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]

Originally Posted by Darkhorse

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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]

Originally Posted by wgerrard

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.

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!'

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!'

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.



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.)



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.

[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!

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by peterm1

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.