I recently posted a few images from the Grand Tetons with wildflowers in the foreground in the Landscape Gallery. Both have comments stating the light is flat. I just do not get it. I thought flat light was noon time light when the sun hits everything the same since it is directly overhead. One image is from an hour after sunrise and the other late afternoon. If the light is not directly overhead is it still flat ?
Look forward to learning more about this to help me in the future.
At least to me, flat light will give an image that is lacking any distinct shadows. This does not mean an image lacks contrast, since even small variations in tone (not color) can give the image a "roundness" and life.
In your image above, I would say the light in the foreground is not flat, since there are distinct shadows in the foreground. The mountains look slightly 'flat' because the mids and the darks lack some tonal separation, but the quality of the light is certainly not 'flat', in my opinion.
I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.
Andrew, I would think the adjustment you've made by adding saturation has added a nice look to this scene. Having not seen the original post and lacking the adjustments you've made it might have appeared a bit flat.
I agree a bit about your point and "high noon" light being the wrong light for landscape, but usually more considered to be harsh light then flat light per se. The harsh light effect usually leaves things looking too intense and too bright in general. This is just some rule of thumb thinking with a strong blue bird sky. However, a really overcast sky can surely change that thinking to a point.
As digital allows a lot more latitude with exposure compensations it leads or can lead to thoughts of shooting at most times of the day with positive results no matter what. And yes, the image will expose right, but it does not benefit from the "golden hour" lights provided during sunrise and sunset "cycles". As a 50 ASA film shooter myself I have little choice. My landscape shots are all taken during the "cycle" of sunrise or sunset. If not the contrast becomes too much and it's a waste of time.
The image above being late afternoon looks fine to me as presented, but I could also see some real benefits from even "softer light" provided in this case by the sunset cycle.......just my 2 cents......
I had not seen the images in the landscape gallery or looked at the comments. My reaction to this image is the light is flat. To me that means everything is evenly illuminated. You indicated that this was taken an hour after sunrise (is it this image.. not sure from your comment). Depending on time of year, one hour after sunrise the sun can still be reasonably high in the sky and cause the lighting to look uniform. If it weren't for a few visible shadows in the foreground of this image, there wouldn't be any distinct shadows at all.
I did some very quick dodging and burning on this image in an attempt to create some sense of light and shadow. I've intentionally pushed it pretty far to make it more visible here, but I hope it is evident that this version has more light/shadow than uniform light. I also did a couple of quick masks targeting the top 1/4 lights and the bottom 3/4 darks to create a bit more contrast (again pushed a bit extreme for visibility).
Andrew, as the "instigator" of this dilemma, I feel the need to respond. In terms of my reaction to your first post, I was thinking very much along the lines of Keith's response, in that the image feels mostly 2 dimensional (or flat) because of how uniform the light is on the distant flowers and mountains. At the same time, you're right in that overcast lighting is also commonly described as flat. I believe that is for much the same reason, since the lack of shadows removes a very important depth cue that our brain uses to create a 3D feeling from a 2D image.
Thus, in composing an image, there are multiple cues that can be used to create (or restrict) the sense of depth. Lighting is one, size and placement of interesting features is another, overlap is a third, and there are many others. In this case, I'm inclined to think that the sense of flatness is a combination of the light in the mid- and background (there's good depth in the foreground flowers) and the lack of features in the middle region that attract attention and would let my eyes rest in that area.
I learned the term "flat light" back (many) years ago when I started downhill skiing. Flat light was when there were no shadows, and therefore, no depth perception. You couldn't see the bumps or the dropoffs! It was like skiing with a veil over you goggles.
To me, this lighting in your image is not flat light; like you say, it's that bright overhead light, which is usually described as being harsh. I can see why someone might describe this as appearing flat, since the "sameness" of the overhead light doesn't add the directional shadow cues that sidelighting does. Lighting is tricky; rarely does a (landscape) photo with all strong lighting come across as really appealing. If you ever get back to this location in different lighting and weather conditions, you'll see what a huge difference it makes. Also, as I have learned over and over, what looks like an amazingly beautiful day when you are there in person does not always translate that way in a photograph.
Discussion
6 repliesI recently posted a few images from the Grand Tetons with wildflowers in the foreground in the Landscape Gallery. Both have comments stating the light is flat. I just do not get it. I thought flat light was noon time light when the sun hits everything the same since it is directly overhead. One image is from an hour after sunrise and the other late afternoon. If the light is not directly overhead is it still flat ?
Look forward to learning more about this to help me in the future.
Thanks
Here is one of the images I added a little saturation to per the comment.
At least to me, flat light will give an image that is lacking any distinct shadows. This does not mean an image lacks contrast, since even small variations in tone (not color) can give the image a "roundness" and life.
In your image above, I would say the light in the foreground is not flat, since there are distinct shadows in the foreground. The mountains look slightly 'flat' because the mids and the darks lack some tonal separation, but the quality of the light is certainly not 'flat', in my opinion.
I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.
--P
Andrew, I would think the adjustment you've made by adding saturation has added a nice look to this scene. Having not seen the original post and lacking the adjustments you've made it might have appeared a bit flat.
I agree a bit about your point and "high noon" light being the wrong light for landscape, but usually more considered to be harsh light then flat light per se. The harsh light effect usually leaves things looking too intense and too bright in general. This is just some rule of thumb thinking with a strong blue bird sky. However, a really overcast sky can surely change that thinking to a point.
As digital allows a lot more latitude with exposure compensations it leads or can lead to thoughts of shooting at most times of the day with positive results no matter what. And yes, the image will expose right, but it does not benefit from the "golden hour" lights provided during sunrise and sunset "cycles". As a 50 ASA film shooter myself I have little choice. My landscape shots are all taken during the "cycle" of sunrise or sunset. If not the contrast becomes too much and it's a waste of time.
The image above being late afternoon looks fine to me as presented, but I could also see some real benefits from even "softer light" provided in this case by the sunset cycle.......just my 2 cents......
Hi Andrew:
I had not seen the images in the landscape gallery or looked at the comments. My reaction to this image is the light is flat. To me that means everything is evenly illuminated. You indicated that this was taken an hour after sunrise (is it this image.. not sure from your comment). Depending on time of year, one hour after sunrise the sun can still be reasonably high in the sky and cause the lighting to look uniform. If it weren't for a few visible shadows in the foreground of this image, there wouldn't be any distinct shadows at all.
I did some very quick dodging and burning on this image in an attempt to create some sense of light and shadow. I've intentionally pushed it pretty far to make it more visible here, but I hope it is evident that this version has more light/shadow than uniform light. I also did a couple of quick masks targeting the top 1/4 lights and the bottom 3/4 darks to create a bit more contrast (again pushed a bit extreme for visibility).
Andrew, as the "instigator" of this dilemma, I feel the need to respond.
In terms of my reaction to your first post, I was thinking very much along the lines of Keith's response, in that the image feels mostly 2 dimensional (or flat) because of how uniform the light is on the distant flowers and mountains. At the same time, you're right in that overcast lighting is also commonly described as flat. I believe that is for much the same reason, since the lack of shadows removes a very important depth cue that our brain uses to create a 3D feeling from a 2D image.
Thus, in composing an image, there are multiple cues that can be used to create (or restrict) the sense of depth. Lighting is one, size and placement of interesting features is another, overlap is a third, and there are many others. In this case, I'm inclined to think that the sense of flatness is a combination of the light in the mid- and background (there's good depth in the foreground flowers) and the lack of features in the middle region that attract attention and would let my eyes rest in that area.
I learned the term "flat light" back (many) years ago when I started downhill skiing. Flat light was when there were no shadows, and therefore, no depth perception. You couldn't see the bumps or the dropoffs! It was like skiing with a veil over you goggles.
To me, this lighting in your image is not flat light; like you say, it's that bright overhead light, which is usually described as being harsh. I can see why someone might describe this as appearing flat, since the "sameness" of the overhead light doesn't add the directional shadow cues that sidelighting does. Lighting is tricky; rarely does a (landscape) photo with all strong lighting come across as really appealing. If you ever get back to this location in different lighting and weather conditions, you'll see what a huge difference it makes. Also, as I have learned over and over, what looks like an amazingly beautiful day when you are there in person does not always translate that way in a photograph.