[Closed] Why do some countries have better "light" than others?

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/denmark/8303551/Skagen-Denmark-the-light-fantastic.html

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.

Here's one from somewhere which gets proper mountain light:

[img] https://goo.gl/Mf3ANH [/img]

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.

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.