What and how to photograph on an overcast day?

v1fan

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reaction score
60
On sunny days I usually take lots of photos, mainly street photography and urban landscape, but on cloudy days I feel completely lost. Nothing attracts me and I end up shooting very little.

Do you have any tips that has helped you?

Thanks in advance.
 
Often when it's overcast I change my frame of mind to thinking of shots that will work as B&Ws. Overcast days are often ideal for B&W work because of the softer tonalities. The moodiness of overcast days usually mates well with B&Ws. For instance, check out a lot of Michael Kenna's work.
In he film days, it was cheaper and easier to process B&W. For the average hobbyist, it was difficult and expensive to use and process color film. Most digital camera can convert color shots into monochrome, sepia, etc.

In my recent trip to Fjorland, New Zealand, I made a mistake of switching to Monochrome because of the heavy clouds and fog covering the scenery. While the shots turn up well for B&W, I miss capturing the vibrant colors of the wildlife. Few days later in Blue Mountain, Australia, I stayed away from the monochrome setting and was rewarded in capturing subtle colors in the scenery that were faintly visible through the fog.

While I could possibly "FAKE" in the color by Photoshop, it is not the same, to me.
 
I should've made it clear that I'm not suggesting that you actually shoot with a B&W setting. I'm suggesting that you "think" monochrome and plan your shots for a conversion later in post. If you have the raw (preferred) or a full color jpeg, then your conversion options are significantly enhanced and you don't need to use optical color filters to get the right B&W look and, of course, you can still do a color version for the times that color turns out better (as appears to be the case with your Australian shots).
I agree with you, completely and I understand your perspective.

My CAVEAT was for the benefit of the OP. I am sure you are aware of all the trick of converting, in the camera, a full colored photo into B&W and keeping and even enhancing the color of selected object in the photograph.

Best regards
 
Often when it's overcast I change my frame of mind to thinking of shots that will work as B&Ws. Overcast days are often ideal for B&W work because of the softer tonalities. The moodiness of overcast days usually mates well with B&Ws. For instance, check out a lot of Michael Kenna's work.
In he film days, it was cheaper and easier to process B&W. For the average hobbyist, it was difficult and expensive to use and process color film. Most digital camera can convert color shots into monochrome, sepia, etc.
Don't I know it. To me, using Black and White is still synonymous with an admission of poverty.
In my recent trip to Fjorland, New Zealand, I made a mistake of switching to Monochrome because of the heavy clouds and fog covering the scenery. While the shots turn up well for B&W, I miss capturing the vibrant colors of the wildlife. Few days later in Blue Mountain, Australia, I stayed away from the monochrome setting and was rewarded in capturing subtle colors in the scenery that were faintly visible through the fog.
Since Photoshop can take the colour out later, you were a bit overzealous, maybe.

Henry
 
Don't I know it. To me, using Black and White is still synonymous with an admission of poverty.
Don't I know it. In my college days and shortly thereafter I rarely shot color print film. I shot color slides and B&W because I couldn't afford Kodacolor.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.
 
Last edited:
In he film days, it was cheaper and easier to process B&W. For the average hobbyist, it was difficult and expensive to use and process color film. Most digital camera can convert color shots into monochrome, sepia, etc.
Don't I know it. To me, using Black and White is still synonymous with an admission of poverty.
Please explain what is wrong with being poor and not pretending to be otherwise.
Moreover, please enlighten us why you associate B&W with poverty, specially in light of the record $7.8 Peter Lik got for his B&W "Phantom".
In my recent trip to Fjorland, New Zealand, I made a mistake of switching to Monochrome because of the heavy clouds and fog covering the scenery. While the shots turn up well for B&W, I miss capturing the vibrant colors of the wildlife. Few days later in Blue Mountain, Australia, I stayed away from the monochrome setting and was rewarded in capturing subtle colors in the scenery that were faintly visible through the fog.
Since Photoshop can take the colour out later, you were a bit overzealous, maybe.
Exactly what I stated in the first paragraph above. And no need to use PS since the conversion can be done right inside the camera, a B&W copy made keeping the original intact.
 
Please explain what is wrong with being poor and not pretending to be otherwise.
Moreover, please enlighten us why you associate B&W with poverty, specially in light of the record $7.8 Peter Lik got for his B&W "Phantom".
Off the photography topic - poverty is relative, of course. The fact is, most poor people do not take pride in being poor.

Back to photography - when I do have the choice, I prefer colour. What I don't like is NOT having the choice. And Black and White photos remind me of when I did not have a choice. Hence, for me, Black and White photography is NOT an artistic statement.

Henry
 
Please explain what is wrong with being poor and not pretending to be otherwise.
Moreover, please enlighten us why you associate B&W with poverty, specially in light of the record $7.8 Peter Lik got for his B&W "Phantom".
Off the photography topic - poverty is relative, of course. The fact is, most poor people do not take pride in being poor.

Back to photography - when I do have the choice, I prefer colour. What I don't like is NOT having the choice. And Black and White photos remind me of when I did not have a choice. Hence, for me, Black and White photography is NOT an artistic statement.

Henry
I do not judge anyone by looks or affluence . While you were the one who injected poverty, I gladly will let that slide.

It would not be honest for me not to agree on that preference. However, there are subject that are best presented in B&W, such as the photo below.

                            Canberra Museum of Arts, Canberra, Australia.
Canberra Museum of Arts, Canberra, Australia.

Naturally, it is a matter of the subject and preference.

--
ecube
 
It would not be honest for me not to agree on that preference. However, there are subject that are best presented in B&W, such as the photo below.

Canberra Museum of Arts, Canberra, Australia.
Canberra Museum of Arts, Canberra, Australia.

Naturally, it is a matter of the subject and preference.
This an effective picture, I agree.

Henry



--
Henry Falkner - SH-2, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
 
If you go back to the 60's and 70's you will find a time when color print film and developing was far more expensive than B&W.
 
To me that would look just as good in color or B&W
 
As I am out with the camera most days I take photographs whatever the conditions, my town is virtually circled by a large loop in the river, heavy rain in Wales makes its presence felt approx 24 hours later, these two images were taken today ( Thursday ), one is the main town centre car park and the other a couple of the normally river bank trees, not exhibition stuff I know but interesting enough as a record of the November 2015 floods.

69cc5cc602604858a34cd35576e5c9d2.jpg

cdc380e0aa1b4dbe9ea0ce50646711ed.jpg
 
Last edited:
Shrewsbury?
 
Many times I prefer overcast, especially for color as I often the colors are often richer and more complex.

Of course there is some overcast that works better than others, just as sun can be bright and cheery or harsh and hard edged.

Gao
 
Now I think real B&W is more expensive.
Hi Dave,

My recent (less than a month) experience is that the cost is EXACTLY the same for B&W and color if both are printed on same paper stock, by machine, and exactly identical mounting or both not-mounted. I have mine done at Costco. On the other hand, custom printing at my nearby photo dealer is more expensive for full color than B&W, again, using the same paper stock.

I suppose it depend on who is doing the printing. in the mid 1960s, I used to work for a commercial printer. We routinely made prints as large 4 FEET x 6 FEET, B&W.
 
A bit more than 'visited'. From 2006 through 2012, I'd spend about half the time down at Gravels Bank, directly across the Hope Valley from the Stiperstones.

That was, for us, an ideal location for roaming about Shropshire and the Borders and Marches. Indeed, that was where I first learned to 'watch the light', along with the Lake District. Coming from the East Coast in the US, we don't often get the rapidly changing light that is so common in these parts of the UK.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top