Can fog affect your image quality? Any tips?

[BostelJ]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

Here's one I took with a 30 second long exposure using the ND filter,





Here's one I took with a shorter exposure at 1/10,



I found no satisfaction with these pictures, but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The area is beautiful, I really want to photograph it correctly and do it some justice.

Any help is appreciated,

Thanks,

Josh

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

Here's one I took with a 30 second long exposure using the ND filter,



Here's one I took with a shorter exposure at 1/10,



I found no satisfaction with these pictures, but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The area is beautiful, I really want to photograph it correctly and do it some justice.

Any help is appreciated,

I don't see any exposure issues, or, for that matter, any effect from a long exposure. What I have found is that stuff in fog is, indeed, pretty dull. I get better results when there's something of interest in front of the fog:





In your examples, you have a rather ordinary fence in the foreground. This becomes the center of your composition but does not provide anything interesting to the viewer.



--
Leonard Migliore

 

[BostelJ]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

Here's one I took with a 30 second long exposure using the ND filter,



Here's one I took with a shorter exposure at 1/10,



I found no satisfaction with these pictures, but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The area is beautiful, I really want to photograph it correctly and do it some justice.

Any help is appreciated,

I don't see any exposure issues, or, for that matter, any effect from a long exposure. What I have found is that stuff in fog is, indeed, pretty dull. I get better results when there's something of interest in front of the fog:



In your examples, you have a rather ordinary fence in the foreground. This becomes the center of your composition but does not provide anything interesting to the viewer.

--
Leonard Migliore

Hello Leonard,

You're example photograph is quite interesting, I like how you used a compelling subject to compensate for the dullness of the fog. I understand the fence in my picture is ordinary and very uninteresting, creating for an all around ordinary picture if you include that dull fog. But if I were to go back out on the bay, and it so happened to be foggy again, however, with an interesting subject like the one you presented, would the sharpness and overall quality of my image still persist to be reduced?

Thanks for your comment,

Josh

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Hello Leonard,

You're example photograph is quite interesting, I like how you used a compelling subject to compensate for the dullness of the fog. I understand the fence in my picture is ordinary and very uninteresting, creating for an all around ordinary picture if you include that dull fog. But if I were to go back out on the bay, and it so happened to be foggy again, however, with an interesting subject like the one you presented, would the sharpness and overall quality of my image still persist to be reduced?

Well, fog is dull and fuzzy. You can't have sharp, high-contrast fog.

If your image is all fog, it really looks like nothing. I have several pictures like that and can't make anything interesting out of them. In my experience, the only way I can work with fog is to have something that's not in the fog to work as a contrast element.

My wife, strangely enough, is having the same problem with a landscape painting she is doing. When she accurately rendered the foggy scene, the painting looked like garbage. Now she's adding elements that aren't in fog and things are shaping up much better.

I'd like to see an interesting photo that's all fog; I can't imagine what it would look like.

 

[VisionLight]

If you think of fog as a mood, it may help you in visualizing subjects in a way that celebrates fog's creativity. Remember, when you think of the concept of "foggy", you don't think of sharpness and clarity. Neither do you think in terms bright or colorful. Your camera actually "feels" the same way about it. Unless you have strong specific elements in the image with enough contrast, your camera will not have the ability to fight through the moisture in the air and overall low light level to attain clear focus or clarity. In your images, the camera is recording exactly what is there. Nothing more and nothing less. In reality, your camera is counting on you to frame your subject in a creative way so the most important elements are well defined for it to capture. The mood of the fog then becomes an enhancement and not a liability.

If you would like, take a look at a thread I created that is, in effect, a celebration of fog. You can find it here . I hope it gives you some ideas on being creative with your camera in the fog. And keep trying yourself. You'll find a technique that works for you.

Ed

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Well, fog is dull and fuzzy. You can't have sharp, high-contrast fog.

As Leonard said, you need to have a compelling subject. You can then use the fog to set a mood:





--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography

therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[trekkeruss]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

Fog is water particles suspended in the air. It's naturally blurry.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

How are you triggering the shutter? What did you focus on? Was the image stabilization on or off?

You were using a very small aperture, which is unnecessary. In the examples you posted, F/22 wouldn't give you more depth of field, just a loss of sharpness and resolution due to diffraction.

 

[Tom Axford]

You have had many excellent suggestions and examples so far. I'd like to add just one point that I don't think has been made explicitly (although it is implicit in many of the previous posts).

It is that you need to choose the scale of the subject matter carefully in fog. Subjects too far away disappear completely into the fog, while subjects very close are not affected at all (except that the light is often very flat in fog). If the scale is right, the fog is very helpful in showing depth in the scene that would be much less obvious without the fog. Closer objects are crisp and clear, while the further away an object is, the more it fades into the fog.

As an example, the two scenes below are much the same, but in the first there is only a light mist, while in the second there is thick fog (so I included foreground objects that were not necessary in the first). However, even in the first, the slight mist makes the bridge stand out from the background, adding depth to the picture.







Although these two shots were taken from roughly the same spot, the second concentrates on the closer parts of the scene as befits the dense fog.

 

[MoreorLess]

Fog obviously limits your ability to take what many would consider more "standard" landscape shots BUT it also provides opportunities to take shots that wouldn't work in other conditions.

Look at this image for example...

The fog in the air allows for the differentiation of distance between the trees via a gradually lightening tone. Without the fog this picture would be a confused mess of an image.

 

[Chimere]

Hello Josh:

Fog, water droplets, will disperse rays of light and make it diffuse, images will loose detailand contrast. The impression of "sharpness" is actually a combination of contrast and resolution / resolving power. Lenses which produce high resolving power alone, without respect to contrast & clarity, will make dull pictures (*). A good example is the human eye: it does not have much resolving power, but since it features only one very good lens, the contrast / brilliance of the image is outstanding, and appears to be sharper than it actually is. The quality of the eye's images is difficult to reproduce with optical hardware.

(*) I have small Nikon P&S (P7800) with only a 12 MP sensor, but a brilliant lens: the images from that little gem are simply astonishing. The market driven pixel madness has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Back to your problem: if you want to improve the IQ of your existing "foggy" shots, try some PP, imply a good dose of "clarity" on them. Many of my dull shots have made it into the "keeper" folder.

Naturally, the main point, as mentioned already above: get interesting motives into your frames. Fog can be used in a creative way. The one picture in previous post is a good sample. Any good picture should "say" something, have a message. The message may be different to different observers.

Chimere

 

[D Cox]

Why did you use an ND filter ? There is very little light as it is, and the filter makes the situation worse.

Shooting at f/22 seems extreme. Probably f/11 would be enough to get both the fence and the horizon in focus.

Simply pointing the camera at a scene will not record the feelings produced by that scene. You have to arrange elements of the scene to create an image that might arouse similar feelings. A camera does not replicate an environment that stretches for miles in every direction: it puts out a rather small rectangular image.

 

[D Cox]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

Fog is water particles suspended in the air. It's naturally blurry.

It is naturally low contrast, but not blurry or unsharp. If you look at this example full size, you will see that the branches are sharp.

 

[Wally626]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

Here's one I took with a 30 second long exposure using the ND filter,



Here's one I took with a shorter exposure at 1/10,



I found no satisfaction with these pictures, but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The area is beautiful, I really want to photograph it correctly and do it some justice.

Any help is appreciated,

Thanks,

Josh

Why did you shoot it they way you did? Long exposures are mostly used when it is dark, or you wish to smear details in an image with moving objects. Make a seascape or waterfall be dreamy looking, allow walkers to fade from a scene that sort of thing. ND filters are used in several situations. Bight light when you want to use a large aperture, you want to use f/2 but the light is too bright and even at 1/4000th second and base ISO the image is over-exposed. Happens more with video as you may be using 1/60th exposures. Small apertures are used either to cut the light levels so the maximum shutter speed on the camera is not exceeded or to get extreme depth of field.

In your images, there may be a reason to use a smaller aperture to get more depth-of-field but no reason to use either ND filters or slow shutter speeds. In your type of image you will get vibrations in the camera from people moving on the deck, movement in the plants from small amounts of wind. All of which combined with the fog will cause a lack of definition in the image.

Foggy overcast days make typical scenery shots somewhat dull, add to the extra loss of detail from f/22 and long exposures just make the images worse.

In this case I would have shot at ISO 100, f/11 and let the shutter be at whatever it would be. Probably around 1/10 if the air is still. If you have some breeze perhaps bring the ISO up a bit to 200 or 400. F/11 should give you enough DoF so that if you focus on the rail the background will be as sharp as the fog will let it. The bushes on the near shore is all you might expect to be sharp.

Barring something interesting in the fog to take a picture of, you may wish to concentrate on details of the scene. A nail sticking out of a post, and interesting bush, rusty door hinges, that sort of thing.

A couple of my more foggy images below. In the first I concentrate on a detail and let the fog help isolate it from the background.





Second, not much else to take a picture off, on top of mountain in extremely scenic area with almost no view at all, so took what I could get.





Last picture the visibility is enough to see the hikers on the trail/ledge but the fog adds some atmosphere.





Last two were shot on ISO 64 Kodachrome film, many years ago when I was in good enough shape to make it to the top of a mountain.

 

[Thermidor]

Hey guys,

Earlier today I decided to take my camera, (Canon SL1) out on the bay (Grand Traverse Bay, Northern Michigan). I got out my sturdy tripod, put on an ND filter and shot away. The problem is the fog, or so I think. It's almost like the fog makes for dull pictures and no matter what I do it almost always turns out having a 'blurry' effect.

I tried setting a longer exposure (30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 6 seconds), and also tried setting for a shorter one, (1/3 of a second, 1/4 of a second, and 1/10 of a second) without the filter. Despite my efforts, all my images turned out blurry and out of focus looking.

Here's one I took with a 30 second long exposure using the ND filter,



Here's one I took with a shorter exposure at 1/10,



I found no satisfaction with these pictures, but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. The area is beautiful, I really want to photograph it correctly and do it some justice.

Any help is appreciated,

I don't see any exposure issues, or, for that matter, any effect from a long exposure. What I have found is that stuff in fog is, indeed, pretty dull. I get better results when there's something of interest in front of the fog:



In your examples, you have a rather ordinary fence in the foreground. This becomes the center of your composition but does not provide anything interesting to the viewer.

--
Leonard Migliore

Hello Leonard,

You're example photograph is quite interesting, I like how you used a compelling subject to compensate for the dullness of the fog. I understand the fence in my picture is ordinary and very uninteresting, creating for an all around ordinary picture if you include that dull fog. But if I were to go back out on the bay, and it so happened to be foggy again, however, with an interesting subject like the one you presented, would the sharpness and overall quality of my image still persist to be reduced?

Thanks for your comment,

Josh

Hi Josh

When it's foggy or overcast, landscape images should focus on setting a mood. Colour images would look rather dull and gloomy, so you might want to take a B&W white instead. However, the very diffused lighting also means you'll be getting very even lighting without having to worry about overly strong highlights or shadows, so it's a good time to shoot up close. Try some portrait, macro or just still life shots under such weather conditions, or if you're taking landscapes, use the fog to set a mysterious, eerie or gloomy mood to your images.