To shoot or not to shoot...

[Xenedis]

I headed out for a dawn seascape shoot this morning, and to my disappointment, the conditions were appalling.

The sky was mostly plain, with the fairly typical annoying clump of dark cloud right on the horizon.

The very few patches of good cloud were mostly in the wrong places.

The conditions, apart from being utterly boring, were extremely difficult for exposure, even with GND filters.

I made the decision not long after being there, that I wasn't going to shoot.

The light just was not right, and for some landscape/seascape and even wildlife photographers, the light and combination of sky and cloud, is crucial to the shot working or not.

So, this raises the question: If the conditions are not right, should you shoot, or should you not shoot?

Some people would take the view of making the best of the present situation, or shooting anyway, since they are already there.

Others decide that good enough is not good enough, and that they want a certain type of image which requires a certain type or quality of light.

I'd be interested in hearing what other landscape/seascape and wildlife photographers do.

Do you press the shutter anyway and try to make the most of what is there, or are you sufficiently fussy not to bother shooting if the conditions aren't right for you?

Note that there is no wrong answer. Different people have different approaches.

For me, while the notion of making the best of a bad situation has a certain positive outlook about it and is otherwise commendable, I am extremely fussy about light and want a certain look, quality of light and feel to my images, so I elect to back off the shutter release if the conditions are unfavourable. I've noticed that the hard-core 'scapers whose work I follow, rarely ever publish an image captured in in sub-optimal light.

I'm not a bird photographer, but I've also noticed that those guys are very fussy about light and tend to favour images of their favourite feathered friends basking in golden hour light.

[jim]

I shoot and delete.

Waste of time, but there you go.

[Xenedis]

I shoot and delete.

That was the case for me this morning.

I shot one or two exposures, decided that it was utter crap and that I was flogging a dead horse, and then decided to try something else (a solitary tree on the hill, away from where the seascape stuff was happening).

That pursuit turned out to be a dead end, too, so I wrote off the session.

The few images I captured (multiple exposures of the tree) are still on the flash card in the camera, but those are going to be bit-bucketed soon enough.

[enVision]

As I am really amateur in photography still, I shoot away. Not necessarily to capture an amazing shot, but just for the experience. I can still work on my composition, framing and other aspects even if the conditions aren't ideal.

[Tannin]

Shoot anyway. Yes, you have to work hard to get pictures you like when the light is not what you like - but that's all part of it. An honest portfolio takes pictures at all different times of day and captures all different moods. In the end, you get a more varioed, less sterotyped, more interesting result set.

But isn't it really hard to take good pictures when it's a cloudy afternoon, or at midday when it's 41 degrees and windy?

Yes.

If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing.

[Xenedis]

But isn't it really hard to take good pictures when it's a cloudy afternoon, or at midday when it's 41 degrees and windy?

Yes.

If it was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing.

If the look and feel is what you want, sure.

For me, shooting in the middle of the day doesn't work for me, as I don't like the look of the light. Even if it were 'easy' to shoot in that kind of light, it's horrible to my eyes and I'd still skip it. :-)

[Tannin]

By the way, a very large part of the reluctance bird people have to work in anything less than bright sunlight isn't so much a matter of taste and ambition, it's simply that (absent some very special gear that most don't have) once the sun goes in and the light levels drop you just don't have enough light to get the shutter speeds you need with a long lens and a fast-moving creature. There is really not much point in poking a 400mm lens at a small bird when you are already wide open at ISO 1600 and getting 1/200th - especially given that you are almost certainly going to have to multiply the noise by cropping.

So yes, there is a reluctance, but that's probably 1/3rd of the reason. The other 2/3rds is simple practicality.

And yes, you can switch to flash, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Since I'm there, I usually shoot anyway - I might try doing things differently as well or do some kind of fun self portrait for laughs!
While we were travelling last year, our mantra was : "Boring light - stick on the ND500 and see what happens" ! or we'd play the one shot game (giving ourselves one shot at a location and seeing who gets the better pic)- anything to keep it fun and sometimes we came away with stuff we didin't delete!

[Scotty72]

If life hands you lemons, make lemonade. :lol:

[peterb666]

You have made the effort to go somewhere, you may as well shoot with the intent of making the best of what you have got even if you choose later not to use those images. There are many times I have gone out and wanted to abandon all that I have shot and taken a painful path to salvage something to my liking. Quite often, you stumble across a hit even if it wasn't what you originally envisaged. Likewise there are often opportunities around that you are slightly tangental to your original plans. Take those opportunities.

Photography can be many things to many people. For some it is capturing the moment, for others it is art, for others it is a quest for an elusive perfection, for others it is taking control of your environment and the general situation and making the best of it, etc.

Do what ever you want to but more than once I have abandoned a shoot as I didn’t like the weather or something only to pack up, turn my back on it and miss a brilliant opportunity that was just minutes away. I am sure we have all been there – I just prefer not to return too often.

[Scotty72]

Or, it is a reason to get out and smell the roses :D

[Xenedis]

Quite often, you stumble across a hit even if it wasn't what you originally envisaged. Likewise there are often opportunities around that you are slightly tangental to your original plans. Take those opportunities.

Certainly some fantastic images can present themselves at unexpected times.


more than once I have abandoned a shoot as I didn’t like the weather or something only to pack up, turn my back on it and miss a brilliant opportunity that was just minutes away. I am sure we have all been there – I just prefer not to return too often.

I've been doing this seascape caper long enough to know that this morning's conditions were not going to deliver anything I wanted.

While you were still down on the rock shelf I was up the hill experimenting with images of the tree (an unsuccessful experiment, which I later abandoned). The tree was the best opportunity in those conditions, but even then it fell short.

It happens.

Yesterday I thought this morning would be very promising, and I was keen to head out.

Next weekend, I'll check the sky again before heading out, and if it looks bare like it did today, I'll go back to bed!

[Jules]

Not that I'm much of a landscaper/seascaper, but I will choose not to shoot the environment if the light is rubbish and I know that I'll just end up deleting the shots afterwards. I do however pack my macro lens as well, so that gives me another angle to explore if the landscape isn't working for me.

[Tannin]

Shoot anyway. Yes, you have to work hard to get pictures ..... but that's all part of it ... an honest portfolio ... captures all different moods ... more varied, less sterotyped ... if it was easy, it wouldn't be worth doing.

Mind you, I set the alarm for 4AM on Friday night with the intention of being away all weekend on a birding trip. Woke up, looked at the sky, checked the forecast again .... nope. waste of time. Went back to bed. :eek:

[peterb666]

While you were still down on the rock shelf I was up the hill experimenting with images of the tree (an unsuccessful experiment, which I later abandoned). The tree was the best opportunity in those conditions, but even then it fell short.

And I picked up some quite nice colour in the sky. I finished up around 20 minutes or so before I would normally and you may recall that as we were walking back to the car some very nice skies to the south. We just were not in the spot to take advantage of that but could have been if we kept our eyes on what was happening.


Yesterday I thought this morning would be very promising, and I was keen to head out.

Yet it didn't deliver in any significant way unless you think getting drenched is a fulfilment of promises. Certainly there have been more dramatic stormy skies and one far less wet. The thing is, unless you venture out you are never going to find out. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose – but you have to be there to play the game and be prepared to give it a go even when it isn’t perfect.

[jev]

Bad conditions don't exist, just conditions that are not in line with what you would like. It takes thought and a creative photographer to make the best of any condition. Not shooting is missing out on a lot of opportunities.

[Xenedis]

you may recall that as we were walking back to the car some very nice skies to the south. We just were not in the spot to take advantage of that but could have been if we kept our eyes on what was happening.

There were a few nice clouds around, but they were all in the wrong places. While you were looking east, I was on the hill looking west and south.



The thing is, unless you venture out you are never going to find out. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose – but you have to be there to play the game and be prepared to give it a go even when it isn’t perfect.

I'll trust my instincts on future occasions.

Yep, I went out there this morning, but I recognised early that the conditions were all wrong.

My photography is about landing the images I want.

As such, it means it's not always possible to get them.

But I'm not going to just accept whatever is thrown at me.

[Xenedis]

Bad conditions don't exist, just conditions that are not in line with what you would like.

Yes -- bad conditions.

A plain eastern sky at dawn is a nightmare when it comes to exposure.


Not shooting is missing out on a lot of opportunities.

I am the kind of photographer who goes out for a specific thing rather than whatever happens to be there. Sure, sometimes a great image, that one didn't expect, can present itself. I've had that happen numerous times.

I am willing and able to accept that some days just don't have the right conditions, and to simply not shoot rather than trying to turn nothing into something and settling for something that won't make me happy.

[eos]

I usually won't pack up and go home, shoot anyway and just attempt a few non traditional shots seeing as the traditional ones probably won't work out well anyway.

[Nikkie]

I would shoot any way as I am learning and all types of situations is all learning for me If I came home and only got one or none I still would be happy as I would have enjoyed the experience. However with all that said if I was using film that would be a different story all together due to the cost with digital its easy to take a chance and hope for the best in the long run yes I would still shoot as it cost nothing but time and I went there for that time to try and capture what I could Ideal or not ideal conditions

[98kellrs]

I guess whilst you are still in the early stages of learning how to take good photographs it's important to shoot whenever possible as repetition leads to familiarity, but when you're heading out to take a specific photograph, in a specific light then of course it doesn't make sense to go out when the light is poor, in the same way that it doesn't make sense for an astronomy photographer to go out at noon. They will still probably get good photographs (maybe), but not of what they set out to capture...:rolleyes:

I think the more experienced guys have also invested a lot in their equipment, so raising their camera's shutter count unnecessarily doesn't make sense. :confused013

[Fantasyphoto]

Xen, if lighting conditions are flat (low contrast) I would normally consider re composing and shooting for a black and white result.

[Corakimick]

Absolutely yes. A dark and cloudy sky can add drama which is not there when the weather is clear. As for exposure one thing is certain you won't have any blown out highlights! You have to think - think about composition and how best to use the conditions u have. The only time i would pack up is if its raining and my gear might be drenched or if its that windy the camera and tripod are at risk. Check this image out taken sat a.m very O'cast and cloudy.75770

[Xebadir]

I tend to reduce my shooting if the conditions don't do much for me. Take for instance a situation that cropped up in May. Storms generated, initially photogenic but then went HP (IE rain everywhere in the way) I took alot less shots than on a day where the storm was nice and visible. Slate grey skies will stop me going for bird photography, but if it happens to be a wedding shooting day then I am jumping with glee. I see alot of insipid shots and many of them come from situations where someone has tried to apply the usual pattern to the scene, rather than realising the difference and compensating with their shooting. So I can see Xenedis's point with I won't bother, because it won't fit the shot I am looking for, but also the missing of photographic opportunity. At the same time, if it completely compromises the potential for a decent photo I won't bother either (say appalling conditions which push a camera to the limit, or hostile to photographic endeavours). I guess it comes down to your quality control on your shots...If I don't see something worthwhile in a scene (either colour or black and white) I won't take a photo, regardless of the conditions, mainly because I know that it won't meet my standard and be deleted anyway.

[gerry]

I have a little old motto which I think is applicable here - "you have to make the best of what you can with what you have"

A sign of good photography is one that can bring out a great image even though the conditions are not perfect. I mean, its a piece of cake to get a stunning picture of a stunning sunrise with perfect cloud and all teh trimmings, you could train a monkey to do that, However to get a great shot, (even just a good shot) on a day when conditions are less than ideal is a sign (imo) that you are progressing forward as a photographer. Imagine if you can capture stunning images irrespective of the conditions - that would then make the shots you take when the conditions are perfect absolutely stunning :)

Xenedis I hear your pain, I went out on saturday morning and was blown away by freezing winds and rain, but still persevered to get a few shots, it is discouraging when you get up early and are not rewarded with good conditions. There was some pretty crazy surf conditions tho.

http://gerry.avernus.com.au/slide/thumbs/large/2302_u555n/GJB_5366.jpg
http://gerry.avernus.com.au/slide/thumbs/large/2304_rl3lg/GJB_5372.jpg

[Xenedis]

Xen, if lighting conditions are flat (low contrast) I would normally consider re composing and shooting for a black and white result.

The problem I face 99.99% of the time is the opposite: extremely high-contrast, plain skies that are either cloudless, or have a clump of very dark cloud stretching all along the horizon.


Absolutely yes. A dark and cloudy sky can add drama which is not there when the weather is clear.

The dark and stormy, or cloud-covered and colourful is actually what I want. What I don't want is plain skies.


I have a little old motto which I think is applicable here - "you have to make the best of what you can with what you have"

All well and good, but not really applicable when it's a certain type of light and sky I seek.

I won't be sold a spanner if a hammer is what I need.


Xenedis I hear your pain, I went out on saturday morning and was blown away by freezing winds and rain, but still persevered to get a few shots, it is discouraging when you get up early and are not rewarded with good conditions. There was some pretty crazy surf conditions tho.

I would have been quite happy to have been under the sky you witnessed on the weekend. Skies like that are useful, and the sort of thing I want.

To illustrate, these are the kinds of skies I want:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/4638438371_c0bb0a27ea_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/4638438371/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3664852352_fe54c28f03_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/3664852352/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4448510259_0c7a93829d_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/4448510259/)


And these are the kinds of skies I don't want, but more often than not, get:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2336/2142427601_b2cfb335b9_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/2142427601/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3610/3475156741_b9b4f4f497_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/3475156741/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/3105756194_9dc11ab537_m_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenedis/3105756194/)

[gerry]

I think you would develop 'tunnel vision' and miss the opportunity to 'see' other compositions/lighting scene if you only continued shooting if the conditions were perfect - if it is for specific paid gig where the brief required certain conditions than by all means, no point wasting time and client money.

I have found the best thing about seascapes is the variability, you are not guaranteed a good shot and the conditions can change forcing you to look at different ideas and compositions, this means you get different shots and your gallery is not full of all the same - unless that is what you are looking for - and that is not necessarily a negative thing btw.


I would have been quite happy to have been under the sky you witnessed on the weekend. Skies like that are useful, and the sort of thing I want.

nah, you would have got very wet :(

[Xenedis]

I guess whilst you are still in the early stages of learning how to take good photographs it's important to shoot whenever possible as repetition leads to familiarity, but when you're heading out to take a specific photograph, in a specific light then of course it doesn't make sense to go out when the light is poor, in the same way that it doesn't make sense for an astronomy photographer to go out at noon. They will still probably get good photographs (maybe), but not of what they set out to capture...:rolleyes:

I think the more experienced guys have also invested a lot in their equipment, so raising their camera's shutter count unnecessarily doesn't make sense. :confused013

You've made an important point which essentially addresses people's stage of photography.

When I was a beginner, I shot anything and everything, without regard for the light or conditions. I wasn't aware of the quality of light and the effect it has on images.

I suspect the above is true of most newcomers to photography.

As I shot my way through anything and everything at any time, I eventually found what I liked and ditched everything else. I also became more fussy about the light.

These days I've reached a point where the style and look of the image needs to meet certain criteria for me to be happy with it, and the lighting conditions either make it or break it. I'm just not the kind of person who'll settle for unfavourable conditions. Consequently, I shoot less, but my output is of a higher standard than it would be if I accepted whatever was thrown at me on the day. I'd rather come home with one or two 'wow' images than a card full of images that really don't mean a damn.

Fortunately, as a strictly hobbyist photographer, I have the luxury of declaring the prevailing conditions unacceptable and going home. Naturally I recognise that a commissioned photographer does not necessarily have that luxury.

[Xenedis]

I think you would develop 'tunnel vision' and miss the opportunity to 'see' other compositions/lighting scene if you only continued shooting if the conditions were perfect

Ah, but I'm not after 'perfect' conditions; just a variety of great, interesting, pleasing conditions in which the sky contains colour, mood, drama, texture and quality light. Bad light is bad light, and most 'scape photographers avoid it for that reason.



I have found the best thing about seascapes is the variability, you are not guaranteed a good shot and the conditions can change

I've shot a lot of seascapes in my time, and yep, the conditions are very variable. I've seen light go from intensely rich red to dull and flat in less than a minute.


nah, you would have got very wet :(

I'm no stranger to that.

Remember the landscape photographer's motto: Pray for bad weather.

[peterb666]

Xenedis I hear your pain, I went out on saturday morning and was blown away by freezing winds and rain, but still persevered to get a few shots, it is discouraging when you get up early and are not rewarded with good conditions. There was some pretty crazy surf conditions tho.

http://gerry.avernus.com.au/slide/thumbs/large/2302_u555n/GJB_5366.jpg
http://gerry.avernus.com.au/slide/thumbs/large/2304_rl3lg/GJB_5372.jpg

Nice photos but the x-man likes crap weather. It is what you probably call the "good" weather that really gets up him.

[Steve Axford]

Depends on you. I walk away now if there is nothing I can shoot - particularly if I know a lot about shooting that type of subject. If I'm a novice at that type of photography I will experiment. For example - I will walk away from fungi if the light isn't right. Why put all that effort in if I know the results will be worse than my best. On the other hand if it is surfing (which I know very little about), I'll give it a go - but I'll know next time. Why waste time?

[jev]

A plain eastern sky at dawn is a nightmare when it comes to exposure.
Why don't you treat is as an opportunity to learn how to deal with the "nightmarish conditions" instead of knocking off?


I am willing and able to accept that some days just don't have the right conditions, and to simply not shoot rather than trying to turn nothing into something and settling for something that won't make me happy.
To me, conditions may force me to reconsider what or how I shoot but it usually just gets the creative juices flowing. Not finding a new angle, a new take on things is more disappointing to me than getting home without that pre-thought image. It's not a question of "trying to turn nothing into something", in my mind there always is something out there. In the end, it's just a state of mind. YMMV ;)

[Xenedis]

Why don't you treat is as an opportunity to learn how to deal with the "nightmarish conditions" instead of knocking off?

Because I want a certain type of image, and if the light isn't right, it isn't right.

[bmeikle]

I tend to shoot as I am still coming to grips with the camera settings etc. I think it is good experience to see how different shots come out under different lighting and different settings. This may change as I gain more experience.

[peterb666]

I have a lot to learn about photography. One thing is, I believe, I have to learn when not to shoot...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6010/5984186659_5462613b0f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5984186659/)
Magic Morning at the Little Cove (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5984186659/) by peterb666 (http://www.flickr.com/people/23034038@N05/), on Flickr

Maybe I just view the world differently.

[Scotty72]

Why? This is a perfectly good photo.

Perhaps, our expectations of the modern world is that everything should come neatly shrink-wrapped, wrinkle free, well glossed and just as ordered - with no imperfections tolerated.

This seems to pervade all of our thinking, even with our children - so, I guess photography is no different. :(

Scotty

[ving]

IMO a question not worth asking... got a hot date you are going to miss if you shoot? no? just shoot anyway, you are there... and hey its digital so it not costing you anything. you might even end up with a surprise or two :th3:

[ving]

I have a lot to learn about photography. One thing is, I believe, I have to learn when not to shoot...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6010/5984186659_5462613b0f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5984186659/)
Magic Morning at the Little Cove (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23034038@N05/5984186659/) by peterb666 (http://www.flickr.com/people/23034038@N05/), on Flickr

Maybe I just view the world differently.what was the exposure length? I ask that cause that is all it has cost you... probably 30 seconds of your life. yeah its 30 secs you wont get back for sure but there you go.

[peterb666]

what was the exposure length? I ask that cause that is all it has cost you... probably 30 seconds of your life. yeah its 30 secs you wont get back for sure but there you go.

Well not even that. All of 3 seconds for that shot. :lol:

[enduro]

Like the OP, I often set the time aside and end up shooting nothing (scene is not right, too many people). This is normally the case when I take my trimonthly trip to Esperance. I drive right out the the national park or north to the pink lake and things are not right to shoot or I have the wrong gear for what I do see is available.

At times I start experimenting with what is around with much slower shutter speeds, creating motion blurs, perhaps multiple exposures or finding something I can shoot fine details of. In a natural area there is always something to shoot if one can set their mind aside from their original intention.

Limiting oneself to just one thing will be a slow progress.