Controversial landscape statement..

posiview

posiview

Messages
19,304
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, not from me....

I was watching The Grid on iTunes presented by Scott Kelby and Matt Kloskowski, now I like them both and they've produced some cracking podcasts.

Some might think differently.

They did a blind critique during their latest podcast and they were really honest (something Scott said we don't get in forums such as this, again, I'd tend to agree), and some of the submissions were really critiqued...and, well ripped to pieces (not in a nasty way). I'd have to say, I did agree with them. The lighting in many was sssooo bad.

During the podcasts Scott said, to paraphrase, 'Landscape photographs should be taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time will produce bad photographs'.

What are your thoughts....and is it really a controversial statement?

Now I don't want this to denigrate into a stream of arguments, I just want your opinions, because when I get a day off to photograph landscape I have to make the most of the full day.
 
I think it's a generalisation. Internet teachers often want to make clear, black and white statements. A more correct statement may be:
'Landscape photographs are often better taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time may produce photographs with less impact'

Or something like that..
 
I'm not sure, theres no doubting that light is better at dawn and dusk, but i'm with you Andy, if i'm going out i need to make the most of the full day, i suppose it depends what you want to get out of the photography, if you're like me, and you get your pleasure from actually composing, setting and taking the shot rather than the shot itself, then actually if you get something you like at the end of the day, thats not perfect but good enough for you then it doesn't matter if its technically perfect
 
i think that's with the assumption that we can see the sun in the sky (or at least get harsh sunlight if it's cloudy)... which quite often, we don't in the UK.

I think the conditions suit a shot more than simply the position of the sun... by that i mean that i would prefer lots of meaty cloud formations in the middle of the day to give some depth to a shot rather than a sinking sun on the horizon. I agree with Phil, that the golden hours are often better - but to completely dismiss other times and label them 'bad photographs' is IMO total tosh :gag:
 
As a statement, I refute it thus - some of my favourite landscape shots were taken in blazing sunshine, and some *gasp* at night. Generally the light is more pleasing at dawn and dusk, but that's not to say great results can't be had at other times.

Look, his own work contradicts that anyway... a couple of blazing sunshine 'scapes were the first thing that came up from google...

http://portfolio.scottkelby.com/gallery/landscape/
 
jpw said:
.....Generally the light is more pleasing at dawn and dusk....
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, although like you there can be good shots to be had at other times of the day.

I bet if you look at the entries for our POTY and other such comps where people submit landscape shots then there will undoubtedly be many that feature a dawn or dusk timing. Oh, and some milky water ;)

Personally, I love shooting people in fog (so very little light) or in mid-afternoon when you can cart to get some silhouettes...
 
If everyone only took shots at dawn and dusk they'd all the look the same. How bland! There are plenty of shots taken at other times with dramatic skies, post rainbows etc.

Think Mr Kelby is talking out of an orifice other than his mouth.

During the autumn and spring the sun is lower in the sky anyway so you don't have so much of the harsh over head lighting. In high summer you'd probably avoiding shooting in the middle hours of the day unless you have a subject that is suited to such light.
 
Rapscallion said:
I think it's a generalisation. Internet teachers often want to make clear, black and white statements. A more correct statement may be:
'Landscape photographs are often better taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time may produce photographs with less impact'

Or something like that..
Click to expand...

This is better, though you have bear in mind the latitude that you're working at because it's the angle of the sun above the horizon that is important. We're at a very good latitude for landscaping here in the UK. Between the end of October and the beginning of March it's possible to take good shots at almost any time of the day because the sun is still low in the sky. Outwith those time's it's a question of going out either later or earlier. Lower latitudes don't have this luxury and the original statement, while still something of a clunky generalisation, becomes more applicable.

Edit:: This also smacks of an internet and Search engine savvy controversial statement, designed to attract traffic and in that respect it was succesful :lol:
 
Last edited:
I think what he should have said was dawn & dusk produce the best landscape photo's and not said any other part of the day produces bad ones, what isa bad midday photograph ? there have been some cracking crepsular rayed shots from the sun for example.
 
:shrug:
Rapscallion said:
I think it's a generalisation. Internet teachers often want to make clear, black and white statements. A more correct statement may be:
'Landscape photographs are often better taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time may produce photographs with less impact'

Or something like that..
Click to expand...

I'm with this...I'm sure that there's no debate that the lighting around these times does often produce the best conditions for landscape photography and the variation of light during these times is often quite dramatic too, sunrise & sunset lighting isn't always the same.

There's also no doubt that sometimes during "normal" daylight hours (more often in winter) the elements combine to produce those special moments which also make great landscape photographs - the main problem is that these times are much more difficult to predict and therefore shoot, perhaps this explains their comments, maybe trying to keep things simple so to speak:shrug:

Simon
 
Just my opinion but a large waterfall taken from a high angle would possible be at its best in the middle of the day, Not too many distracting shadows, and I am sure if we think hard there are other instances that apply
 
It's about the light, and dawn/dusk are the most predictable times of day when the light is usually good. As such they can be a bit of a cliche in themselves and to only shoot at those times would tend to suggest to me that the photographer is unadventerous, lacked imagination and possibly didn't understand how to cope with the light at other times of the day.

I think Ian Cameron has it better in his phrase Transient Light (book & website). It's not so mucha time of day that makes an image work, but a sudden change of the light that might only last a moment or a few minutes. And I'm pretty sure about my guess that more people have an Ian Cameron image hanging on the wall than a Scott Kelby.
 
posiview said:
During the podcasts Scott said, to paraphrase, 'Landscape photographs should be taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time will produce bad photographs'.

What are your thoughts....and is it really a controversial statement?
Click to expand...

I think it's nothing but elitist BS. At best it's just an opinion and easily ignored.
 
It's a generalisation, while it's usually better light at dawn/dusk there are plenty of superb landscapes taken at other times too.
 
I understand what they are saying about dusk and dawn and I do use the advice, but I really don't care. I just want to capture the moments of the scene exactly as it is when I am there.

what the statement really mean is that digital cameras,lenses,filters are so crap it is best to photograph landscape at dusk and dawn because they can't cope with lights as our eyes do;-) it all depends what you want the picture to represent/document and what you see in it.
 
POAH said:
its not controvesial its just nonsense sprouted by some bloke
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Fact of the matter is, the blokes are doing these podcasts to make cash. It's easier for Joe Bloggs to take what Joe Bloggs would consider a "pretty photo" at either dawn or dusk. So, if these guys tell him to go out and shoot a landscape at dusk, and he comes back with a pretty photo - oh, what great advice, I think I'll go back to their website / buy their book / etc. :thumbs:
 
If all landscapes were taken at dawn or dusk, it would be sad not to see any of other times of the day. Some of these guys need to take their heads out of their arses...Don't care who they are!
 
But isn't that like any other advice - "don't shoot into the sun", "shutter speed reciprocal to focal length", "bounce flash"...

All of those things can be ignored... if you are trying to get a particular result. Other than that, they are good guidelines to getting a better image... and of course unknown to some who then turn round and say "I don't follow no stinking rules", despite having produced an image which is not creatively breaking the "rules" but just sucks :D
 
I think this quite well know guy summed photography as a whole up rather well in one sentence...:thumbs:

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

(Ansel Adams)
 
posiview said:
Well, not from me....

I was watching The Grid on iTunes presented by Scott Kelby and Matt Kloskowski, now I like them both and they've produced some cracking podcasts.

Some might think differently.

They did a blind critique during their latest podcast and they were really honest (something Scott said we don't get in forums such as this, again, I'd tend to agree), and some of the submissions were really critiqued...and, well ripped to pieces (not in a nasty way). I'd have to say, I did agree with them. The lighting in many was sssooo bad.

During the podcasts Scott said, to paraphrase, 'Landscape photographs should be taken a dawn and dusk, photographing at any other time will produce bad photographs'.

What are your thoughts....and is it really a controversial statement?

Now I don't want this to denigrate into a stream of arguments, I just want your opinions, because when I get a day off to photograph landscape I have to make the most of the full day.
Click to expand...

Certain types of weather and certin times of day favour certain types of images. As far as landscapes go the thing to avoid, if possible, is high sun in the hours around mid-day, especially when there is no cloud. Like today in fact......It looks and feels lovely but your results may well be disappointing. In winter the sun never gets high enough for this to be a problem.

In even, cloudy conditions, look for details, try in woodland, or waterfalls - anywhere where excessive contrast and blocky shadows can cause problems.

I've never been a fan of warm evening light or warming filters to simulate it, but some of the well-known names swear by these conditions, so there must be something in it!
Wind and rain.....er maybe a good day to do some editing.......
 
It has the same level of truth as the "Rule of Thirds".
"It is always a safe option."

but never the only option
nor necessarily the best option.
 
jerry12953 said:
And try getting any number of photographers (or viewers) to agree on the definition of good......
Click to expand...

You'll never get photographers to agree on anything - I've seen the Canon vs Nikon debate rage constantly for years:lol:

I post photos on threads now & again to get others opinions, sometimes I agree with the feedback and sometimes I don't and if I personally think it's a good photograph then it is (to me) - maybe this is one rule we can all agree on, if you like it then it's a good photograph;):thinking:
 
simonkit said:
You'll never get photographers to agree on anything
Click to expand...

I've come to realise that this is for the most part because we have nothing in common except for using cameras to do whatever it is we do, and that's just not enough to make a cohesive group.
 
posiview said:
They did a blind critique during their latest podcast and they were really honest (something Scott said we don't get in forums such as this, again, I'd tend to agree),
Click to expand...

so true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top