Good light vs. Bad Light

We all know that lighting makes or breaks a picture and even after a couple months of shooting, I still have trouble differentiating between "bad light" and "good light". I know the extremes on both ends of the spectrum; I.E. Bad Lighting=Harsh Sunlight (mid-afternoon) and Good Lighting=Overcast. However, I do not know much in-between.

How do you differentiate? I am actually embarrassed to ask such a question because this is the first thing every photographer should know.

Good light is not necessarily overcast.

It tends to be where the sunlight is not so harsh (at midday as noted) but when there is either less light or softer light (the"golden hours" at dawn and dusk).

It can take a lot longer than 2 months to be able to "see" the light.

One thing I could suggest is take a set of photographs of the same subject at different times of a sunny day (start as near to dawn as possible and finish at dusk). You should be able to see that the pictures at dawn and dusk exhibit less harsh shadows and are thus a more pleasing photograph.

I'm nearly three years in to this little photography adventure, and only now do I feel like I am able to "see" the light with any sort of consistency (and not that I always get it right, either!).

Neil pretty much got it spot on with the daylight. One of the ways to think about lighting is that the better* light generally comes from light sources that are effectively large. The larger the light source, the more the light will be coming from many directions, instead of a small light source where the light is basically all heading in the same direction by the time it reaches the subject. The sun is HUGE, but because it's so far away, it is thought of as a small light source since the light is very directionalized. This is also why an overcast sky at mid day is better for photos than a clear sky. By turning the entire sky into a giant diffuser, you are making the light source effectively bigger.

That last point is also why some people get all screwed up with soft-boxes. They think that, just by adding a soft box to a studio light, the light is going to be better. Then they put the light as far away as possible in the studio, and wonder why the images don't look better. By placing the light so far away, they've made the light effectively smaller, and basically negated the soft box.


*This gets a star because good light is also about what you're going for. If you need light to provide contrast (say, taking pictures designed to showcase texture), then a smaller effective light source is better. "Good" light is as much about what look you're going for as if the light is big or small.

If you must shoot midday, either use fill flash or shoot in the shade.
Thats my tip.

Its still hard to see "good light" for me.
I feel as though I'm getting closer to it though.

"golden hours" like neilwood said, are very nice.
right before sunset and right after dawn. Great light.
Overcast is pretty good, but I prefer golden hours.

There is no hard and fast rule...sure, whenever you can, work in the golden hours. But just because its midday, doesn't mean that you need to sit home...a lot depends on the location. If its midday, and you have a lot of tree cover (such as along creek or river beds), the light will generally be dappled and filtered through the foliage...this is generally a good situation, so look for opportunities. When the sky is kinda blah and unappealing, frame your image such that its cropped out, if possible. You just gotta work with what you have sometimes...the golden hours are nice (and preferred), but sometimes it isn't always possible to shoot during that time, for whatever reason. Filters can also help.

One needs to understand what contributes to 'bad light'...high contrast, with strong shadows and brightly lit areas, is more challenging to the digital sensors or color transparency film, and while those characteristics can be bad in some situations, they can be good for others. For example, in shooting a portrait of a young lady, the deep shadows are bad in eye sockets and under the chin or if emphsizing wrinkles or pores. But if one is doing a character portrait of a wizened 90 year old ex-sailor they can contribute to the 'character' in emphasizing the wrinkles and weathering of the skin. What is bad in one case is good in another!

It is not always possible to 'choose' when you shoot...if hired for a noon wedding on a bright summer day in San Antonio, you use techniques like flash fill to cut the contrast, and/or you carefully orient the subject relative to to sun to minimize racoon eyes, and use flash to add illumination to the backlit face.

Certainly there are times of 'more pleasing light', but a backlit face at sundown is not that much unlike a backlit face at 2pm in some regards, since artificial supplementation of light is need for both situations. And shooting close to sundown brings its own set of issues to solve (e.g. slower shutter speed, wider apertures).

Good/bad light, as has been pointed out, depends on who, what, when, and where you're shooting.

Degrees Kelvin is perceived differently when viewed through the red clouds of sunset for example especially with the humidity after a rainstorm.
Multiple types of light in an athletic arena is terrible, whereas a single type of lighting is controllable.

Whether you're carrying your camera or not, take a moment and notice/think about the light, it'll soon become automatic.

Good light is what gives you the results you want. Here's an example of what works in this case, but might be terrible for a portrait: "Beast"

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

harsh light isn't automatically "bad" light, nor is soft "good". What matters is how the subject is lit - does it have highlights and shadows in the proper places? Texture, depth, mood, etc. are established by the lighting.

I sometimes took photos in midday with heavy contrast from the sun and tree shadows, and they turned out pretty well.
There is no hard rule for what kinda light is good or bad, just what kinda light is good or bad for the subject/mood at that moment.

I read this in a book, but cant remember what it was titled. Our eyes have a wider tonal range than cameras. What you see can be totally different from your capture. if you squint your eyes, your own tonal range narrows, resembling that of a camera.

On a hot sunny day you may see something nice, but you can squint your eyes and notice a lot of the darker tones now become black, much like camera would make out the scene. The easiest way to see the squinting trick effect is squinting at something black lit.

There really is no such thing is bad light. Whats not good for one situation could very well work in another. I think learning "quality" of light ( whether its available/natural or artificial) is what will help you decide what light is right for what situation. Understanding and being able to see and/or control quality is the key to being able to consistently capture your vision.

What someone considers "bad" light often works for portraying harsh subject matter.

The only ways to learn are either get out there and shoot (best option) or look at peoples shots and analyse the light (ignoring composition, sharpness, subject etc). Look to see a) Is the light correct for the photograph? b) what would changing the light level achieve? c) What is the quality of the light? (harsh or soft) d) would changing the quality of the light (size of light source/time of shot) affect the image and in what way?