More than any other fundamental aspect of photography, light is at the heart of every image you take. Without light, photography cannot exist; it is the foundation of every image, giving shape and meaning to each scene in your viewfinder. Personally, as a landscape photographer, my photographic decisions are shaped more than anything else by the lighting conditions that I encounter. From a soft mist to a dramatic sunset, whether at a mountain or a desert valley, my preferred approach to photography is simple: chase the light.
If you are searching for light, you don’t necessarily need to move long distances. Sometimes, you just have to move through time. You can stand in one spot and “chase” a sunset, or you could drive several miles to photograph a breaking storm. Both are equally valid ways to create an image.
At its simplest, then, the goal is to keep in mind what matters in a photograph. So many elements combine to form a successful image – your composition, subject matter, and camera settings – but light is different. Without it, you wouldn’t have a photograph in the first place.
Landscape photographers are known for taking pictures during sunset and sunrise, but the best lighting does not happen then; it doesn’t happen at any time of day at all.
Instead, the best possible lighting conditions depend upon the specific scene you are photographing, as well as the message you hope to convey. The light in a photograph should complement your subject; if you want to convey a dark sense of calm, the best lighting may fall just before a storm breaks. Or, for a harsh and dramatic photograph, even mid-day sunlight can be ideal.
No matter your intended message, the underlying constant is the importance of light.
For an example, look at the image below. In this photograph, taken at Death Valley, I wanted to convey the barrenness of the dusty, desolate landscape. At the same time, Death Valley is undeniably beautiful; it was important to show the gentle nature of this scene as well. When the afternoon sun passed halfway behind a thin cloud, I knew the light was right.
It isn’t hard to tell that I took this photograph outside of the typical window of sunrise or sunset. In fact, sunset was more than three hours after I took this photo. And yet, the afternoon light mirrored my intended message for the photograph.
If I had taken this at sunset, the photograph wouldn’t convey a sense of desolate beauty; it would be dramatic and full of vivid colors. Although the golden hours are the most sought-after period of time for photography, there are other ways to take a good landscape photo. Light should complement your subject; it shouldn’t conflict with it.
That said, sunset and sunrise are incredible times to take pictures. The rapidly-changing colors – from blue to orange, then back to blue – are beautiful, and the low angle of the sun presents particularly interesting possibilities for photography. Some of the best photographs I have taken, along with many of my favorite memories, are all from sunset.
I remember, in particular, the most beautiful sunset I ever saw. I was in Iceland in late June, taking pictures during the week of the summer solstice. Rainclouds darkened the sky throughout the afternoon, and a light drizzle fell on and off. At the end of the day, the wind began to pick up. A massive storm cell drifted overhead, and the sun dipped slowly below the horizon. For the next three hours, the sky was black and purple; the surrounding landscape was almost otherworldly.
I have focused on landscapes for most of my photographic life, and I have learned one thing above any other: good light makes for good images. If the lighting conditions complement and strengthen your subject, an incredible photograph is just waiting to be taken.
There is a reason why sunsets and sunrises have such a wonderful reputation in landscape photography. If the atmospheric conditions are right, you can see every color from bright pink to dark purple, and the low angle of the sun opens up opportunities that do not exist at other times of day.
Sometimes, these colors can appear out of nowhere. Once, before dawn, I was taking macro photographs along a beach in Florida. It was a dreary morning – one that, according to my experience, would result in a boring, gray sunrise.
Then, the sky lit up. I switched to my wide-angle lens, and I ran to the edge of the ocean to capture the incredible show of light. Everything was a gentle, saturated pink; the waves and sky reflected a hue that I had never seen, before or since, in a sunrise. The pink sky lasted for no more than a minute, but its captivating beauty is unforgettable.
Although I have emphasized landscapes so far, that is by no means the only genre of photography where you can chase the light. No matter your subject, light is what makes a scene worth photographing. From architecture to portraiture, there is no element of a photograph that is more important.
It is for this reason that I love photographing the interiors of old buildings, such as the dramatic cathedrals of Europe. Designed long before electricity was discovered, these buildings relied entirely upon natural light to instill a sense of awe in those who visit. And they succeed at their goal; few subjects make for more compelling photographs.
On top of all that are the memories. When you chase light, you inherently walk a path of adventure and excitement. Whether you hike through a rainforest or a climb the tallest sand dune in sight, photographs are not the only thing you will take home.
For me, one of the greatest feelings in the world is to watch the sunset after an exhausting day; few experiences are more fulfilling and enjoyable. I always take pictures, of course, but the real excitement lies in having fun and exploring as many places as possible. For a landscape photographer who truly loves what I do, there is nothing more thrilling than seeing the planet at its most beautiful.
So, here’s to chasing the light.
When taking photos in winter in broad daylight, should we be using a polarizer?
It depends, but usually my answer would be yes. Polarizers do a good job darkening the sky and making things look less hazy. However, don’t overdo the effect, or your sky might turn too dark. Same goes for using wide-angle lenses with a polarizer — you could get uneven illumination in the sky. Hope that helps!
I enjoyed the reflection on light, but when I reached that last photo, I swear my heart stopped for a moment. That’s the photo I want to take, and when I do, I’ll print and hang it so that I never forget what perfection looks like. It’s truly stunning. Thank you for sharing it with us. .
Thank you, Becky, I am happy to hear that you enjoyed that photo so much! I took it after sunset in Death Valley, and the colors were really incredible.
Dear Mr.Cox
Do you use any filters?
Thank you
Amir
Hi Amir, yes, I do use filters from time to time. I use a polarizer for many of my photos, and I have an ND filter and an ND grad that I also use on occasion. As for the photos in the article:
1) No filter, I think
2) A polarizing filter
3) A polarizing filter, I think
4) No filter
5) No filter
While i agree with your assertions reg chasing the light, what’s sad is that the younger generation could care less about waiting and finding the good light. They are more concerned with creating great images for instagram and facebook and they have no patience for waiting for the good light. Instead, they create it in post. No red tipped white mountains? No problem, just put a red tint on top of the Teton mountains in Photoshop where there was none in real life. Need a red sky, no problem. Just create it in post. Now, all photos can not be trusted as to antithetic content.
Hi Rob, thank you for these points. As a member of the younger generation myself, I will say that there are a number of great photographers at this age, but the sheer excess of Instagram photographs makes them difficult to find (and many are not posting on Instagram in the first place). I am not disagreeing with you, though — the key is patience and good light, neither of which can be recreated in post-production. Very interesting comments.
Great read, as always – thank you! Pic #2 (Death Valley) got me thinking. It’s a great photo that instantly grabs the attention, and it’s probably a case study in many photo workshops :) It’s so well composed that I was wondering, was it taken “scientifically”, carefully planned, with rules and imaginary geometric lines and angles in mind, or was it more like a “stop right here, I love what I’m looking at and I want to take it home” kind of shot?
Thank you, Judit! I am glad you like that photo so much. The reason that it looks so carefully-composed is because I did my best to create a balanced composition; the left and right halves of the frame are equally “weighted,” which is a very pleasing way to compose an image. However, there also is some luck involved. I took about thirty photos in this location over the course of two hours, and it took careful sorting to identify the ones that succeed over the ones that fail. None of the other photos during that time were particularly strong, so I definitely was lucky that this one worked out how it did.
Photography…In Latin terms that would be Drawing, or Painting with light.
Interesting to read your perspective. Keep them coming.
Thank you, Monte! You are right — if you think of photography as painting with light, you may find yourself putting more effort into creating great photos.
Great photographs and very useful comments. I enjoy reading your articles.
Thank you for the kind words! I will try to write more articles like this in the future.
I really enjoyed reading this, Spencer, as I do almost everything here :)
I understand photography is very dependent on light and you’ve done justice to why this is so. I’m still exploring photography and every knowledge I gain is like finding a gold mine. So thanks.
Been meaning to get an entry level dslr, but I just can’t decide on something. Any suggestions you have will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Awesome, thanks for the comments and kind words! As a Nikon user, I would recommend a D3200, D5200, or a D7100, depending upon the price you are willing to pay. The replacements for those cameras (the D3300, D5300, and the D7200) all have some improvements, but nothing that is super necessary for a first-time DSLR. You might consider buying used to save money.
That said, there are also incredibly good cameras from other manufacturers. If you want the smallest possible kit, check out the mirrorless cameras from Olympus, Fuji, or Sony. Personally, I don’t have enough experience with those brands to offer a specific recommendation, but any modern camera should be more than enough for your needs.
Between all these cameras, it all comes down to your personal needs. Do you want to take pictures of fast-moving action? The D7100 would be worth the price. But if you’re more focused on family photos from vacation, or even landscape/architecture images, you may be fine with the D3200 or D5200. If you add more details about your specific plans, I’ll be able to offer some more specific suggestions.
I think you already addressed my needs– landscape/nature photos and family portraits.
I wonder though if the D5200 and D3200 can take photos fast moving objects even with minimal performance?
Thanks for the help :)
The D5200 and D3200 both do a solid job for moving objects, although they wouldn’t be my first choice if you mainly shoot such subjects. However, at their price point, I can’t think of a camera that does markedly better.
The differences between the D5200 and D3200 can be found countless places online, but the main differences are simple: the D5200 has a noticeably better autofocus system, and it also has a flip-out LCD screen. Both of those are very useful, but if you need to save money, the image quality is essentially the same.
Thank you very much for your patience, Spencer. I appreciate this :)
Valuable and helpful. Many thanks Spencer.
You’re very welcome, Vladimir, I’m happy that you liked it!
An excellent article. I love your images. Your discussion of (not very) late afternoon light is spot on. A landscape photographer can actually be active during most of the day.
Three points.
(1) Some of this advice is best for a specific approach: art photography, ultimately meant to display on a wall or grace a website dedicated to photography. “Editorial” buyers, purchasing photos for the vast travel and leisure industry, have a different set of needs. My experience with this market (sales well into the six digit range) is that sunset and sunlight photos are shunned except for book covers. They do not want odd light or strange and wonderful compositions. They want to put the viewer into the photo. The photo must illustrate something the viewer wants to see or do, and it must show it in the sort of light the viewer will experience. And viewers travel in the middle of the day. They also want photos that will reproduce well in CMYK on paper, and this means of reproduction destroys shadow detail. (Web sales are useless; buyers will substitute lousy free/cheap shots for exquisite/fairly priced shots, even where the free shot is totally inappropriate.)
(2) As your first photo illustrates, light well removed from sunset and sunrise works just fine. In fact, the only really undesirable light is from noon to 3:30 (depending on time of year and time zone). Even then you can get good photos with a polarizer and the sun at your shoulder. But the one thing your must have is clarity. Haze is useless for anything other than shots under a forest canopy. (And no, polarizers won’t cut it.) In the East, haze is continuous all summer long. Spend the time organizing your images.
(3) You don’t need exotic locations. Practice taking pictures of your town and the surrounding farmland. It’s harder, isn’t it? Good practice. And I bet Franklin is a good subject if you give it some effort. (I looked it up. Cute downtown!)
Since you’re studying journalism you should consider mastering the illustrative, down-to-earth editorial style — not instead of, but in addition to, the art style.
Thank you for these detailed comments — very interesting points.
I definitely do take photos with more of an “art” style than an “editorial” style, which I think is just a result of my personal preferences. I like arriving at a landscape during unusual hours, spending a while finding the perfect composition, and then waiting for the perfect light. You are very right, though, about the value of editorial photos. I think it is worth practicing that style of photography as well, and I appreciate the suggestion!
In terms of location, Franklin is a very beautiful place for photography. I typically prefer taking pictures without any signs of people, so I mainly take macro photos when I am at home, but I also have explored some nearby farms with solid results. There are also some nice waterfalls nearby, and I try to photograph them whenever I get the chance.
Glad you enjoyed the article!
Have to take exception to your notion that “undesirable light is from noon to 3:30” ! I often shoot beautifully sculpted scenes of people, building, texture etc. in this sort of light… I’d remind everyone that’s honing of ones craft comes into play during these hours of the day.
Good point (and good username)! It definitely depends upon your subject, as well as your photographic goal. I know that some street photographers love midday light because the harsh shadows make for dramatic compositions.
I have to agree with you somewhat. We live in the Philippines and in the summer months the sky is a beautiful, almost saturated blue with puffy white and grey clouds – all day long. After July it just rains. However I worked in South Korea for four years, and in the summer months just forget about taking photographs from about 11:00 till around 14:00, the sky is blown out and not even worth the effort. So for sure, it depends where you live and the time of year in my case…
A good point. I had landscapes in mind when I wrote that. As Spencer points out mid-day shadows can be a problem for editorial photography in urban areas. Generally speaking the sunny side of the street is highly photogenic in late morning and late afternoon (different sides of the street, of course), but at midday both sides have hard shadows you have to frame around.
And, as a mentioned, there are workarounds even for landscapes, Midday light gives you harsh shadows and lots of glare, so you frame around the worst shadows and take only those angles that respond to polarization. I for one am seldom ready to come to a full halt for four hours in the middle of the day. What am I supposed to do with this time? Take a nap?
That’s part of why I learned macro photography! It makes it easier to take photos during the middle of the day, when the lighting may not be at its best for landscapes.