your scene is to recompose it so the light is working for you. Look for some shadows to work with, maybe shoot the bushes up against the sky, something dramatic. Maybe get a lot closer - those bushes will be pretty boring no matter what the light, so getting closer might help. Then you might get some patterns of light and shadow on the leaves you could work with.

All that said, we are like sailors on 18th century ships. Sometimes the weather does not cooperate. If you are on a commerical assignment and have to get a shot, bring strobes.

[Daniel_Buck]

It's a matter of seeing in terms of, and adjusting to, hard light. It's the same issue that one faces if one is photographing at night on the street or in a bar, or doing a portrait in the old Hollywood style or making high contrast/edgy fashion photographs. It isn't that "the lighting isn't good", although the ubiquity of softboxes might make one think otherwise, it's that it is hard and contrasty, which in fact can be exploited to make extremely good photographs. Maybe the conventional wisdom that one can't make good photographs in full sun, aka hard light, is nothing more than a sign that it takes more thought and more work, maybe even more skill.

To respond directly to the question that you raised, the problem is that you are fighting the light instead of using it. Reaching out for a magic bullet, whether it is filters or infrared film, is just symptomatic of the problem. The two examples that I posted, which I have deleted because you weren't interested in them, were in fact a lot more similar to your scene that you thought. The subjects may have been superficially different, although they were also landscapes, but that doesn't matter. The quality of light, and whether you roll with it, and compose accordingly, is in my humble opinion what is important.

That's exactly what I'm asking, what do people do in broad day light, high noon when the sun is shooting down 90 degrees straight down to the horizon. You say "See, and adjust to hard light". Well, what do you mean by ADJUST to hard light? You've posted and then deleted some nice images (only one of which I think had the sun directly above, 90 degrees), but have offered no suggestions as to what to do in those harsh situations, other than an image (in color) of what you have done in different locations. I appreciate your comments, but they don't seem to answer any of my question, you say I am "fighting the light", but offer no suggestions as to how to improve, or even HOW I am fighting the light and how to "adjust to harsh light" as you say. :)

This is not something I struggle with very often (since I'm usually shooting later or earlier in the day) but it's something that I wouldn't mind having some hints on, since I do find myself every now and then outside mid-day (sun diretly over head) seeing a nice landscape that looks good to my eye, but I can't capture near as good. I usually don't take a photograph, but when I do the photograph never really looks even 1/4 as good as what I see with my eyes and envision what it should look like in B&W. I never have this problem later or earlier in the day, I can usually capture something in B&W that looks close to what I see and envision in B&W (or at least looks good, even if somewhat different than I imagine it) but mid-day sun way high up, I never seem to get anything I that I like, and certainly not what I see and envision in B&W. Maybe I'm expecting to much of B&W to capture what I see mid-day in color? I dont' know, but I thought I would ask for suggestions :)


Maybe get a lot closer
I suspect this might be one answer! I did take some close ups of the apples themselves, and was pleased with the results. But in the photograph of the orchard and mountain as a whole, I was not pleased.

[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:


http://www.edward-weston.com/images/image_pepper_index.gif

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.

[Bob McCarthy]

I agree with the strong cocktail crowd, though I often throw in a nap.

Bob

[QT Luong]

I don't think there is any such thing as a time of day when the lighting is inherently "bad". The lighting you get is the lighting you get. It's up to the individual photographer to deal with it as he/she/it sees fit. I'm just sayin' it's not a limitation of the light -- it's a limitation of the photographer.
[...]
I'm just saying you should make the most of the light you have. There's always something interesting to photograph, it's just a question of seeing it.

I entirely agree. I'll also add that photographing only in "golden light" misses what things look like most of the time. Not all subjects will work in mid-day light, but when I am in the field, looking for the subjects that will work is a better use of my time than having a nap. Incidently, my best selling image is a landscape shot mid-day.

[john biskupski]

Daniel, I think Preston's comments on the advantages of a green filter in this mid-day lighting situation pretty much cover it. You are using a contrasty film (Tri-x) in a high contrast, flat overhead lighting situation here, so it's no wonder much of the tonal range is compressed. As said before, maybe a less contrasty emulsion, fuller exposure to bring out mid and shadow tones, and compensating reduced development to combat contrst build up would extend the midtones better. On your question regarding use of a blue filter, you should try it out, it should help avoid darkening shadows, would lighten the sky, and darken the green foliage. According to Barry Thornton ('Elements') a blue filter in the right lighting conditions can simulate the old orthocromatic film by 'lightening' the scene as a whole. But you would lose the contrasty look, so it's your judgement as to what you want to show in the final print.

[Struan Gray]

Learn to see shadows as a compositional element.

Learn to see colour casts as a compositional element.

Don't pigeonhole the world; try to see it as it is.


Friedlander's "Apples and Olives" is a a fantastic example of how to make great photographs of this kind of subject in this kind of light. Ray Metzker's "Landscapes" book does similar things for wider variety of landscapes.

[sanking]

Don't pigeonhole the world; try to see it as it is.



The world can be seen in many different ways depending on personal vision. It is never exactly "as it is" or as any single person sees it. This would suggest that there is a correct way to see it, and there is not. We know that there are ways of representing reality that may appeal to some persons but not to others.

Sandy King

[r.e.]

Sandy,

I'm sure that Struan is quite capable of taking care of himself, but I can't help but suggest that if you look at his photographs, or read what he has written on this forum, you'll see that he has a rather more sophisticated outlook than the one that you are attributing to him.

[GPS]

Mountains, in a mid-day, because of the absence of shades, have a unique expression of timeless loneliness disconnected from their surrounding. In the middle of the day they dream eternity.

[sanking]

Sandy,

I'm sure that Struan is quite capable of taking care of himself, but I can't help but suggest that if you look at his photographs, or read what he has written on this forum, you'll see that he has a rather more sophisticated outlook than the one that you are attributing to him.


First, I am not attributing anything to him, only responding to his words. Words mean something, and what he wrote was patently absurd, IMO, and I responded accordingly. If his photography is more sophisticated than his writing that would be good.

Sandy King

[Struan Gray]

There is no smiley for irony. And who needs smileys anyway?

Daniel is frustrated that the world does not look like what he expects photographs of the world to look like. "See it as it is" is, as you pointed out, fraught with philosophical gotchas, but it's a succinct way of suggesting that the world is generally richer than our imaginations, and the richness permits more than one type of 'good' landscape photograph.

[ric_kb]

semicolons matter
see what it is. see it no matter what it is.

[Richard M. Coda]

A vodka and tonic usually does wonders!

[Daniel_Buck]

A vodka and tonic usually does wonders!

scotch works for me :o

[Harold_4074]

What do you do when shooting mid-day?

Take a nap :)

Failing that, consider a change in perspective (literally, not figuratively). Moving to a higher viewpoint (climb something, get on top of a car, etc.) might have helped to separate the trees from the hill in the background, and would have let the shadows directly beneath the trees become part of a composition, instead of competition with the foliage. There are several reasons why AA had a platform on top of his car, and this might be one of them. One thing that noon light does, if you can arrange to look downwards somewhat, it to "open up" the landscape, because you can see in between features that would otherwise mask each other with shadows.

Somewhere, I have a picture of a Northern California valley full of scrub oaks and digger pines, taken near midday. I had given up on the lower elevations for much the same reasons that you aren't satisfied with the picture that you posted, and was really surprised how pretty the landscape was when viewed from a ridge that was only about 400 feet higher.

[Brian K]

B&W is all about lighting and tones. The problem with the sample image in the OP is that due to the mid day lighting the trees blend into the mountains, the mountains are rather dull looking and any real sense of depth or distance is lost. While there might be some people who consider those to be virtues, I do not.

While there are circumstances where mid day light can work, most notably when there are clouds present to cast strong shadows, most often landscape photography is better served when the sun is lower in the sky.

[Jim Ewins]

Look for patterns and forms that need the harsh light. Every subject will present a different face thru the day. Make a series of shots that prove interesting as the shadows move. Yes filters. Look for the tool for the job, don't wait til the sun comes to you.

[sun of sand]

Unless it's overcast/canopied anyway I won't take any
Probably why I like winter so much
Forced to make it work most days. Dull, overcast summer stretches piss me off

Here I have to be out before sunrise and maybe get 5 images before it gets too dull
and that's maybe 5 if I'm interested in what's going on
Been out all day many times and come home with one or two negatives
late day seems to afford more time but the places I've been frequenting are 80% morning areas ..don't receive sunset light

Here it is flat, though. If you have mountains/hills and interesting layers like that you can do more
I was out a few days ago at noon-2pm during the peak of fall on a beautiful, partly cloudy day in tiny Middlebury, NY with their foothills of foothills and it was fantastic
Couldn't take any photos
Probably could have made my 1st half of the year if was able to spend the entire day out there
Had some thick fog/misty rain couple early mornings ago and it was great stuff
Got 9 shots and had to quit at 9:30 when the landscape was getting good
wish I had all day with that soggy weather
I actually had to leave the camera standing and take a run just to experience some of it


Midday it becomes about chasing shafts of light through clouds imo
no clouds midday and flat terrain I'm mostly screwed



In your photo I would try an ortho look. "Blow" the skies right out, lighten foliage perhaps and get lots of light into the trunks and dirt..probably cut most sky out of the photo. Compensating developer or let leaves go crispy
That's what I'd attempt, anyway

-I would- your photo is fine

[sun of sand]

I found an example not that it would have to be a speciman photo

[David_Senesac]

Hello Daniel,

I just looked through the 100 plus 4x5 landscapes on my below site's two galleries:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/gallery_b.html

And though a significant percentage were taken under clear sunny blue skies, there are no images that were taken during sunlight at midday hours I would define at my California latitude during summer as say 10am to 4pm. Oh I've taken some pics midday for decades like all of us, but they rarely make the grade as I am very picky about what is allowed to go public. Note I use Provia 100F that I consider the best color transparency film for sunny conditions. There are some landscapes in my gallery taken under cloudy conditions at midday, some in fall or winter when the sun altitude is rather low even at midday, and a couple more intimate closeups barely into midday. However for the most part for landscapes I learned to avoid such shots for obvious reasons of contrasty light beyond a film's latitude, flat light with a lack of shadowing, and muted color.

For nearly two decades, photography writers and instructors borne out of the Velvia saturated film era since 1990 have been narrowly teaching the wisdom of golden light and early late afternoon light say no more than an hour after sunrise or an hour before sunset. Of course Velvia is often lousy when the sun's altitude rises higher than that, a fact that escapes many that bought into that.

Although I'll readily shoot during golden light too, the majority of my own work in summer is between about 1.5 hours and 3.5 hours after sunrise and the reverse before sunset. A narrow time of day some of those narrow golden hour believers would regardless condemn as "harsh midday light". Ironically it is these early to mid morning or mid to later afternoon hours when most ordinary people standing in front of typical icon landscapes would tend to judge them as looking most aesthetic with richly saturated color. Conversely when the sun is within an hour of sunrise or sunset, many elements in nature except in direct light tend to still be rather dimly dull and flat. Easily remedied manipulating saturation in Photoshop of course. Thus my own large body of work is a statement of how invalid such attitudes are. Of course pro color photographers have historically always been making images during the same hours I tend to work and that was strongly the case way back when Kodachrome was dominant. However there is a window for what is possible with each type of film. For the Provia 100F color film I use or the old Kodachrome, I tend to bag my gear beyond 4 hours after sunrise and 4 hours before sunset. Despite bagging my view camera, during wildflower season using a diffuser, reflector, and flash, I can continue closeup work with my Canon G10 digital at any time of day including midday ie ... http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/digi_closeups.html

[Ken Lee]

Many color photos work so nicely, because of harmonies and contrasts between adjacent colors. If we were to convert them to black and white, some of the charm might be lost. Some might look like the OP's photograph.

In black and white, we have fewer visual cues to work with. We often need angular light to delineate shapes, and to to reveal textures that are otherwise invisible. Here's an example made around 11 AM in the autumn.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/21.jpg

[sun of sand]

I think there is a notable difference in sunlight at noon in the summer to noon in the fall and winter
Right now at 9:30 in partly sunny bright skies there is nothing
I wouldn't go out right now
Looking out my windows the types of photos I can identify are ones I don't do

[al olson]

Infrared has been mentioned a number of times on this thread and I concur. In one of my photo books the author recommended that during the early morning and late afternoon sweet times you use your normal films and between mid morning and mid afternoon you use your IR. I found that to be good advice.

In addition, with the demise of faster IR film (i.e. Kodak) the remaining, slower films (ala Efke) give the best exposure with mid day light.

I agree with Brian's analysis of your example image and I think IR would better serve your subject:

B&W is all about lighting and tones. The problem with the sample image in the OP is that due to the mid day lighting the trees blend into the mountains, the mountains are rather dull looking and any real sense of depth or distance is lost. While there might be some people who consider those to be virtues, I do not.

While there are circumstances where mid day light can work, most notably when there are clouds present to cast strong shadows, most often landscape photography is better served when the sun is lower in the sky.

With IR the leaves of your apple trees would be much lighter in contrast with the mountains; the shadows around the trees would be much darker, thus emphasizing their patterns on the ground; it would penetrate the existing haze to display the texture of the mountains; and the sky tones would deepen adding emphasis to existing clouds.

I would like to see an IR example under similar conditions for comparison. I believe that IR at high noon would make your subject far more dramatic.

[AFSmithphoto]

Daniel,

A green filter will help in such situations because it will lighten the tone of the leaves and will not darken blue. The shadows under a blue sky will have a high blue component, so any filter that darkens blue will will cause the shadows to be darker. You could also use a yellow filter if you want to darken a sky a bit. This will have less of an effect on the shadow values than a polarizer, and will help with tonal separation.

A polarizer will affect the shadows as it does the blue sky; it will darken them.

An option may be to use an orthochromatic film. It will give lively tones to green foliage. However, since ortho is not blue-sensitive, skies will be very light in tone. The affect could be very nice depending upon subject matter. I don't know if Ortho is still available, but if so, it may be fun to experiment with it.

-Preston

This contains a little bit of mis-information. A polarizer doesn't darkern blues, it eliminates off-axis light. It will darken the sky and minimize reflections, it will NOT darken the shadows.

It is true that shadows contain a high proportion of UV light, so a yellow filter WILL darken them along with the sky.

Also, it is true that ortho will make a very light sky and lighten the foilage. This is because it lacks RED sensitivity, not blue. (If it were not blue sesitive the sky would be quite dark, as in infra-red film.)

Both infra-red and ortho films are readily available. If you want dark skies and bright foilage, give infra-red a shot.

[Ken Lee]

One method I'm interested to try with noon photos, is Divided Development.

It should also make it possible to shoot in the woods, which can be extremely contrasty.

[Robert Hughes]

Of course, up north this time of year, the whole day is magic hour...

[Preston]

AF,

I stand corrected. Thank you!

-P

[Deniz Merdanogullari]

mid day is my fav time of the day to shoot!

[Ken Lee]

A Polarizer with a Yellow Filter (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#Filter), can darken the sky (off-axis), lighten foliage, and darken the shadows only minimally - whereas a Red or Orange filter will darken the sky, darken foliage, and darken shadows strongly.

[Chuck P.]

How would yall do it, if you were shooting mid-day with trees, sky, ground, a scene similar to this one:

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/rileys_04.jpg

IMO, Donald Miller's post (#10) is the most informative (I did not finish all of them),but it gets to the heart of the matter.

Sun and shade mix----filtration is the key to getting acceptable separation of values followed by delicate development------the exposure has to be decidedly on the the most important shadow values you desire after taking into consideration the filtration you'll be using. Added exposure is needed when using any of the blue absorbing filters so that the shadows do not get too empty for your visualization of the final print (perhaps half to one zone more exposure i.e., +half to +1 stop) and this ultimately is going to lead to highlights that may very well fall too high on the zone scale.

Therefore, a reduction or modification in development will be needed to keep the density range of the negative to within the exposure scale of the paper. Your're trying to contract a high contrast scene onto the film so that all the "important" values print for you on paper with acceptable separation, not necessarily an easy thing to do.

[Chuck P.]

Well, thanks to Percepts for helping me with the uploads-----kept changing and changing and finally could get these to load at the low to mid 90'sKB size.

These are both mid-day or late afternoon shots that posed the standard difficulties associated with strong mix of sun and shade, boring shots I admit, but I think successful. The forest shot was filtered with #21 orange, Zone IV shadow placement on the shaded tree trunk and N-1 development. The old house, done in MF, was unfiltered because I did not feel there would be a problem with merging values; it's a Zone II shadow placement beneath the house with N-1 development.

Seems I have to boost the brightness/contrast in PS Elements Editor beyond what is desired in order for it to upload here to be closer to what is desired-----hope that makes sense.

[Doug Dolde]

I shoot three exposures (+2,0,-2) and blend in Photomatix. But then I am shooting with an Aptus 75S

[Jack Dahlgren]

As a practical matter, I'd probably try to find an angle where the sun is not behind my back. It makes for very flat looking images. From the tree shadows it looks like the sun is almost directly behind you.

I like to see the light creep around things or glance off of them or perhaps shine through them.

Mid-day is probably better for choosing subjects which are a bit closer than mountains. Shooting from below them, you can also get some shadow to help define the subject. Maybe not the best example (no mountains) but it does have trees and clouds.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3642399507_0c17422910.jpg

[Lenny Eiger]

With all due respect, I find all the rules tedious. I find it an incredible waste of time to only shoot in the early am. The key is proper development. I don't bother with filters, they just blur things a bit (my set will be up for sale here shortly). I don't really like black skies, either. If you develop properly, all should come in line. If you print with PhotoShop, just modify the midtone curve a bit...

Just my 2 cents.

Lenny

[Chuck P.]

The key is proper development. I don't bother with filters, they just blur things a bit (my set will be up for sale here shortly). I don't really like black skies, either. If you develop properly, all should come in line.

I don't think you'll get any argument about the importance of starting off with a well developed negative. But even the best developed negative can suffer from merging values that development alone will not cure. I'm not a huge fan of black skies either, it can be overdone, but a nice Zone III or even Zone IV sky can be beautiful in the right circumstance, helping greatly to offset it from other values.