Blue sky, bright overhead sun is bad, but why?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

bleirer

Bill, Cleveland OH.
Supporting Member
Marketplace
I have my own ideas about this, but I'm interested in what you all think and an open ended discussion about light in general.
.
Everybody says that shooting on a blue sky, bright day with the sun overhead is bad, and everybody knows this is true. But why is it bad? What is actually happening with the light and shadows in the scene and what is the impact on the image? How is low side light different? Yes everybody knows it is good and overhead is bad, but beyond that - why? Why is bright overcast better? What is actually happening with the light on the subject? Same question for backlight? Reflected light? Shooting in shadows?

Give us your take on the nuances of outdoor light in general, it's your time to shine.
 
I have my own ideas about this, but I'm interested in what you all think and an open ended discussion about light in general.
.
Everybody says that shooting on a blue sky, bright day with the sun overhead is bad, and everybody knows this is true. But why is it bad? What is actually happening with the light and shadows in the scene and what is the impact on the image? How is low side light different? Yes everybody knows it is good and overhead is bad, but beyond that - why? Why is bright overcast better? What is actually happening with the light on the subject? Same question for backlight? Reflected light? Shooting in shadows?

Give us your take on the nuances of outdoor light in general, it's your time to shine.

My main outdoor shooting is championship surfing. The issue is the extreme contrast. There is probably 6-7 stop difference between a surfer's tanned face and blue sky, and while it can be somewhat mitigated in post processing, the results look unnatural. And for video, banding is an issue when you shoot 8bit (which I dont). The solution for both is the same: have lots of memory, shoot a lot at the optimal ISO for latitude even if that requires ND filters. There will be some gems among the blown skies and crushed faces.

Also, I don't obsess as much as I used to about blown highlights. The human brain expects some regions to be blown, eg sun flares for backlit shots. When I approach post processing, I don't attempt to remove or mask those, but rather soften them for a more analog experience as opposed to the specular highlights that these sensors and great optics produce.
 
I have my own ideas about this, but I'm interested in what you all think and an open ended discussion about light in general.
.
Everybody says that shooting on a blue sky, bright day with the sun overhead is bad, and everybody knows this is true. But why is it bad? What is actually happening with the light and shadows in the scene and what is the impact on the image? How is low side light different? Yes everybody knows it is good and overhead is bad, but beyond that - why? Why is bright overcast better? What is actually happening with the light on the subject? Same question for backlight? Reflected light? Shooting in shadows?

Give us your take on the nuances of outdoor light in general, it's your time to shine.
The potential problem with bright midday sun on a clear day is hard shadows cast by the direction of the light hitting three dimensional subjects and scenes. Bright directional light can result in very hard shadows cast onto important parts of your subjects/scenes that in many cases isn't that flattering. Not all subjects will cast these shadows and the direction of the light vs the subject can make these images work out ok. For instance shooting a photo of a two dimensional main subject like a flat billboard in hard directional light is often just fine as it doesn't cast hard shadows onto itself. And depending on the direction of the light and the pose and shape of the subject it can sometimes work with live subjects but often doesn't work that well.

This isn't really limited to daylight, flash photography with one bright directional flash can lead to these same hard shadows. But in portrait and some product photography that directional light is sometimes used to great creative effect and the same can be done with some thought and luck on the photographer's part outside on a bright day. IOW, it's certainly possible to use hard directional light well and some scenes/subjects lend themselves to it more than others and like all creative things there are no hard and fast rules or at least rules can be broken to great creative effect on occasion.

When there's passing clouds or high thin overcast it's a lot like a giant soft box in the sky diffusing the light so it's less directional and hits our subjects and scenes at a broader range of angles filling in a lot of the shadow areas and minimizing dark blocked up shadows. Personally I like thinner clouds so that there's still a directional nature to the light most of the time. IOW, I prefer to still see some shadows cast by objects like trees but with some lighter overcast or thinner clouds so that those shadows aren't as hard and dark. Sure, complete overcast where no shadows are cast can be used as well and sometimes can result in great images just like bright direct sunlight can sometimes be used for great images but in general a bit of diffusion that retains shadows but softens them is what I often look for. Retaining some softer shadows can help give images a more three dimensional look and bring out things like fur and feather detail that can be lost in completely overcast conditions.

When I shot weddings, many were outdoors and typically in the middle of bright sunny days. It's something wedding and event photographers have to deal with all the time. Sometimes a bit of fill flash or even full studio lighting (e.g. soft boxes) can be used to modify harsh light but often for more candid shots and ceremony shots I had to make do with available light and work towards the best shots under the circumstances. A bright white wedding dress right next to a black tuxedo in harsh midday light is a real dynamic range challenge but one nearly every wedding photographer sees all the time. If you can't use additional light (flash, bounce card, light reflecting off of buildings, etc.) or can't shoot in the shade then you just have to deal with it and many memorable wedding photos have been captured in those less than ideal lighting situations.

As wildlife photographers I suspect we've all come across interesting subjects in harsh light and sometimes we'll just shrug and continue to capture photos and other times we'll look at the scene, the light, the shadows and just pass. The more common the subject and the less unique the behavior the more likely I'll just pass on a wildlife subject in the middle of a bright blue sky day but sometimes we still capture those photos and sometimes they surprise us and work out just fine either due to just how the light was hitting the subject or due to some harsh lighting creative effect.

To me the bottom line is that harsh midday directional light casts hard shadows that are often problematic and softer diffused light either near the edges of day (diffused through the additional atmosphere the light passes through when the sun is still low and near the horizon) or with some clouds to break up and diffuse the light or when shooting into shadow areas without the hard directional lighting is preferable. Also from a wildlife perspective, a lot of the wildlife subjects I shoot are more active near the edges of day and often more active on cooler cloudy and overcast days which is another reason I prefer shooting under those conditions.
 
My main outdoor shooting is championship surfing. The issue is the extreme contrast. There is probably 6-7 stop difference between a surfer's tanned face and blue sky, and while it can be somewhat mitigated in post processing, the results look unnatural. And for video, banding is an issue when you shoot 8bit (which I dont). The solution for both is the same: have lots of memory, shoot a lot at the optimal ISO for latitude even if that requires ND filters. There will be some gems among the blown skies and crushed faces.

Also, I don't obsess as much as I used to about blown highlights. The human brain expects some regions to be blown, eg sun flares for backlit shots. When I approach post processing, I don't attempt to remove or mask those, but rather soften them for a more analog experience as opposed to the specular highlights that these sensors and great optics produce.

To me the blown highlight part is about getting the value to fall in the range of my choosing on the final image. So if the real world has a specular highlight I have no problem allowing that spot to blow out, but if my eyes read an object in the world as light but not that light I eventually might want to have the latitude to eventually place it just so in the image, so I'd protect those. I could blow it out in post if I chose to do so.
 
Here's an example from an Osprey's nest last summer. I really like this nest as it's on a natural snag and not an artificial platform and it's in a deep canyon so it's pretty easy to setup for the forested canyon wall as a background. But it never really gets any direct golden hour light due to the high canyon walls so I tend to shoot this nest in midday light but I really only visit when I expect clouds in the sky.

Here's a couple of images, one shot when the bright sun was overhead and the other as a cloud rolled through a few minutes later diffusing and softening the light.

Z91_4469--20230614.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Z91_4527--20230614.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Some may prefer the bolder brights on the direct sunlit image but personally I much prefer the detail, including of the nesting sticks and lack of harder blocked up shadows in the diffused light image.
 
The potential problem with bright midday sun on a clear day is hard shadows cast by the direction of the light hitting three dimensional subjects and scenes. Bright directional light can result in very hard shadows cast onto important parts of your subjects/scenes that in many cases isn't that flattering. Not all subjects will cast these shadows and the direction of the light vs the subject can make these images work out ok. For instance shooting a photo of a two dimensional main subject like a flat billboard in hard directional light is often just fine as it doesn't cast hard shadows onto itself. And depending on the direction of the light and the pose and shape of the subject it can sometimes work with live subjects but often doesn't work that well.

This isn't really limited to daylight, flash photography with one bright directional flash can lead to these same hard shadows. But in portrait and some product photography that directional light is sometimes used to great creative effect and the same can be done with some thought and luck on the photographer's part outside on a bright day. IOW, it's certainly possible to use hard directional light well and some scenes/subjects lend themselves to it more than others and like all creative things there are no hard and fast rules or at least rules can be broken to great creative effect on occasion.

When there's passing clouds or high thin overcast it's a lot like a giant soft box in the sky diffusing the light so it's less directional and hits our subjects and scenes at a broader range of angles filling in a lot of the shadow areas and minimizing dark blocked up shadows. Personally I like thinner clouds so that there's still a directional nature to the light most of the time. IOW, I prefer to still see some shadows cast by objects like trees but with some lighter overcast or thinner clouds so that those shadows aren't as hard and dark. Sure, complete overcast where no shadows are cast can be used as well and sometimes can result in great images just like bright direct sunlight can sometimes be used for great images but in general a bit of diffusion that retains shadows but softens them is what I often look for. Retaining some softer shadows can help give images a more three dimensional look and bring out things like fur and feather detail that can be lost in completely overcast conditions.

When I shot weddings, many were outdoors and typically in the middle of bright sunny days. It's something wedding and event photographers have to deal with all the time. Sometimes a bit of fill flash or even full studio lighting (e.g. soft boxes) can be used to modify harsh light but often for more candid shots and ceremony shots I had to make do with available light and work towards the best shots under the circumstances. A bright white wedding dress right next to a black tuxedo in harsh midday light is a real dynamic range challenge but one nearly every wedding photographer sees all the time. If you can't use additional light (flash, bounce card, light reflecting off of buildings, etc.) or can't shoot in the shade then you just have to deal with it and many memorable wedding photos have been captured in those less than ideal lighting situations.

As wildlife photographers I suspect we've all come across interesting subjects in harsh light and sometimes we'll just shrug and continue to capture photos and other times we'll look at the scene, the light, the shadows and just pass. The more common the subject and the less unique the behavior the more likely I'll just pass on a wildlife subject in the middle of a bright blue sky day but sometimes we still capture those photos and sometimes they surprise us and work out just fine either due to just how the light was hitting the subject or due to some harsh lighting creative effect.

To me the bottom line is that harsh midday directional light casts hard shadows that are often problematic and softer diffused light either near the edges of day (diffused through the additional atmosphere the light passes through when the sun is still low and near the horizon) or with some clouds to break up and diffuse the light or when shooting into shadow areas without the hard directional lighting is preferable. Also from a wildlife perspective, a lot of the wildlife subjects I shoot are more active near the edges of day and often more active on cooler cloudy and overcast days which is another reason I prefer shooting under those conditions.

Possibly the thing I see most often is an otherwise well done nature photo, maybe in 3/4 overhead sunny light, but where the form turns away from the light is so black there is no detail. You know there should be feather or fur or texture, but all you see is a black void that looks like it is pasted on.
 
Focusing on critters, I love shooting with the sun lower on the horizon as my photos will have more drama, especially if an animal portrait. And of course in general, the animals are usually more active and the colors can be luminous. On the other hand, I have gotten some great high speed shots in full afternoon sun as the extra light affords low iso and higher shutter speeds. Shooting in this situation often puts the underside of the animal in shadow, and you can have overexposure issues, tho a blowout intentionally placed can add to the drama. I’ve come to think of sun position as another tool after years of shooting whales in natural light underwater. It’s really upped my wow shots, tho I am nothing like some of the pros out there and on this forum.
 
The obvious problems is harsh/dark shadows and wide dynamic range required. Post processing software can help a lot. It is more effective if the shot is captured with editing in mind. I sometimes use a CP filter to help manage blown highlights from reflections, especially if there is wet fur or feathers involved. Follow standard advice to expose to preserve detail in the highlights/white or keep blown areas to smaller or unimportant areas. Consider shutter speed. While higher shutter speeds minimize motion blur and camera shake, lower speeds help minimize noise in the shadow areas. Pick the best tradeoff. Luminosity masking and pulling up the shadows can bring back a lot of detail. This works best if you have a good denoise program as part of your raw conversion. I try not to pass up a good shot at midday. If I see Big Foot riding a unicorn in mid-day sun, I'll take the shot. It may end up in the delete pile but it would be fun trying.
 
One other maybe more subtle thing I notice is the way our flat 2d photos suggest the 3d form of a subject. It seems the more gradual gradation in softer light give more of a modeling effect as the form turns away from the light. But not so much with the hard overhead light which makes subjects that are round in the world seem flat in the photo. I guess we can add our own gradients.
 
Possibly the thing I see most often is an otherwise well done nature photo, maybe in 3/4 overhead sunny light, but where the form turns away from the light is so black there is no detail. You know there should be feather or fur or texture, but all you see is a black void that looks like it is pasted on.
since i shoot at events, i shoot in whatever conditions i am presented. while i try to make the best of the situation i’m presented, like Nimi, i don’t obsess about it too much anymore (i didn’t say i don’t grouse about it! 😂)

what i do is expose as well as i can for the primary subject, balancing the highlights and shadows on the primary part of the subject (head/face) the best i can and do selective work in post to reduce highlights on the subject to retain as much detail as possible and push the shadows so you can see detail.

it’s not always optimal and i’d kill for a camera with more dynamic range, but imo in cases like you describe, the photographer did not optimize the exposure for their conditions or compensate in post or both

will a photo be better in perfect lighting conditions? sure. 🤷‍♀️
 
Here's an example from an Osprey's nest last summer. I really like this nest as it's on a natural snag and not an artificial platform and it's in a deep canyon so it's pretty easy to setup for the forested canyon wall as a background. But it never really gets any direct golden hour light due to the high canyon walls so I tend to shoot this nest in midday light but I really only visit when I expect clouds in the sky.

Here's a couple of images, one shot when the bright sun was overhead and the other as a cloud rolled through a few minutes later diffusing and softening the light.

View attachment 87767

View attachment 87768

Some may prefer the bolder brights on the direct sunlit image but personally I much prefer the detail, including of the nesting sticks and lack of harder blocked up shadows in the diffused light image.
That is an outstanding example of why direct sunlight is so awful. I find the second picture .... 10 times better. The first is a delete. Every time I take a picture in this kind of light, I look at it on the computer later and think "why did I bother?" The second shot a keeper!
 
It makes sense to think of the harsh shadows that midday light can cast, but I think another big factor is actually what midday light leaves out. This is something that might actually be more of a factor for wildlife photography than many other genres because of the unique nature of the subject matter. Animals tend to have an enormous amount of texture compared to human subjects, what with their feathers or fur or the various bumps and ridges on reptiles, etc. When the sun is a bit lower, you get a lot more light "going in" to all of the little nooks and crannies that make up these textures and bouncing around and helping to give those textures depth and a sort of 3-dimensionality. Even when a photo of an animal doesn't have any major problems from midday sun, it probably also doesn't have that depth and presence that the same subject would have when the light can get into its texture and create that truly stunning look.
 
For portraits and other subjects with a lot of subtle detail that adds to the image, soft light is nice for all the reasons everybody has mentioned. But for other subjects (buildings, landscapes, including people shots that are not portraits) the contrast between sunlight and shadows can be wonderful. Check out Mark Fearnley for example, or Ming Thein.
 
since i shoot at events, i shoot in whatever conditions i am presented.

it’s not always optimal and i’d kill for a camera with more dynamic range, but imo in cases like you describe, the photographer did not optimize the exposure for their conditions or compensate in post or both

Me too, but if there is harsh light from full Sun I use an on camera flash gelled to match sunlight if necessary as a fill which brings the dynamic range down. I also use flash in overcast conditions to give the pictures a bit of a lift.
 
One of the advocates of the three types of light, Bryan Peterson, says there is Morning light, to about 10 A.M., Evening light, From ~4 to dark and Pool Light, when he is beside the Pool, with a beverage of choice.
I beg to differ...the "harsh hours" if it ain't overcast or raining can be very good for photography! Plenty of shade, opportunities for fill flash, and other niceties our cameras can provide. :)
 
It depends greatly on the coloration of the subject. Much different with a white egret than a brown bison or a black bear. Activity levels can be less midday and light reflected from water surfaces can be a problem. Best option is to look for shade at that time of the day.
 
I have my own ideas about this, but I'm interested in what you all think and an open ended discussion about light in general.
.
Everybody says that shooting on a blue sky, bright day with the sun overhead is bad, and everybody knows this is true. But why is it bad? What is actually happening with the light and shadows in the scene and what is the impact on the image? How is low side light different? Yes everybody knows it is good and overhead is bad, but beyond that - why? Why is bright overcast better? What is actually happening with the light on the subject? Same question for backlight? Reflected light? Shooting in shadows?

Give us your take on the nuances of outdoor light in general, it's your time to shine.
A bright overcast day the clouds act like a giant softbox and you get soft even light and no harsh shadows. As long as it's not too overcast that's really good light to shoot in especially for portraits. Backlight you have to try not to blow out the highlights. That can be tricky. Many times the subject is a bit underexposed to do that but can be recovered in editing. Shooting in open shade is great as there are no harsh shadows on the subject and if the subject is facing open sky you get nice catchlights in the eyes. When you shoot in the morning or late afternoon evening the color of light changes as the sun is low in the sky. That can be really nice. That's why it's called golden hour. Landscape photographers love early morning or late in the day as the side light offers some dimension on the landscape as well as nice color. Overhead sun can be bad as the shadows are harsh especially if doing portraits. That's why it's best to look for open shade during that time of day. For Landscape many times if they shoot toward the mid day they will convert to black and white especially on cloudless days. I haven't explained many things about light. I did take a course on that. There's intensity of light, color of light, quality of light, soft, hard etc. I'm still learning. I do know that bright sunlight on white fur (dogs, especially huskies, ugh!) can light up the fur like white lights on a Christmas tree. Black fur (black Labs) need nice light. If black fur dogs are shot in open shade there's a tendency for a blue color cast but that's typical and is corrected in editing software. Oh and if the sun is reflecting off green grass and you are shooting a white furred subject the white fur will pick up that green color.
 
Add to the aforementioned...Shooting over heated surfaces, which additionally heat at different rates is not a photographer's friend. And no.. it doesn't matter if it's a cold day BTW.
 
I have my own ideas about this, but I'm interested in what you all think and an open ended discussion about light in general.
.
Everybody says that shooting on a blue sky, bright day with the sun overhead is bad, and everybody knows this is true. But why is it bad? What is actually happening with the light and shadows in the scene and what is the impact on the image? How is low side light different? Yes everybody knows it is good and overhead is bad, but beyond that - why? Why is bright overcast better? What is actually happening with the light on the subject? Same question for backlight? Reflected light? Shooting in shadows?

Give us your take on the nuances of outdoor light in general, it's your time to shine.
mid-day sun puts drastic shadows down the subject.
move into the shade will help.
overcast makes soft even light - if thats what you like ... 🦘
 
The potential problem with bright midday sun on a clear day is hard shadows cast by the direction of the light hitting three dimensional subjects and scenes. Bright directional light can result in very hard shadows cast onto important parts of your subjects/scenes that in many cases isn't that flattering. Not all subjects will cast these shadows and the direction of the light vs the subject can make these images work out ok. For instance shooting a photo of a two dimensional main subject like a flat billboard in hard directional light is often just fine as it doesn't cast hard shadows onto itself. And depending on the direction of the light and the pose and shape of the subject it can sometimes work with live subjects but often doesn't work that well.

This isn't really limited to daylight, flash photography with one bright directional flash can lead to these same hard shadows. But in portrait and some product photography that directional light is sometimes used to great creative effect and the same can be done with some thought and luck on the photographer's part outside on a bright day. IOW, it's certainly possible to use hard directional light well and some scenes/subjects lend themselves to it more than others and like all creative things there are no hard and fast rules or at least rules can be broken to great creative effect on occasion.

When there's passing clouds or high thin overcast it's a lot like a giant soft box in the sky diffusing the light so it's less directional and hits our subjects and scenes at a broader range of angles filling in a lot of the shadow areas and minimizing dark blocked up shadows. Personally I like thinner clouds so that there's still a directional nature to the light most of the time. IOW, I prefer to still see some shadows cast by objects like trees but with some lighter overcast or thinner clouds so that those shadows aren't as hard and dark. Sure, complete overcast where no shadows are cast can be used as well and sometimes can result in great images just like bright direct sunlight can sometimes be used for great images but in general a bit of diffusion that retains shadows but softens them is what I often look for. Retaining some softer shadows can help give images a more three dimensional look and bring out things like fur and feather detail that can be lost in completely overcast conditions.

When I shot weddings, many were outdoors and typically in the middle of bright sunny days. It's something wedding and event photographers have to deal with all the time. Sometimes a bit of fill flash or even full studio lighting (e.g. soft boxes) can be used to modify harsh light but often for more candid shots and ceremony shots I had to make do with available light and work towards the best shots under the circumstances. A bright white wedding dress right next to a black tuxedo in harsh midday light is a real dynamic range challenge but one nearly every wedding photographer sees all the time. If you can't use additional light (flash, bounce card, light reflecting off of buildings, etc.) or can't shoot in the shade then you just have to deal with it and many memorable wedding photos have been captured in those less than ideal lighting situations.

As wildlife photographers I suspect we've all come across interesting subjects in harsh light and sometimes we'll just shrug and continue to capture photos and other times we'll look at the scene, the light, the shadows and just pass. The more common the subject and the less unique the behavior the more likely I'll just pass on a wildlife subject in the middle of a bright blue sky day but sometimes we still capture those photos and sometimes they surprise us and work out just fine either due to just how the light was hitting the subject or due to some harsh lighting creative effect.

To me the bottom line is that harsh midday directional light casts hard shadows that are often problematic and softer diffused light either near the edges of day (diffused through the additional atmosphere the light passes through when the sun is still low and near the horizon) or with some clouds to break up and diffuse the light or when shooting into shadow areas without the hard directional lighting is preferable. Also from a wildlife perspective, a lot of the wildlife subjects I shoot are more active near the edges of day and often more active on cooler cloudy and overcast days which is another reason I prefer shooting under those conditions.
Nice, thorough explanation, Dave. Great job!
 
Here's an example from an Osprey's nest last summer. I really like this nest as it's on a natural snag and not an artificial platform and it's in a deep canyon so it's pretty easy to setup for the forested canyon wall as a background. But it never really gets any direct golden hour light due to the high canyon walls so I tend to shoot this nest in midday light but I really only visit when I expect clouds in the sky.

Here's a couple of images, one shot when the bright sun was overhead and the other as a cloud rolled through a few minutes later diffusing and softening the light.

View attachment 87767

View attachment 87768

Some may prefer the bolder brights on the direct sunlit image but personally I much prefer the detail, including of the nesting sticks and lack of harder blocked up shadows in the diffused light image.
Perfect visualization!
 
Back
Top