I often hear that landscape photography is almost always best done around sunrise or sunset. I notice you manage to get all kinds of interesting light in what appears to be "regular daytime".
I think a lot of photographic rules and conventions must have been compiled by people living in California, where blue skies are the norm! The light in the middle of a cloudless day is blue and bland, so it makes sense to shoot towards dawn and dusk, when the light is warmer and more descriptive.
However, here in rain-swept Britain, blue skies arent the norm. A lot of days are part sunny, part cloudy: a pretty good combination for landscape photography. With a breeze to move the clouds along, a scene can change dramatically from minute to minute (which is why I find it worthwhile to spend an hour or two in one location).
Sunlight out of a big blue sky is a bit like a room lit by a single bare bulb. The light is directionless, not very photogenic. But sunlight coming between clouds is more like a spotlight: creating pools of light, moving across the landscape, to contrast with the shadows. The light will be more directional, not unpleasantly blue, and the light/shadow combination is anything but bland.
These part-cloudy days are common, and a rain shower often helps to clear the air. I prefer this kind of weather to big, blue skies, because I can shoot throughout the day...
Living in California for the past 20 years, I can completely understand your description of the "boring" blue skies. We do get those more than anything else, and they do indeed, make everything look rather bland.
Loch Tummel? My wife lived nearby in Aberfeldy for a while (long time ago), but we've visited couple of times in the last few years so she can see her old friends.
Great photo by the way
Cheers
Hugh
C & C? Lovely colours, but, for me, the pic lacks a 'point of focus'... something to draw the eye to it. And the tree to far right is a bit of a distraction...
I used to watch American movies trying to analyse the lighting and figure out how they got such great shots when comparing it to the lighting outside my window then I realised they they were mostly shot in LA, CA where there is pretty much a perfect golden hour everyday (maybe I got a lucky week of weather when I was there).
I would kill for that here in the UK. However, I do suppose we get softer light than you guys thanks to all our clouds.
[url=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3789/11241290275_efabe5a619_z.jpg]Image[/url]
Lera by acearchie, on Flickr
As always, comments appreciated!
Having lived here (LA, CA) for 2 decades, I will disagree with you on the bit about golden lighting. We have bright light, sure, but it is often too harsh for what I would consider golden lighting. The diffuse light from what I imagine is the cloudy british weather is a whole different ballgame.
I often hear that landscape photography is almost always best done around sunrise or sunset. I notice you manage to get all kinds of interesting light in what appears to be "regular daytime".
----------
Something I found in the backyard.
[url=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3674/11183787114_4151c7c26c_c.jpg]Image[/url]
IMG_1405 by Puckman2012, on Flickr
"Somewhere in Newfoundland..."
Wow that looks really sharp, mind telling me what setup you use? Camera/lens
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Cloudless blue skies can be a bit boring but as it starts to get later that sun starts to dip and you get the best sort of backlight there is.
Hard to explain I suppose but I found this video online which I think illustrates the point. (Cut to about 35secs in for what I'm talking about)
YouTube: video
Occasionally in London you will get a day like that and it will look great! However, usually it clouds over before it happens so it's not really something you can rely on.
I've yet to take a shot that I am really happy with in the golden hour mainly because I get so little chance to have a go at it. Fortunately in winter it lasts longer however, I have to deal with it being much earlier too!