Image quality and the impact of the weather (2 Viewers)

[PaulCountyDurham]

Hi all,

For anyone who has an insight into this:

I'm finding that image quality is lower than I expected in certain weather conditions, and higher than expected in others.

'Seems to me that my images have generally been better on a clear day in the winter months and on a dull day in the summer months particularly where there is a lot of green in the background.

There have been times this summer where I've felt I've gotten everything right, nice blue sky in the background, high shutter speed, low ISO and so on; and have been surprised the images haven't turned out better. Similarly, there have been times when it's been dull, low shutter speed and so on; and the images have turned out much better than I was expecting.

It's been my first summer with a camera and as a result I've taken much more notice of the weather. It's been noticeable that this summer we have had a lot of hazy days when the sun is shining, unlike clear blue winter skies.

Getting to the point: when it's a hazy summer day, is there something in the atmosphere which does not suit a lens/camera? and why is that say a lot of green in the background can really make a difference to image quality? I'll be doing some reading around this in the next few weeks, but thought I'd ask here anyway.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Mono]

It all depends on what you mean by quality. I have always viewed photography as an art, the important things to me are the subject, the composition and the sense of knowing what the photographer was trying to do. The actual technical correctness of the image is way down the list.

But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder, different people value different things.

On a more vaguely helpful note, greens look good because that is the colour that humans can perceive the most shades of. We see a multitude of variation in mass of green vegetation but a blue sky is just a blue sky.

 

[gerald762]

The most likely reason is heat distortion of the air.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

It all depends on what you mean by quality. I have always viewed photography as an art, the important things to me are the subject, the composition and the sense of knowing what the photographer was trying to do. The actual technical correctness of the image is way down the list.

But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder, different people value different things.

On a more vaguely helpful note, greens look good because that is the colour that humans can perceive the most shades of. We see a multitude of variation in mass of green vegetation but a blue sky is just a blue sky.

Thanks Mono.

I think I detect a bit more detail in an image with green in the background, particularly if it's a darker green. I thought maybe there's something in that colour that is compatible with a camera's reading of the conditions and the exposure which is set. I've found that in the winter, clear blue skies make a very good background when compared with a summer blue sky and the obvious answer to me is the haze/heat in the summer.

It's one I'm going to do a bit of reading around. I'm sort of getting used to it through experience in that I largely know what background to look for but I'm not quite sure why and I'm curious as to how it works.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

The most likely reason is heat distortion of the air.

Thanks Gerald.

Aye, that was the logical conclusion for me, although 'was interested to hear an alternative view.

The difference between winter blue skies and summer is a million miles apart and the amount of hazy days we've had over the last couple of months has been a bit of an eye opener. I'm not sure whether it's a case that I'm taking more notice, but I've been surprised at consistent hazy days.

It's on my reading list as at the moment the detail in the image takes me by surprise sometimes, so understanding why would be a big help.

 

[gerald762]

The distortion is why photographers talk about the "Golden hour". This the first hour or so of light in the morning, mainly, and the evening. Less distortion and nice side light. Down here it is in the morning only at the moment. In the summer and Autumn there is plenty of distortion even at dusk, when it can still be 35C!

 

[Farnboro John]

Contrast can also be an issue. On a sunny day pale colours and especially white will get burned out by strong sunshine and spoil your pictures unless you do something about it with settings. Sometimes and with some subjects (think Mute Swan, for a start) less fierce light will enable you to retain detail better.

John

 

[njlarsen]

There is a second reason for the expression "golden hour". That is the golden tones imposed by the light, the light is more neutral in the middle of the day. Some golden hour images suffer from a strong color distortion for that reason, and different cameras may have different sensitivities to that color cast. Different people viewing the image certainly does!

Niels

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

The distortion is why photographers talk about the "Golden hour". This the first hour or so of light in the morning, mainly, and the evening. Less distortion and nice side light. Down here it is in the morning only at the moment. In the summer and Autumn there is plenty of distortion even at dusk, when it can still be 35C!

I think I have the experience now to know that more light doesn't necessarily equate to more detail in an image. I'm not fully sure as to why that is, but still, it's useful knowledge. I suppose these are the things you learn as you go along and I'm trying to work out what backgrounds will give me the best results in any given condition. I have a reasonable grasp through experience but without actually knowing the science of it, you're limited in terms of making the best of the conditions. So far, I've had more detail in my images on more overcast days with some nice green in the background. It's all quite interesting really, the many factors that go into image quality.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Contrast can also be an issue. On a sunny day pale colours and especially white will get burned out by strong sunshine and spoil your pictures unless you do something about it with settings. Sometimes and with some subjects (think Mute Swan, for a start) less fierce light will enable you to retain detail better.

John

Cheers John. Aye, I mostly avoid taking pictures of birds with lots of white around midday when the sun is shining. Thankfully there aren't many of them where I go!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

There is a second reason for the expression "golden hour". That is the golden tones imposed by the light, the light is more neutral in the middle of the day. Some golden hour images suffer from a strong color distortion for that reason, and different cameras may have different sensitivities to that color cast. Different people viewing the image certainly does!

Niels

Cheers Niels. I think this is the sort of thing I want to read up on and know more about. There is definitely a case of this in my pictures. I've taken some I thought should be very good around the time of day you're talking about, not overexposed in the slightest, but they don't quite look right. I'm never been fully sure why but it's time to find out because then maybe I can do something about it in the settings or adjust background or whatever.

 

[njlarsen]

Cheers Niels. I think this is the sort of thing I want to read up on and know more about. There is definitely a case of this in my pictures. I've taken some I thought should be very good around the time of day you're talking about, not overexposed in the slightest, but they don't quite look right. I'm never been fully sure why but it's time to find out because then maybe I can do something about it in the settings or adjust background or whatever.

Maybe adjust the white balance in postprocessing?

Niels

 

[stevo]

I did read once that photography can be better after a rain shower,as there are less polluting elements in the air.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Maybe adjust the white balance in postprocessing?

Niels

Sometimes I do, Niels. It's the only thing I touch in terms of altering the colouring a bit. I never touch contrast or brightness as I never seem to like the results.

I've found, however, there is a difference in the image that you simply can't retrieve through white balance adjustments or any post processing tools. The summer sun at any time of the day seems to play a large part in that, at least in my pictures anywhere.

The best pictures I've taken this summer in terms of detail have been when it's been overcast.

I posted a picture of a wheatear and a stonechat recently both at a similar distance, if anything the wheatear is closer.

Wheatear, sunny, shutter speed 2000, ISO 400.

Stonechat, overcast, shutter speed 400 or 500, ISO 400.

The stonechat detail came out much better.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I did read once that photography can be better after a rain shower,as there are less polluting elements in the air.

I'd say there is something in the atmosphere on a sunny day in the summer that does impact detail in an image.

 

[Zackiedawg]

I probably see more of the effects you're describing through the summer, not the least because my summers last about 8-9 months, and are not only brutally hot, but also massively humid...95F and 85% humidity, approaching 100% during summers after a rainstorm. Summer air, mostly due to heat, does tend to experience more haze and distortion. Also, the thicker more humid air will create significantly more heat shimmer when shooting longer focal lengths at more distant subjects. And the sun itself tends to be more intense - making it much easier to blow out color channels and highlights. It's something I have to deal with regularly, because most of my shooting occurs in early afternoon - the only time I have available - when the sun is at the absolute worst angle and intensity. The atmospheric conditions make longer distance subjects difficult to get a good crisp shot of, and the bright, high light flattens out the 3D effect and subject isolation and makes exposures very difficult, with highlights blowing out even when trying to expose for highlights as much as possible.

It's still possible to get good detail in these conditions, if you work around some of the issues. For example, a distant bird sitting a little higher off the ground will often see less distortion from heat and humidity, which tends to lie closer to the ground. Picking a subject that is partially blocked from direct light - such as standing under some leaves which filter the sun's intensity will also help bring out details and crispness. I use plants often here in Florida to help dissipate the intense afternoon sun, shooting under tree canopies, shooting birds lurking through reeds or under a large overhanging leaf, and so on.

We don't get winter here - we get 8-9 months of summer, followed by 2 months of fall (temps mostly in the 80s, occasionally 70s F) and 1-2 months of spring (temps in the mid-80s F). I love shooting during those cooler (relatively) months, because the atmosphere is clearer, distortion lower, skies bluer, and with Daylight Savings rolled back, it also gets darker sooner, which means when I'm shooting in the 1pm to 5pm range, I will get to experience nicer directional light, into golden hour and blue hour. In the summer and during DST, the golden hour doesn't even start until 6-7pm, and I've already headed home by then!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

For example, a distant bird sitting a little higher off the ground will often see less distortion from heat and humidity, which tends to lie closer to the ground.

That's an interesting point which I didn't consider. I'll certainly give that a go.

Does standing in the shade when taking the picture make any difference? I thought it did when I tried it but it could be a result of an unrelated factor.

 

[Zackiedawg]

Keeping yourself in the shade can contribute in a few ways - one is that there's less heat distortion around you and for the first 10-20 feet of where you're shooting - heat distortion is cumulative - the more distance that you're shooting through with dense air, the worse the overall distortion of the subject. Also, keeping yourself in the shade will reduce or eliminate various types of flare, adverse reflection, etc from the lens optics.

Of course, they're all just general tips to help - if conditions are bad enough, sometimes it's going to affect your shot no matter what you do. Then the choice comes down to not shooting, or taking the shot and accepting that there may be some distortion, lack of contrast, or lack of sharpness. Sometimes, it can even make the shot more interesting in a way, because you're capturing not just the subject, but the conditions at the time...I do occasionally like to shoot into the sun with birds - the faded, low contrast look, strong backlight and halo effect, and skewed white balance can produce a unique style and viewers know the shot was taken in harsh light facing the camera - true to the conditions I was shooting in.

Sometimes it's the line between being a birder trying to capture the bird in the most detailed, accurate way, and other times being a photographer who likes to play with different lighting conditions and challenges. Both examples here were with really strong backlight, shooting towards the sun - the contrast was low, the details not very high so they're not very good captures technically - but artistically the backlight was interesting to me and I liked the way the light caught the spray from the shaking osprey and put a nice halo around the edges of the heron:

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Keeping yourself in the shade can contribute in a few ways - one is that there's less heat distortion around you and for the first 10-20 feet of where you're shooting - heat distortion is cumulative - the more distance that you're shooting through with dense air, the worse the overall distortion of the subject. Also, keeping yourself in the shade will reduce or eliminate various types of flare, adverse reflection, etc from the lens optics.

Of course, they're all just general tips to help - if conditions are bad enough, sometimes it's going to affect your shot no matter what you do. Then the choice comes down to not shooting, or taking the shot and accepting that there may be some distortion, lack of contrast, or lack of sharpness. Sometimes, it can even make the shot more interesting in a way, because you're capturing not just the subject, but the conditions at the time...I do occasionally like to shoot into the sun with birds - the faded, low contrast look, strong backlight and halo effect, and skewed white balance can produce a unique style and viewers know the shot was taken in harsh light facing the camera - true to the conditions I was shooting in.

Sometimes it's the line between being a birder trying to capture the bird in the most detailed, accurate way, and other times being a photographer who likes to play with different lighting conditions and challenges. Both examples here were with really strong backlight, shooting towards the sun - the contrast was low, the details not very high so they're not very good captures technically - but artistically the backlight was interesting to me and I liked the way the light caught the spray from the shaking osprey and put a nice halo around the edges of the heron:

Cheers for taking the time to post a detailed response.

In the short term I'm trying to understand what the conditions will give me, which was the point of my post. When I have a grip on that, I can begin to experiment. What you've posted is useful information, particularly the point on taking pictures when stood in the shade: I detected a difference, a positive impact, but I didn't understand why.

The whole camera/photography thing is addictive and I reckon mainly because it's a meaningful pursuit in a way most aren't, and I wish I'd stumbled upon it years back. I work full time, pretty long hours, and so I'm struggling for time a bit; but I'll keep plugging away and when I retire it'll become my main hobby.

Of the two, I prefer the heron shot and the glow around the wings.