MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Question partly inspired by posts on the Tour of Britain thread about how our country isn't the most photogenic, and also a passing comment from someone at work just now who's recently been to Croatia and said the light there was amazing.
I've noticed it on the west coast of America, where even the most run-down urban areas seem to have a cinematic quality to them, lended - seemingly - by the colour of the light.
Is it just a variation on the proverbial rose-tinted spectacles, whereby you tend to appreciate novel surroundings more, especially when you're on holiday? Or is there some scientific explanation behind it?
Funny innit, it's not the whole country though, St Ives is famous for having good light and you can see it when you're there, even just looking at the sea it's different to further up the coast for some reason.
Don't know why, but it's an interesting subject.
our country isn't the most photogenic,
Apparently it is.....
[url= https://www.roughguides.com/gallery/most-beautiful-country-in-the-world/ ]https://www.roughguides.com/gallery/most-beautiful-country-in-the-world/[/url]
in st ives bay, its because the sand is very pale and there is very little mud, which makes the sea look clearer and much more blue.
I saw an info graphic t'other day about the amount of sunlight received by the USA vs europe.... might explain the amount of un-photogenic flat light from overcast days we get in the UK
[img] 
[/img]
I always thought it was to do with humidity.
It depends on the angle of the sun which of course is down to latitude; but also I think what's around you. If you are surrounded by green trees it's different to if you are on grassland with yellow grass and blue sky, or red rocks, or grey rocks and so on because of the reflected light.
The geography also makes a difference. For example, that US West Coast is photogenic in part because most of it has an unobstructed view to the wide open ocean to the west where the sun sets. As the sunsets the angle of light decreases which starts to pick out the rocky features, and the light starts to redden. And this happens in the afternoon and evening when people are up and about. On the east coast this happens when most people are in bed so we've mostly missed it.
Thanks - the right combination of latitude, sunlight hours and humidity sounds like a pretty good explanation to me..
The geography also makes a difference. For example, that US West Coast is photogenic in part because most of it has an unobstructed view to the wide open ocean to the west where the sun sets.
Of course - though it's apparent even in areas nowhere near the ocean (I remember a slightly scary but weirdly scenic accidental drive through one of Compton's rougher neighbourhoods on my way from LAX...).
I agree, it is definitely a thing. I think some of it is the effect of the sea. Ive seen it most obviously at Skagen, northern Denmark.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/petterphoto/4687836129/
Plenty of #lightbro to be found in the UK if you spend enough time outdoors.
Last weekend in D&G...
[img] 
?oh=11bee8a75acb222664c826a74109195e&oe=5A4FCCA1[/img]
Often get amazing light up Rivington...
[img] 
?oh=fdd00e5ad430de9879fdc646385cdfb2&oe=5A5726E5[/img]
Even Wigan has its moments...
[img] 
?oh=d7878b84fdcdfda7d681c64adc307188&oe=5A50F36E[/img]
Yeah the UK is awful.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Yeah the UK is awful.
Especially Northumbria. I've heard that's one of the worst parts....
You would need to see the raw image before making that judgement (rather than the processed to death images you have posted)
It's not only the light, you need colours as well. Barcelona gets more sun than SW France but I remember my time there as quite grey because the buildings and landscape aren't very colourful, and the vegetation soon goes brown. The greens in France are vivid through Spring and early Summer. This pic isn't photoshopped:
[img] 
[/img]
Anywhere can look good with the right filters (referring to Drac's pics rather than yours, Edu).
No filter either. It's a Lumix which I find really irritating but the pics are faithful to what my eyes see.
Where's that Edukator? Colours look very much like here in Pays Basque.
I can't quantify it of course but the light of the Mediterranean coast has a different (not saying better) quality to here.
Yeah you're right some places look shit without a filter
[img] 
[/img]
Look at it's awful.
[img] 
[/img]
Far from awful, but unlike the 'shopped pics it's quite low in contrast, which is the point of this thread.
It's combinations of light, space, scale, colour and a novelty reaction.
Far from awful, but unlike the 'shopped pics it's quite low in contrast, which is the point of this thread.
Taken in an iPhone so no settings changed. Sounds like you can't accept that the UK is actually Ok for taking photos.
Le Plomb du Cantal, Bob. We could see the Basque Pyrenees from the top that day.
It's pretty much why Hollywood is where it is.
You can get good light in the UK - cloud cover doesn't always help. But there is beauty in that too.
Consistency is the problem with the UK - changing light can be a pain - certainly when we're shooting.
[quote=Drac ]Sounds like you can't accept that the UK is actually Ok for taking photos.
Not at all - chakaping has a couple of good examples which don't appear to be 'shopped, and I even occasionally manage a decent one myself. Your first pic though is a fabulous example of a typical British upland landscape photo - I have loads of very similar pics. For sure it stirs the soul of lots of us who enjoy spending time in such places, but a fabulous photo it isn't, it's just a bit too bland.
I love the light in Utah, being at approx 2000m ASL, there's less atmosphere so you get a different hue of blue...
Ermmm! it's not meant to be fabulous photo, I've got way better stored somewhere from my DSLR might even have some from the same time as the one in hills at different angles. The UK is very photogenic and the light can be good, yes other countries are too but to say the UK isn't and it has bad light is wrong.
Oh the first one I posted. Yeah that's not mine they're a friends.
Could be worse I could have posted that bloody tree in teh gap in the wall.
Drac.. I don't think anyone's saying that it is not possible to take a good photo in the UK. Of course it is. The thread is about the subjective issue of quality of light and why it might be good or bad.
Question partly inspired by posts on the Tour of Britain thread about how our country isn't the most photogenic
Well apart from the OP Molgrips.
I've sure for may reasons the light is more realiable in other countries though.
Le Plomb du Cantal, Bob. We could see the Basque Pyrenees from the top that day.
That's a bloody long way! Thanks to the haze we get here, we're lucky if we can see Biarritz which is only about 40km as the crow flies!
You have to see it as a challenge - how can you manipulate it to its best.
I think people are thinking holiday snaps with brightly lit and high contrast subjects = good light.
(There you go I'm about to go out and shoot some of the Tour - it was lovely in terms of sun, and now a great thick blanket of low contrast grey as hit the surroundings. Hey ho!)
perchypanther - Member
our country isn't the most photogenic,
Apparently it is.....https://www.roughguides.com/gallery/most-beautiful-country-in-the-world/
😀
We do seem to have a good few days of 'flat' light here - clouds and humidity perhaps, being a weeny island on the edge of the Atlantic we are rather prone to that...
Now might be a good point to link to some landscapes by PolarisAndy of this very parish
http://www.polarisandy.com/albums/landscape/
http://www.polarisandy.com/albums/landscape-1/
Question partly inspired by posts on the Tour of Britain thread about how our country isn't the most photogenic
Well apart from the OP Molgrips.
No, he said that the other posters on the ToB thread were saying it wasn't photogenic. He is simply asking what affects 'quality of light' in more quantitative terms.
Have you read that thread?
I think people are thinking holiday snaps with brightly lit and high contrast subjects = good light.
Maybe. How do you tell the difference though?
Here are two , not very good, unprocessed pictures taken on my phone.
This one is of St Ives Bay, renowned for centuries for the quality of it's light ( whatever that means).
Is this good light?
It looks a little flat to me.
[img] 
[/img]
This was taken in the woods at the bottom of the Clyde Valley. A greyer, duller place you couldn't find if you tried.
Is this bad light?
I genuinely don't know but I prefer this picture.
Is it because it's a high contrast subject?
[img] 
[/img]
I guess it's something to do with humidity too.
Even on the rare day here when its clear sky, the sky is very often 'ice blue' rather than 'sky blue'.
It sounds daft, but the first time I went on holiday to France, i landed in Toulouse airport and the first thing I did was take a photo of the sky because it was proper blue.
That's a real eye opener, did not realise that at all.I saw an info graphic t'other day about the amount of sunlight received by the USA vs europe.... might explain the amount of un-photogenic flat light from overcast days we get in the UK
I genuinely don't know but I prefer this picture.
Is it because it's a high contrast subject?
Flat light would be better in a closed woodland, and also helps with the colour of the flowers. With a brighter Mediterranean light that tree trunk would have blown highlights.
I think that 'good light' means it has a bit of colour to it, and the direct illumination comes at an angle. But that's my theory. The reason people use such a vague term like 'good' is that it's difficult to analyse. It is probably a range of different subjective factors that cause people to go 'ooh the light is lovely'.
As for flat grey light being un-photogenic - that's not true either. It's always possible to use what you've got. You just end up taking a different picture to if you were in a lavendar field in Provence.
Wait for the Spring, Bob (if you aren't familiar with the clear days on the Basque coast). We rode the 800m hill with the crosses behind Zarautz and could see the Dune du Pyla.
Time of day and time of the year plays a massive part in all of this....generally speaking:
early in the day - good light
middle of the day - not so good light
late in the day - good light
end of the day - no light
It also comes down to what and where you are trying to photograph....an overcast day at the beach looks a bit rubbish because the colours become muted & there is no contrast, whereas an overcast day in a woodland/forest allows you to take pics with less risk of blown-out sky/total shadow.
I went through a phase of trying to take photos with so little colour in them that they looked almost black and white when printed, without the faf of using filters or manipulation software.
UK light is very good for doing that, particularly in mid minter.
Growing up in Winnipeg, Canada, where the sun shone for an average of 316 days per year and a total of 2353 hours, there was a radical difference between the way the light appeared and what it looked like farther North and West.
So, when I worked in northern Saskatchewan - where the sun shone just as much in terms of number of days - it was much more 'yellow' as opposed to 'white'. It almost felt autumnal - even in the middle of summer.
But then I looked at average number of hours, and saw that they were fewer.
Then again, Montreal - where I also lived - was farther South, but had similar 'white' light to Winnipeg if fewer hours of it. I suspect this is because, being an island on the St Lawrence, it gets higher rainfall.
Ultimately, I don't know if the latitude of where we are, coupled with the humidity, makes a difference, but there may be a correlation.
When I used to frequent MTBR forums many years ago, I used to be able to tell whereabouts somebody was by the photographs of their bikes (correlated to where other people had located themselves previously). I'm way out of practice now, and the heavy use of Instagram/app filters to many photos makes it impossible in many cases, but I can still get a rough feel with a few shots.
I worked on a documentary in Sweden a few years ago, right at the beginning of spring, and the light was just astonishing. It takes a bit of getting used to when the sun is out and bright, but there's relatively little contrast even at midday. It was actually a little disorienting at first, but as I say, quite beautiful.
I think air quality is a factor too. Having lived in the southern hemisphere, where there's a lot less industry than in the north, the difference in clarity and brightness is staggering. We're just used to the polluted haze here.
Pagoeta, Edukator? I'll keep my eyes open for it next time. I ride over Igeldo twice a day on the commute and clear days are few and far between, unless it's very cold.
We're just used to the polluted haze here.
Most haze is humidity and dust, both natural phenomena. Of course out in the desert the humidity is far lower.
Yes, Pagoeta. 30 of us will be riding a mix of the GR 121 and Compostelle route to Deba on the 16th. The not too tired wil head up Pagoeta on the Sunday if it's not too wet.
OP here. I wasn't for one second disputing the fact that you can take beautiful landscape photos in the UK, or that you don't get magical golden autumn days or crystal clear winter ones here - I've seen plenty myself. But I've visited places abroad where, much more consistently, you feel a bit like you're walking around in an amazingly lit film set - the Med, LA, etc. The light *is* different there.
finbar - Member
But I've visited places abroad where, much more consistently, you feel a bit like you're walking around in an amazingly lit film set - the Med, LA, etc. The light *is* different there.
The light is different there but you also have to separate your novelty response to new surroundings from the actual composition. Delhi, Beijing or New York probably won't have great air quality and may not have uniquely special light but the scenes will invoke a response based on all the media you've consumed.
If you walk around New York or Beijing you'll get lots of great holiday snapshots because they resonate with films we've seen and they're exotic. That's not the same as a perfectly exposed image with brilliant composition.
Completely agree jimjam, I did mention that in my first post too. I have to remind myself to appreciate how beautiful the Peak District is when I'm riding through it. The evening light on this climb out of Hathersage is often outstanding:
https://goo.gl/maps/1GfbjS5tEkv
Ironically I'm really not one for taking photos!
It's awful - Scotland 2nd January...
[img][url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/699/32182753413_e36f71584a_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/699/32182753413_e36f71584a_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/R2T2mR ]Arran.[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/nobeerinthefridge/ ]nobeerinthefridge[/url], on Flickr[/img]
Yes, Pagoeta. 30 of us will be riding a mix of the GR 121 and Compostelle route to Deba on the 16th. The not too tired wil head up Pagoeta on the Sunday if it's not too wet.
I'll keep an eye out then, I'm usually on or around the coast on weekend. 30 French mountainbikers shouldn't be hard to spot 😉
Nobeerinthefridge - MemberIt's awful - Scotland 2nd January...
Whatever point you're trying to make, I don't think your image makes it.
Whatever point you're trying to make, I don't think your image makes it.
Aye, says more about my poor camera (phone) skills than how good the light was on that winters day....
Visual acuity is drawn towards contrast, and thus we perceive contrasty images as strong, punchy and visually pleasing.
Televisions in Currys are set up at their worst but ironically appeal to the average person. Inaccurate colours and poorly tracked grey scale is the order of the day.
You have to learn sometimes what makes a pleasing image or an accurate image.
For instance how many set up their TV/monitors/laptops at home?
These days I prefer a subtle flat image to punchy - all my cameras tend to be set flat or raw or log etc. Yet many would say it looked dull.
Objectivity meets subjectivity.
The prevailing winds and pollution levels probably have a lot to do with it too. All those NOx gases and particulates absorbing and reflecting different wavelengths of light and the clouds but they're less sinister I suppose.
Looking up Loch Broom from the shore at Ullapool always seems to have it's own special light quality. I've never managed to capture it in a photo.
'Plomb Du Cantal...'
Just been mulling over where I'd heard that before. I think it's where the main character Grenouille holes up-in the novel 'Perfume'.
As you were!
and also a passing comment from someone at work just now who's recently been to Croatia and said the light there was amazing.
Holidayed near Dubrovnik this summer. The light didn't especially stand out, even though we had the benefit of some beautiful sunsets.
Or perhaps that's because I live in west Lancashire, which is very flat and enjoys the steady flow of the prevailing wind. We get loads of super sunsets too.
scotroutes - Member
Looking up Loch Broom from the shore at Ullapool always seems to have it's own special light quality.
I've noticed that but never quite got it right.
From Inverlael towards Ullapool.
[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4358/35782561464_df409d3f4d_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4358/35782561464_df409d3f4d_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I think it's more the contrast aspect of it. Our eyes can discern a wider range of brightness than a single shot from a camera can capture and so where you have a bright clear source of light such the med, you get larger difference between bright and dark areas of what your are looking at and your eyes can discern that overall range.
Compare that to an overcast UK day and the range between the brightest and darkest is reduced so the picture your eyes see looks flat.
Our eyes and bodies adjust to the normal averages of what's around so if you're are used to UK flat, then jumping off the plan and seeing wide range Mediterranean, then that would come as a surprise.
As said above, it's why when some photos have their contrasts boosted they are more visually appealing (also the TV in stores etc)
Interesting topic.
Slight diversion, but there have been many occasions where landscape photos, however boosted and adjusted have failed to capture and convey the subject to the same extent as seeing it at the time. I think a large part of that is the physical size of what you're seeing versus a much smaller copy print... It just doesn't convey the same to the viewer.
This one is a bit better from Inverlael
[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7315/9690256514_3b9238c9f2_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7315/9690256514_3b9238c9f2_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
What constitutes 'good' light OP?
Is it ok to be soft and grey?
[img] 
[/img]
Does it have to be showy?
[img] 
[/img]
Or pastels?
[img] 
[/img]
I put all these in the category fishy describes in his last paragraph BTW, none of these photos can match the experience of being there.
In terms of the quality of light in a photograph, this is easily my favourite image I've taken and it's not even outdoors
[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4321/35253572384_61fa4e4936_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4321/35253572384_61fa4e4936_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/VHeLRw ]It's Time for Bed - Blood & Water[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/geetee1972/ ]Greg Turner[/url], on Flickr
none of these photos can match the experience of being there.
No but then that's not really what photography is about.
kerley - Member
You would need to see the raw image before making that judgement (rather than the processed to death images you have posted)
As someone pointed out, though, the eye sees a greater contrast range than the camera, post processing, and in-camera as well, using filters, are only ways to try to achieve in a photograph what the eye actually sees; to criticise those photos is really missing the point of what they're attempting to show.
Of course, artists have been enjoying the benefits of the variety of British light for a couple of centuries or so, employing their skills at interpreting what they see and putting it onto canvas.
It's possible to argue that by 'interpreting' the light and the landscape, they're doing nothing different to what was done to those landscapes criticised by kerley.
Just look at a painting by John Constable, that's what the light is all about, and it was the light here in the UK that made him famous as an artist.
This country is stunning in its variety, because it has so much packed into a small space, with weather that changes all the time, so the light changes constantly.
You would need to see the raw image before making that judgement (rather than the processed to death images you have posted)
In order to do what though? A RAW file is no more 'accurate' than a JPEG, it just has a lot more data in. Think of it like the camera hedging its bets and capturing a wider latitude of data that you can then use later on. It's still just a photograph.
No but then that's not really what photography is about.
Indeed. But I'm just trying to understand what the OP is getting at with some examples. I don't think the OP is talking about photography specifically.
it's quite simple really - polarised light
this happens due to reflecting off the sea, or low angle of sun at evening/morning
I think the OP is specifically NOT talking about photography as that is art in place of experience.
The light at Skagen I referred to earlier, attracted artists (as voyeurs) because it [i]felt[/i] different.
I think there its mainly the effect of the two seas (North & Baltic) on the colour of the sky that does it, but the light there has always struck me as "teal". And big skies.
Its not something that you capture in a photograph unless you force it or synthesise it. The same applies for paintings.
But it is different light. And you probably notice it because it is novel (as mentioned above) not necessarily because it is "better".
it's quite simple really - polarised lightthis happens due to reflecting off the sea,
go on....
This got me thinking because I work in an art gallery ([url= https://www.forestgallery.com ]West Sussex art gallery[/url]) and we have often talked about schools such as the Newlyn Art School being 'better' because of the light down in Cornwall but haven't really stopped to question why this is. I did a quick search and found this https://www.scarlethotel.co.uk/cornwall-art-and-light/ which talks about an investigation into Cornish light by the BBC’s Coast TV programme which "concluded that the air here is very clean and that the colour ‘temperature’ shifts to the cooler blue (cool) end of the spectrum by reflections from the sea and the sand."
I'm not convinced how scientific this really is as there are plenty of coastal areas in the UK which have relatively clean air so what is so special about Cornwall?
I know what the OP means and I agree, west-facing places always have a special quality of light; Seattle and Vancouver Island, Cape Town, west Wales, Scotland and Ireland and even recently when I was in Barrow on Furness. It's why artists love St Ives. It's to do with the sea being close.