I have two of the most gullible friends in the world. When I floated the questionable idea of visiting Iceland together for a week in February – using the line, I remember, “Iceland actually stays pretty warm because it’s on the ocean” – they agreed, with hardly any further persuasion needed.
In my defense, I am also very gullible and wasn’t really trying to trick them. Iceland’s temperature is indeed warmer than you’d think in the winter, hovering around 32° F / 0° C even at night. And since I had been to Iceland twice before (albeit only in summer), I figured I knew everything necessary in order to plan a smooth trip.
What I failed to internalize – and naturally failed to pass along to my friends – is that the biggest issue in Iceland in the winter isn’t the temperature. It’s the wind.
The wind in Iceland is something else. It reaches a level of ferocity that is usually reserved for spurned lovers and feral cats. Iceland has more snowplows than I’ve seen in my life, but the moment that a plow clears a path, the wind pushes more snow onto the road and undoes any progress. Even when it’s not snowing, it often seems like it is, because the wind kicks up almost as much snow as a blizzard.
The lack of trees in Iceland compounds the issue. Outdoors, there is rarely a break from the wind except in small cities and towns, where the buildings insulate against it a bit. But along the main highway and in the countryside – where we spent most of the trip, of course – everything is just so exposed.
Considering that, the trip went smoothly enough, but we had to reschedule many of our hotels and change plans all the time to avoid storms and icy roads. We also drove into a ditch on the first day, which meant a slight delay while we dug the car out with the gracious help of some passers by. (We repaid the favor throughout the trip by helping a number of stuck tourists – and even one local – push their cars back onto asphalt.)
Conditions like this present some challenges for photography. Most of all, it’s hard to get sharp photos in windy conditions because even a stable tripod will wobble. My choice of camera equipment made things even worse, as I intended for my main kit to be a 4×5 large format film camera, which has accordion-like bellows that catch the wind like a sail.
I ended up shooting with the Nikon Zfc and two compact lenses I brought for testing – the Z 28mm f/2.8 and Z 40mm f/2 – more than I wanted. In hindsight, I should have taken my usual Z7 kit with the 14-30mm f/4 and 24-200mm f/4.5-6.3 instead, but the Zfc performed well despite the weather and was reasonably easy to operate with gloves.
And there were still a couple times that the wind became less of an issue and I could pull out the large format film gear. One of those times was when we visited an ice cave – something that’s always been on my bucket list – where I spent some time photographing abstract details on the cave walls and ceiling with the 4×5.
Standing in that cave is when I realized just how many shades of blue Iceland has in the winter. The ice cave had more tones and nuances of blue than I’d ever seen before, but even outside the cave, the color was omnipresent.
Some of the only non-blue photos I took were black and whites. And I did take my share of those, with the stark shapes of Iceland’s rocky coast and towering waterfalls calling my name a few times.
Though I had a great time during the trip, the weather was so dreary that I didn’t unpack the 4×5 camera a lot, even during the rare lulls in the wind. Thankfully, there was one exception near the end of the week, when the calmest morning coincided with some of the most interesting light.
I took the photo below, ultimately my favorite of the trip, at a place that is very familiar to me. One of my fondest memories is visiting this beach with my dad in 2016 when I went to Iceland for the first time. The scene may also look familiar to long-time Photography Life readers, as I’ve shared some photos from there before (though never with snow).
I’ll also add a behind-the-scenes shot because I like that it shows some of the scale of this place:
There’s a lot of truth behind the old phrase, “bad weather makes good photos.” At times like the morning I photographed above, any challenges fade away and only the beautiful landscape is left. The light certainly wasn’t perfect for most of our trip to Iceland, but in the rare breaks and transitions, it was some of the best I’ve ever seen.
Now that I have a lot more knowledge and a better idea of what to expect, I’m willing to go back in the winter again in the future and keep trying my luck. But I don’t think I can convince my friends to join me next time. I think that when I offer, they’ll say they’re busy and show me a plane ticket to Tahiti with – by a miraculous coincidence – the same dates as my trip.
Finally, since you might be wondering, I did technically see the Northern Lights while I was there, which was another item on my bucket list, although I don’t think I can cross it off quite yet. With my naked eye, all I could see was a very dim glow to the north along the horizon – dim enough that I almost thought I was tricking myself into seeing things. The camera picked it up, though, which is impressive for a crop sensor, but it’s still just a faint band of green.
All the more reason to return! I just need to keep my phone turned off the whole time, or risk being spammed with photos from my so-called “friends” of warm beaches and piña coladas.
Do you remember the name of that cave? Were you able to get there on your own? When I was there in 2011 the tours were something like 280 euros for a single day. If it’s doable without a tour and you recall the name, I might try to see that cave, one day…
Thanks!
Hi Patrick, it didn’t have a name. The caves are different every year, since they melt in the summer and reform in the winter. The glacier is also shrinking which pushes the caves further inland each year. To reach it, we drove in the most massive Jeep I’ve ever seen for several miles down a sheet of ice. The ice “road” we took inland was a few minutes north of Jokulsarlon lagoon. I’ll emphasize that this cave was not accessible by a normal car or by foot unless you commit to a 5-6 mile walk each way. There are definitely cheaper tours than the one you mention, though. I paid $230 US for the day and didn’t go on the cheapest one. Saw some around the $160 USD mark. I strongly suggest going with a guided tour. Would be very hard to find the cave and potentially unsafe otherwise.
Thanks!
I just read your article and I liked the way you talked about the challenges of the experience. I also think your landscapes captured a desolate feeling that must come in a place dominated by ice.
I’ve also experienced more than my fair share of ice, and I’ve never seen ice patterns like that before. They are fascinating and must also be really fun to see in person!
Thank you, Jason! The ice caves are brilliant. I only wish I had more time in the caves to really explore some of the details. Iceland is a wild place in the winter.
I imagine that there is a good reason why the photo on the beach is your favorite. It is simply marvelous; a stunning image. Great work.
Really glad you enjoyed that photo, thanks for the kind feedback. I was pretty happy when I scanned that sheet of film.
Gorgeous photos and great article. I’ve seen a million photos from Iceland before but you captured some unique textures and photos that stand out from the crowd.
Thanks, that makes me very happy to hear. It’s always a challenge in a place that’s as popular for photography as Iceland.
This was a fantastic post! I’m inspired…by the images, but also the story.
Your “blue ice” images are amazing. The first (f32) is spectacular. I must ask, why use f32 and possibly suffer loss of detail from diffraction when you can tilt the lens?
The 2nd “blue ice” at f45 also begs the same question. When I view that one on my iPad Air Retina display, that image has approximately 50% blackness with no shadow detail. Perhaps the real image has something to see. Please comment.
I would love for you to do a study of depth of field and sharpnness comparing/contrasting tiny f stops and tilting your lens as well as using a Nikon F PC lens. Maybe we’ll get a Z PC some day.
That aside, I love your ice pix (ha!) and would love to see more.
Nice work! This website needs more intermediate/advanced postings and detailed equipment reviews than we’ve been seeing lately.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul! I’m glad you enjoyed those ice photos.
With a 4×5 large format camera, depth of field is shallower and diffraction is less of an issue at a given print size. It works out that you can divide the apertures by roughly 3.5 to get their full-frame equivalents (both in terms of diffraction and depth of field). So I effectively shot those photos at about f/9 and f/13. In fact the sharpest aperture on many 4×5 lenses is f/22 for the same reason that about f/5.6-8 is the sharpest on a lot of full frame lenses.
I’m working on more reviews for later in the year. But my main goal first is to get back to about one post per day on Photography Life, whether from me or one of our new writers.
One question to clarify: f 16 causes loss of detail due to diffraction on “35 mm” size cameras because the lens opening (“exit pupil?”) is tiny and that causes bending of light waves (or photons, if you prefer). HOW BIG IS THAT OPENING?……whereas the opening on a large format lens at f 16 is much larger, so no bending. HOW BIG IS THAT OPENING? I’d like to know that latter number as I have no large format lenses to examine.
Thanks!
I guess it makes sense if I remember f stop is a RATIO of opening size to focal length.
Keep up the good work.
It is indeed a ratio! The “f” in aperture values is focal length. So, at say f/16 on a 160mm lens, the (apparent) physical diameter of the aperture opening is 10mm. Large format lenses are no exception in this regard.
But note that the diffraction in an image doesn’t actually shrink as you use longer lenses at a given aperture. f/16 results in the same level of blur from diffraction in an image no matter your focal length.
Instead, the reason why large format cameras still give sharp photos at f/64 or even narrower is different. It’s because on a small camera sensor (like 1.5 inches wide for full frame), you are dramatically enlarging the image (more than 10x enlargement) to make even a basic sized print like a 12×18. This means that a pretty small bit of blur on the sensor from diffraction will ultimately be larger in the print. Meanwhile with large format, you might be enlarging an 8×10 original negative for a 12×18 print, which isn’t even a 2x enlargement. So you can have some pretty large blur from, say, f/64 projected on the film without much issue, since you’re barely enlarging that blur in the final print.
And since depth of field shrinks so strongly on 8×10 (thanks to using longer lenses, like a 150mm as an ultra-wide), you’re at risk of out-of-focus foregrounds and backgrounds if you don’t stop down to those apertures like f/45 or narrower!
I should mention, tilting the lens is not a perfect solution to maximize depth of field. It only works when your subject roughly aligns with a plane. It was probably possible to a degree in the first ice cave photo, although some of the protruding ice made it tricky and I just went with no tilt to speed things up (only had 45 minutes total in the cave). The second photo was a textbook case of when tilting would not have helped much, with details on both the ceiling and floor that I wanted to capture.
The darkness is partly a stylistic choice, but also partly the result of shooting in such a dark cave. As you can see by the 55 second exposure, it was pretty dim there. Reciprocity failure meant that much brighter of a photo would have required about a 4-5 minute exposure at least, and I just didn’t have the time.
Thanks for your further explanation.
That stimulated me to read some large format forums. I thought you’d enjoy a quote from one which alludes to lenses which stop down to f 256 (not a typo, 256):
“Diffraction is one of those monsters that parents use to frighten their kids, like the headless horseman.”
Ha!
Believe it or not, I have one lens that stops down to f/362 (a 30” Goerz Red Dot Artar in a Copal shutter). I’d never use that aperture, at which point even on an ultra-large format 11×14 camera it’s equivalent to about f/36. Totally overkill, but it’s there. So, f/45 is nothing :)
I have never heard of that before…f/362. What! That’s insane.
Love the desolation! Have you checked out Banff in the winter?
No, not yet! I definitely need to. This was my first trip any further north than Chicago in the winter.
When I was in college I drove a sightseeing bus in Banff. Go back any chance I get. Awesome downhill skiing!
Does the cold air and wind cause fogging of the camera lens?
It can in some cases, but I didn’t experience any here. It was too windy, and the temperature differences between indoor and outdoor weren’t so great that fog accumulated at all.
You don’t need to go to Iceland if you love the wind. We get plenty in Orkney. I don’t bother with a tripod in the wind and certainly not the 5×4. Good old D850 is just fine.. as to crop sensor and Aurora? Why not?
I wouldn’t say I quite love the wind :)
It’s actually one of the only things in landscape photography that cannot be worked around in any reasonable manner, at least if the wind gets sufficiently strong. Anyone could photograph the Milky Way with perfect image quality on a 1″ sensor using the right techniques, yet it’s almost impossible to take a pixel-level sharp photo at blue hour if the wind is too strong.
Regarding the crop sensor, I was mainly impressed that the camera picked up the Aurora much better than I saw with my eyes, and hardly with the ideal camera for the job. It’s not that the Zfc is better than most crop sensors in this respect, but I still found it impressive.
Pictures and article look great for sure Spencer, but as I’m having a severe cold right now, allow me to delay the reading ;)… Beautiful anyway :D
Thank you, Pierre! Hope you feel well soon.
I’m ok, but need to rest. At least, It’s not COVID. Have a nice week-end Spencer.
Without having read the article, just the intro paragraph, I have a question: are they still your friends? ;)
Thankfully yes. I’m lucky that they are not only gullible but also forgiving. Or is it forgetful? :)