Does Dull, Gray Weather Inevitably Mean Dull, Gray Photos?

[wgerrard]

On a trip earlier this month I ran into a lot of gray, dim and damp weather. Shooting mostly vacation-style happy snaps, I found myself often shooting outdoors with apertures around 2.8 or lower and shutter speeds of 1/30 and 1/15.

The results are better than expected, and the exposure seems on target in most frames. Does a correct exposure on a dull and dim day inevitably produce a dull and dim image? Meanwhile, those wide open apertures played havoc with depth of field.

Are there any tricks of the trade to use in that situation? Or, are we consigned to our fate and fickle weather?

(I shot Portra 400VC and Ektar 100, plus some b&w I haven't processed. I used an Ultron 28/1.9 for almost everything, with a Zeiss Planar 50/2 taking the rest.)

[Darkhorse]

We've had some dull weather here in Southern California lately, and I've taken a few photos I've really liked during this time. I used to be of the mind that things had to be bright and sunny in order for me to take good photos - but I've come to realize what a dumb notion that was, and I had been ignoring a whole broad range of photographic possibilities. Enjoy the dismal weather!

[Andy Kibber]

I don't mind overcast weather at all for shooting. Nice flat lighting. Fewer blown highlights when shooting digital.

I'm surprised at your exposure, Bill. We get a lot of dreary weather up here on the north Atlantic coast (I'm looking out the window at some right now). My exposure spidey sense tells me that 400asa @ f/2.8 and 1/30 would be way, way overexposed.

[wgerrard]

I used to be of the mind that things had to be bright and sunny in order for me to take good photos - but I've come to realize what a dumb notion that was, and I had been ignoring a whole broad range of photographic possibilities.

I think if I'd been prowling the streets and shooting according to my own inclinations, the results would have differed. But, like I said, I was shooting Happy Vacation Snaps. Something different would have disappointed my audience.

I did shoot some b&w just for myself, so I'll see how they look when i get around to them. I also shot much less than I anticipated, with rain precluding much outdoor activity on several days.

[craygc]

Love dull overcast skies for all the reasons already given. Gloomier the better. Nothing worse than bright sunny skies to ruin a photo. Even Steve McCurry goes shooting in India during to monsoon season...

[wgerrard]

I don't mind overcast weather at all for shooting. Nice flat lighting. Fewer blown highlights when shooting digital.

I'm surprised at your exposure, Bill. We get a lot of dreary weather up here on the north Atlantic coast (I'm looking out the window at some right now). My exposure spidey sense tells me that 400asa @ f/2.8 and 1/30 would be way, way overexposed.

I was in London and Edinburgh. Edinburgh was usually overcast, while London was often dark and rainy. Not all the shots, of course, were at 2.8 and 1/30, but it did seem like I was in that territory much of the time. I used an R4M, and the meter in it seems OK.

Maybe I'm just grousing because I ran into crummy weather and want to take it out on the pictures. :)

[EDIT: I don't get many chances to shoot in dull weather. It's usually f22 and 1/1000 weather in these parts.]

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

Black & white and add 50% to the development time. And as others say, lose the sky.

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Puccio]

I love a nice blue sky, hooray for slide film and circular polarizers!

But when it's gross out, I just switch to B&W if I'm going to include the sky, it forces me to work on composition and not rely on "pretty colors".

For vacation snaps, it is a lot harder, but I focus on composition and details (usually swapping my 25mm for my 90mm) and take advantage of the really nice lighting. Usually by the next day, the sky is clear, the cirpol is back on and I'm back to shooting wide again.

[wgerrard]

Dear Bill,

Black & white and add 50% to the development time. And as others say, lose the sky.

Cheers,

R.

Yeah, the shots with sky are the problematic ones. Hard to always avoid sky, though, with touristy shots like these.

If I'd brought back only b&w, I might have been drummed out of the family. :)

[Darkhorse]

Dear Bill,

Black & white and add 50% to the development time. And as others say, lose the sky.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks for the tip.

[bobby_novatron]

I used to be of the same opinion whenever the weather turned grey and gloomy ... I thought it was a real problem for getting interesting shots.

But I have to agree with everyone else's input on this. There are major advantages to shooting when it's overcast and dull. Diffuse cloudy days means no blown highlights, it's easier to meter, you get better contour and details in your image... etc.

It's especially handy for shooting portraits outside. A pro photographer friend of mine used to freak out whenever it got sunny and she had a family portrait to shoot. I understand it now. No squinting facial expressions, and the overall softness of the light is much better for shooting people.

[bensyverson]

I'm confused -- you ask if gray weather means dull photos, but mention that your own results were "better than expected." So clearly the weather has nothing to do with photo quality.

In fact, I much prefer overcast light, as direct sun can be horribly ugly, especially for people shots.

[Andy Kibber]

I was in London and Edinburgh. Edinburgh was usually overcast, while London was often dark and rainy. Not all the shots, of course, were at 2.8 and 1/30, but it did seem like I was in that territory much of the time. I used an R4M, and the meter in it seems OK.

Maybe I'm just grousing because I ran into crummy weather and want to take it out on the pictures. :)

[EDIT: I don't get many chances to shoot in dull weather. It's usually f22 and 1/1000 weather in these parts.]

The days are getting shorter up there in Edinburgh for sure.

Do you have any keepers to share?

[Steve M.]

I think a lot of depends on the film you're using and your subject matter, but I know one thing for sure, my shots in Hawaii NEVER looked like these taken in New Mexico. There's just no light in the world like here and the photos, once I figured out how to meter in contrasy light, are great. Not a particularly good light for people of course, and even landscapes may be as good in grayer light if you have some killer clouds. but I'm a sucker for Hopperesque shadows.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4640418962_a626a32721_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3835258464_b825bebc45_z.jpg?zz=1

[wgerrard]

I'm confused -- you ask if gray weather means dull photos, but mention that your own results were "better than expected." So clearly the weather has nothing to do with photo quality.



"Better than expected" because I expected a lot of underexposed jittery photos.

I understand that, in general, overcast weather can be helpful, especially for digital shooters. As I've said, I was shooting stereotype vacation snapshots with C41 film. (I did shoot some b&w, but haven't processed it yet.) That means a lot of architectural images, sweeping street scenes, and all the cornball stuff that goes along with a vacation. The sun is low in the sky in Britain in mid-October, especially in Scotland. Twilight comes at 4pm. It's dark at 6pm. The weather was, by and, large, disagreeable: Rain, mist, cloud cover, fog, etc. Not simply overcast. I think that qualifies as adverse conditions for both a vacation and for color print photography.

Next time, I think I'm going someplace sunny, warm, and dry.

[wgerrard]

I think a lot of depends on the film you're using and your subject matter, but I know one thing for sure, my shots in Hawaii NEVER looked like these taken in New Mexico.

Nice stuff, Steve. The light in New Mexico is special, no doubt. It's on the short list of my places I want to visit again.

[lic4]

have you seen any photography by Saul Leiter?

[ebino]

Check Robert Frank's book London and Wales.

[Keith]

I often look at photos I've taken in the described conditions with disappointment ... flat and lacking real bite and a generally somber look. I start messing around with curves and contrast attempting to get it to look the way I want and generally give up when the reality hits me that ... 'Hey, this is the way it actually was and the camera never lies ... live with it!'

:D

[Ezzie]

Here, up north, in winter, that´s the reality of things most of the time. High key, flat light. You just have to turn it to your advantage. B+W does help though.

[charjohncarter]

I'm with you I really struggle at most times to get the contrast I want with overcast days. Like someone said minimize the sky, and see if you can include a mud puddle, preferably with reflection.

[wgerrard]

I often look at photos I've taken in the described conditions with disappointment ... flat and lacking real bite and a generally somber look. I start messing around with curves and contrast attempting to get it to look the way I want and generally give up when the reality hits me that ... 'Hey, this is the way it actually was and the camera never lies ... live with it!'

:D

Ain't that the truth! A well-exposed photo on a gray, gloomy day will produce a gray, gloomy photo.

[peterm1]

While it can be difficult to shoot in these conditions there are advantages too. For a start its inherently low contrast means less likelihood of blown highlights. Mainly for this reason I think I prefer dull overcast days to bright sunny ones for some kinds of shots - street work for example although there is no denying the charm of a bright day for some landscapes.

You can also shoot for the conditions. I like some dark gloomy subjects shot in overcast. I think its called making a virtue of necessity.

Finally there are some ways of attending to the issue in post processing with newer tools. Vibrance adjustments work wonderfully well to brighten dull colors without over doing saturation. And local contrast filters (also called clarity filters in some editing software) are fabulous at pulling contrast up without ending up with too many dark or excessively bright areas. They make the most of detail in the image and can lift a dull picture tremendously.

The following was shot in obviously dull conditions (if you look closely you can see its raining) but a little local contrast adjustment and a tweak to color vibrance has made it a quite pleasant image of a pond in the rain.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1389/4727375780_2db0afa1a4_o.jpg

Similarly here where I have emphasized the inherently storng autumn colors and the texture of the rain on the glass by using the same two filters. (OK the colors are a bit overdone I now have to admit in hindsight.)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4643916852_da36cb3b30_o.jpg

Or you can bow to the inevitable and just go for tone and texture. Here I have boosted local contrast to bring out the detail in the image but instead of boosting color I have heightened the sense of gloominess by lowering the saturation / vibrancy. I think that effect better suits this particular image and capitalizes on the obviously gloomy conditions.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3860755969_3a5f637463_b.jpg

[Keith]

The conditions that I find more annoying are really common in Brisbane. When the sun can't make up it's damned mind and it constantly fluctuates between full sun and overcast ... often several times a minute.

On a couple of occasions I've just given up, spat my dummy out and gone home and sulked! :p

[wgerrard]

W
Finally there are some ways of attending to the issue in post processing with newer tools...

Thanks, Peter. Appreciate the advice. I'll use it, along with Roger's tip.

[tomalophicon]

Overcast is in my opinion the best light for people shots. I do as mentioned earlier and increase development times for black and white film.

Most of Cartier Bresson's photos that I know appear to have been shot in overcast conditions. They don't look gloomy to me; most probably a result of increased development times.

[wgerrard]

Overcast is in my opinion the best light for people shots. I do as mentioned earlier and increase development times for black and white film.

Most of Cartier Bresson's photos that I know appear to have been shot in overcast conditions. They don't look gloomy to me; most probably a result of increased development times.

Just to keep things clear, we're talking about C41 vacation snapshots, no portraits and no b&w HCB emulation.

[tomalophicon]

Just to keep things clear, we're talking about C41 vacation snapshots, no portraits and no b&w HCB emulation.

Whoops. Whenever I'm on holidays I try to emulate HCB's portraits with black and white film. I should stop assuming everyone is the same as me.

[wgerrard]

In all seriousness, the difference is, I think, in the rendition of colors. If colors appear mooted and washed out to the human eye because of weather -- poor light, mist, etc. between the eyes and the subject -- then that's how the colors will appear in an image. As Keith said earlier, post processing can only work with the data that's in the file.

B&W masks much of this problem, or at least camouflages it in an interesting manner.

[Tin]

Thanks to the rainbow, I also can include the sky:

[charjohncarter]

Actually I was thinking of B&W on overcast days. Color is a different story. Color has inherent contrast (in fact, Kodak recommended shooting in overcast weather). In California there are very few overcast days. So, adding development time (B&W) for a couple of frames during overcast weather isn't an option.

[Leigh Youdale]

I found three things in Europe made a difference.
1. When it's wet, look for reflections rather than 'normal' scenes.
2. Light overcast as opposed to heavy dark overcast produces a wonderful luminance like a "giant softbox" as somebody mentioned earlier. But don't include the sky.
3. Choice of film. Now long gone but the switch from the slide film I was using at the time (Agfachrome) to Ektachrome 32 suited the northern hemisphere light much better. I presume the same may well hold true for C41 type films.

[wgerrard]

3. Choice of film. Now long gone but the switch from the slide film I was using at the time (Agfachrome) to Ektachrome 32 suited the northern hemisphere light much better. I presume the same may well hold true for C41 type films.

That's likely very true, Leigh. I'd had little experience with the Portra 400VC, but chose it figuring it might put a little pop into what I knew were going to be less than bright days. I've some experience with Ektar and it performed much as expected. I've also shot 800 C41 in similar conditions and really didn't like the results.

[sreed2006]

I hate gray days. They make me feel really down.

The only cure is a telephoto and a tripod. This was taken on a rainy, dismal, day.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5118836873_a59a39ab5e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18894742@N05/5118836873/)
IMG_5958 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18894742@N05/5118836873/) by sreed2006 (http://www.flickr.com/people/18894742@N05/), on Flickr

[wgerrard]

I hadn't loaded anything online yet, but I pushed these few up...


Here's a crop from a shot along the Thames showing the clouds:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1330/5119500952_4a5132f2ba.jpg


Sky in Bath:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/5119492706_64e282cd5a.jpg



Not affected by the weather:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1172/5118912305_12f0603a2d.jpg


Indoors at f1.9 and 1/15. It's a good thing I gave up caffeine:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1315/5119509564_daff2e872b.jpg


Just because:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/5119496326_92b9a4d819.jpg

[sreed2006]

Bill, those all look fine to me. What more could you hope for?

[wgerrard]

Bill, those all look fine to me. What more could you hope for?

Better weather! :)

[wgerrard]

Since members sometimes ask about the Sigma DP2-S, here are a few Edinburgh snapshots from mine. These received little or no processing in Sigma's software.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/5119037975_f46345f4f9.jpg


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/5119029417_c734088bb1.jpg


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1161/5119630580_66239caeee.jpg[


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/5119023405_14fe8f2746.jpg

[antiquark]

Also, on an overcast day, you can rely on surrounding objects to block some light to help give directional lighting. The simplest example would be shooting indoors near a window. Outdoors, you could try shooting under a tree, in a doorway, or an alley, for example -- someplace that will structure how the light comes from the sky.

And, like everyone else said: keep the sky out of the frame!

[antiquark]

Here's an example of using the surroundings to structure the light. These pics were taken 5 meters apart. I assume the one on the left is outdoors under an overcast sky, and the one on the right is in a doorway. Notice how the second picture has more direct lighting to the face, whereas the first image is illuminated from above.

(Not my picture, by the way!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3665416618_160dcc9d9e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/offspring/3665416618/)
steve mccurry light lesson, singapore, 2009 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/offspring/3665416618/) by preposterous (http://www.flickr.com/people/offspring/), on Flickr

[filmtwit]

Overcast - a little too common here in Oregon. Try increasing your contrast a wee bit, but more importantly you can get good results by crushing the details on the blacks. Also beyond summer, I tend to shoot 400/800 asa most of the time.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

On a trip earlier this month I ran into a lot of gray, dim and damp weather. Shooting mostly vacation-style happy snaps, I found myself often shooting outdoors with apertures around 2.8 or lower and shutter speeds of 1/30 and 1/15.

The results are better than expected, and the exposure seems on target in most frames. Does a correct exposure on a dull and dim day inevitably produce a dull and dim image? Meanwhile, those wide open apertures played havoc with depth of field.

Are there any tricks of the trade to use in that situation? Or, are we consigned to our fate and fickle weather?

(I shot Portra 400VC and Ektar 100, plus some b&w I haven't processed. I used an Ultron 28/1.9 for almost everything, with a Zeiss Planar 50/2 taking the rest.)

Those are absolutely the BEST days to photograph.

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/youse/images/fullsize/youse-yard1.jpg


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/mexico-indiana/images/fullsize/mexico-halfmile.jpg


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/waynedale/images/imagefiles/dq.jpg


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/medora/images/pics/medora1.jpg


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/feighner-farm6.jpg

[tedwhite]

When the rare overcast day comes here in the desert, we photographers in these parts run joyously into the streets with our cameras. Like Chris's photos - no blown out highlights.

[papa]

Hello Chris,

Love your images above. Would like to know how you got that nice contrast for these. If you don't mind me asking the film and development used? Any pp in Photoshop perhaps?

Thanks in advance!
Just pre-planning for the next 6 months...


-papa

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hello Chris,

Love your images above. Would like to know how you got that nice contrast for these. If you don't mind me asking the film and development used? Any pp in Photoshop perhaps?

Thanks in advance!
Just pre-planning for the next 6 months...


-papa

Papa,

They're scans from the negatives, done with a Nikon LS-8000ED. ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop (or whatever software you like), that's not optional. I think a lot of people think the scans should be used direct from the scanner and that editing them is somehow cheating....and it shows because a big percent of the film scans I see online are flat and ugly with horrid tonality. The scan just brings the neg into the computer. Just like printing a negative in the darkroom, where you have to select the right paper grade, exposure time, and print developer (and toner if you tone prints), you must do all this to a scan too. That's done in Photoshop. Check the examples below:

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/images/scanning/neopan-1600-raw.jpg
The scan, unedited.


http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/images/scanning/neopan-1600-raw2.jpg
Inverted so its not 'negative' anymore. Look how awful it looks! Flat and muddy.


http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/images/scanning/neopan-1600-1.jpg
Final image, with contrast adjusted using curves layers. Much better! This film was the now discontinued and much cried over Fuji Neopan 1600, exposed at EI-640 and developed in D-76 1+1


Here's another example

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/images/scanning/dolls-raw.jpg
The scan inverted, but with no other editing. As with the house above, this is flat and muddy and this one s also too light.



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/images/scanning/dolls-done.jpg
Contrast adjusted and image darkened in Photoshop using curves layers. This is Tmax 3200 at EI-1600 developed in Tmax Developer.

Neither example above had any dodging and burning, but nearly all images require some to make them perfect. I do that in photoshop too using curves layers after selecting the area to burn or dodge.

Aside from editing scans, I am a perfectionist about exposure and developing. You see guys here on RFF trying to say that being precise in your exposure and other working methods is a waste of time or gets in the way of creativity. Bull****! To me I find sloppy working methods gets in the way of my creativity because it makes it harder for me to get the image I want.

I have on my website a list of my tested developing times and film speeds for a lot of films I have used with different developers. Assuming your light meters are accurate and you're careful in your developing they should give good starting points. Individual results can vary, since no one's agitation method is the same and water quality can vary (I used distilled to mix all chemicals). But they should get you close.

Developing times and other tech stuff (http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/index.php)

[papa]

Hi!

Thanks for the fast answer.

Agree about the point of "ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop". Your examples are clear and agree that the post process is a must for that kind of scan. I like your results.

Have to say that those scans look VERY flat. Do you develop your film scanning in mind? As to have "thin" negative to work with?

I use Epson 4890 (lowend flatbed) scanner and the results have been ok for small prints. I try to expose and develop the negatives the best i can so usually i've done only some slight work with curves, contrast, brightness.
My raw scan files looks totally different usually then in your examples.
Usually they dont need much work at all but sometimes they are hard to work with in pp, this variation in quality of scanned files is wondering me (propably caused by inaccurant work flow with exposing and developing..)

Hope this makes any sense at all. I guess im still trying to find a stabilized work routine that would bring satisfying results...control of each step towards the wanted end product in a way.

Anyway i will go through your technical page with interest.

[LKeithR]

I think one's perception of gray/overcast weather depends on the situation. Here in the Lower Mainland of B.C. if we could only shoot on sunny days there'd be a lot of cameras sitting on shelves most of the time. I find that the dull weather can make for beautiful, soft lighting conditions with much better opportunities for good exposures. A lot of sky in the frame can be problematic but you just have to frame carefully. A lot of times I will use a tripod and get closer to my subjects, taking advantage of the even light. I also like the soft pastel colours you can get in this light and if things aren't going right I just switch to B&W.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hi!

Thanks for the fast answer.

Agree about the point of "ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop". Your examples are clear and agree that the post process is a must for that kind of scan. I like your results.

Have to say that those scans look VERY flat. Do you develop your film scanning in mind? As to have "thin" negative to work with?

I use Epson 4890 (lowend flatbed) scanner and the results have been ok for small prints. I try to expose and develop the negatives the best i can so usually i've done only some slight work with curves, contrast, brightness.
My raw scan files looks totally different usually then in your examples.
Usually they dont need much work at all but sometimes they are hard to work with in pp, this variation in quality of scanned files is wondering me (propably caused by inaccurant work flow with exposing and developing..)

Hope this makes any sense at all. I guess im still trying to find a stabilized work routine that would bring satisfying results...control of each step towards the wanted end product in a way.

Anyway i will go through your technical page with interest.

I'm nocturnal, I should be in bed since its 4am, but I'm not, lol. I have to 'get up' in a couple hours to take my son to school so I guess I will go sleep after I type this :D

I scan mine using the scan software's 'slide film' mode rather than its 'black and white negative' mode. This gives much flatter scans, but has advantages. The BW Neg mode on my scanner gives scans that are less flat, but annoyingly, it often clips the darkest tones and lightest tones (loses detail in them) while still having a file that is too flat overall. Increasing the contrast of such a file gives good contrasty midtones but makes the dark tones too dark and the light tones too light. I get better results with the much lower contrast scans I get using the Slide film mode. I scan in greyscale, not color, but using the slide or transparency mode.

If you're setting your scanner for BW negs, that would explain your scans being less flat. It may explain why you have trouble with some scans too. Try scanning as a slide or transparency, then invert the file in photoshop (control-I in wondows, Command-I in Mac). Then do curves to increase contrast. It may take two or three curves adjustments to get it perfect.

My negs are processed so that they'll print on grade 2 paper using a diffusion colorhead enlarger, which is how I printed in the darkroom before health problems made me switch to scanning. I developed (pun!) severe allergies to the chemicals used in printing, despite having a very good ventilation system in my darkroom. Developing negs doesn't bother my allergies because the dev. tanks keep me from breathing fumes as I did with open trays of print developing chemicals. So, basically a neg properly exposed and developed for darkroom printing should scan fine....no special exposure or developing needed (aside from being precise with your work).

[papa]

Thanks again Chris,

I will try to scan the negatives as positive film. Lets see how it turns out. Maybe i will put up some results here later on.

Despite you losing sleep your posts have been helpful.
(I'm at work at the moment [it's 12pm over here] so should also be doing something else then thinking about scanning negatives...)

.
.

Sorry for OP for the slightly off topic jabbering, for defence it's really dull and grey weather here!

[Matus]

My experience with dark overcast weather is that one should try to avoid too distant subjects and go for films with stronger contrast and colors. It is just a rule of thumb, but often on overcast weather the air is rather humid and the additional diffraction of light on this humidity washes out images. I have shot on heavy over-cast and humid day in Hamburg and got some very nice images - but only from close subjects. Longer views were life-less and contrast-less even though I was shooting Velvia. Imges from low contrast neg. films turned to grey mud and even though they saved a bit from the sky (continuos grey instead of continuos white :rolleyes:) they had much less appeal and even PS could not bring them to life.

Here are a few examples from that day:

Velvia 50:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4749730271_ef3a3947aa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31007239@N06/4749730271/in/set-72157624272940463/)

Velvia 50:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/4749720907_6728eb839d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31007239@N06/4749720907/in/set-72157624272940463/)

and here is one taken on Delta 100 - needed a bit of boost in PS:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4750372780_ec0c3c44a6.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31007239@N06/4750372780/in/set-72157624272940463/)

[Requin]

To Steve M.

I like your top photo - great tones, every zone is there where it belongs to be!

[wgerrard]

Those are absolutely the BEST days to photograph.

Nice photos, Chris. I needed and wanted to shoot color. How would you have handled C41 under those conditions?

[jsrockit]

I prefer the sun because it transforms the mundane into magic, but I shoot in all weather and conditions... because you just never know what you'll get.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Nice photos, Chris. I needed and wanted to shoot color. How would you have handled C41 under those conditions?

I never shoot C-41 color, it is hard to get good scans from. At least with my scanner, I have a hard time getting the color right from color neg film. I shoot E-6 for color, and back when I still had my Kodak 14n, I shot a lot of color digital.

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/smithroad-brick6-color.jpg
Kodak 14n digital


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/chickenbarn.jpg
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/shovel-vine.jpg
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/silo-color.jpg
Kodak 14n digital


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/new-mexico/images/pics/estancia3.jpg
Kodak 14n digital


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/hoagland-church2.jpg
Kodak 14n digital


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/monroeville-flag1.jpg
Kodak 14n digital


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/single-red-chair.jpg
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm


http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/road-to-indiana/images/pics/groom-texas-1.jpg
E-6 Kodak Ektachrome E100S in 120 size (645).

For color, both digital and film, I use a handheld incident light meter and follow its readings. I shoot RAW only for digital and used Photoshop's RAW converter to adjust white balance then used Photoshop to fine tune overall contrast and color. Slide film is scanned and usually needs some fine tuning but nothing like what I have to do to black & white negatives; transparency film scans in pretty close to the right contrast.

[ebino]

Chris in your pictures you've captured the 'feeling' of the places where you've photographed. That is impressive.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris in your pictures you've captured the 'feeling' of the places where you've photographed. That is impressive.

Thanks :D The places I photograph are mostly places very close to where I lived at the time. I think that makes it easier to capture the spirit of the place compared to traveling to some far-off place that you do not know or fit in to well. Being part of the local culture and having the time to spend months or years exploring the same places is, to me, essential.

[ebino]

Thanks :D The places I photograph are mostly places very close to where I lived at the time. I think that makes it easier to capture the spirit of the place compared to traveling to some far-off place that you do not know or fit in to well. Being part of the local culture and having the time to spend months or years exploring the same places is, to me, essential.

That's the way it should be. Sometimes i dream about other places but in the end of the day I'm confined to my own "territory" and i have to make the best of it. Good luck man.

[wgerrard]

Thanks, Chris. Your skies look much like my skies on this trip, particularly the silo shot. I considered taking an incident meter, but didn't because I've so little experience with it at this point. Maybe next trip. The shots from the Sigma digital are RAW. I tweak them -- very little or not at all -- in Sigma's software.

I scan on an LS-50. Oddly, the Ektar scans seem to be happier output as RAW files and massaged in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop, while I've had more luck scanning the Portra to TIFF and tweaking in PS.

When I got back into photography, I jumped right into shooting slides but stopped because (A) my exposures weren't good enough, and, (B) no local shop could process them. Now, one local shop says they'll do E6 (but don't post prices). I've tried shipping E6 off for processing to a few of the shops people have recommended here, but shipping costs almost double the cost. And, I'm impatient.

When I get more experience with the incident meter, I'll try E6 again.

[wgerrard]

That's the way it should be. Sometimes i dream about other places but in the end of the day I'm confined to my own "territory" and i have to make the best of it. Good luck man.

Travel and living someplace different are also very good. No one is keeping score. I lived in the UK and have since visited more than a dozen times. I think I have a reasonable notion of the feel and flavor of the place, but capturing that was not my purpose this trip. I was shooting vacation snaps for friends and family who asked for that and who, very likely, will never be able to visit the place.

We all have our likes and dislikes. I grew up not very far from where Chris is now. His photos do, in fact, handsomely convey the character of the place. But, for me, it's a character I'd rather forget. So much so that when I return for my annual visit, I don't carry a camera.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That's the way it should be. Sometimes i dream about other places but in the end of the day I'm confined to my own "territory" and i have to make the best of it. Good luck man.

I can't afford to travel either, though I did a lot of travel when I lived in New Mexico. Back then my son, who is now 13, lived with his mother here in Fort Wayne, Indiana, so I made the trip back to Indiana a number of times to see him and once to take him to spend the summer with me in Santa Fe. During those trips, which I made in my car, I did a lot of photography and found some cool stuff and interesting people.

I find that my travel photos stand well as individual images but don't fit into a story the way my photos from the places I have actually lived do. In the places I lived I have built large bodies of work that go together as a whole to tell a story or to document the history of the ordinary lives that academic history ignores. I'm working on my Masters degree in history now, and my work in photography over the last 15 years fits in well with my intellectual interests in history and culture.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

More overcast day stuff to compensate for talking about other stuff, lol

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/fiesta/images/pics/trust-jesus.jpg


http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/fiesta/images/pics/rodeo2007-1.jpg


http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/grandpa/images/pics/chairs-in-rain2.jpg


http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/grandpa/images/pics/molly-snowball.jpg

[Darkhorse]

Papa,
ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop

Absolutely. I actually use Photoshop for finishing touches before publishing to the web, most of my editing is done in Aperture. I just toss the TIFFs in there and editing is a pretty quick affair.

Your close to home series is fascinating as well. I'd have to do traveling to visit such an area (ie Inland Empire), as most of the places around here are either gleaming new and soulless or places you have to be careful in... ok maybe an exaggeration, but even Orange County has nooks of character that I've photographed a lot (ie Old Towne Orange).

But I will say, that I am jealous of the majority of people here who actually experience weather.

[charjohncarter]

E-6 to me is best on cloudy days, like Chris said.

[Ezzie]

I rather like weather in general. The wind blowing, a bit of drizzle in the air. Nothing like a and hour's walk in the rain, then go home to a nice cuppa. Its a bit of an ordeal to take pictures, let alone good ones, under such conditions, but one must persevere. ;)

A few pictures taken under such conditions last week. In fact it blew may hat off, I had to use a hood. I just hope the Kowa will not develop fungus as a result of being exposed to the rain.

TMAX 100 in Caffenol-C-H
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1320/5100415742_fbec13d4d2_z.jpg

Same roll of film:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1076/5100418546_f2e3f5a794_z.jpg

Sometimes bleak and gusty has its own charm.

[wgerrard]

Nice, Ezzie. I managed to get in half-a-dozen rolls of b&w. Hope they'll produce something like your shots.

But, I will confess, I'm not much anymore for being cold, wet and windblown.

[Ezzie]

Thanks Bill.

We Norwegians have a saying. There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. To a certain degree its true, you should see the number of weather-proof jackets (and trousers) I have. Mits, hats, caps, scarves, shoes, you name it. I would hesitate a guess that I´m just like any other Norseman in this respect.

[Ezzie]

A slight digression. While I on the subject of clothing:

I´m used to cross-country skiing in the mountains. I was out skiing with a couple of friends who were not. We were way above the timberline. Weather changes very quickly in the mountains. A blizzard can come out of nowhere, and either you are able to dig yourself a snow hole, or get indoors somewhere, the alternative may very well mean hyperthermia and death - not kidding. While lunching I had a look at the sky and said we need to be getting back to the mountain lodge, and quick. The sun was shining, but clouds were looming over the horizon. My friends disagreed, but I convinced them to follow me back. We very nearly lost our way, the tracks snowed over, the wind picked up so we could not see a hand in front of us, all in 15 minutes. I knew the area and guided the people back to the lodge, nearly missing it and getting lost in the process. Next known man made structure in that direction would have been 60 miles away! When entering the lobby, we met two young males putting on their ski-clothing, on their way out! I asked what on earth they were doing? They answered, finally some weather, so we can test these clothes for an "unnamed Norwegian" winter clothing manufacturer! Oh well, there was I thinking I´d just escaped a brush with death!

[Ezzie]

I apologise for the digression. So, back to dull, grey photos ;) :
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/5081475557_ea1e8d4982_z.jpg

[wgerrard]

... there was I thinking I´d just escaped a brush with death!

Sounds to me like you made the right decision.

I don't have any experience with that kind of climate (and not about to get any :)). I have spent some time in and near the Sonoran Desert in the southwest U.S. The threat from the weather is the opposite. Dehydration, heat stroke, etc. can strike surprisingly quickly if you aren't protected. Even in the outskirts of cities the size of Phoenix people sometimes start walking when their car breaks down, get lost and disoriented, and depend on search crews to find them in time.

[Ezzie]

Yes, deserts are no better. I´ve been to the Sinai and Namib deserts, can get yourself into a whole lotta trouble quick like.

However, to sum up my personal experience with grey weather. Shoot B+W, and try to add something to the grey skies, or avoid them altogether. The exceptions would be when there´s interesting structure to the grey (as in my last posted attempt, at least I think so).