Would you consider this photo in Harsh Light?

[TheBigE]

So I had a review of my work and the photographer commented that the photo below was in harsh light and that I should have come back later in the day.

This photo was taken in the evening just before sunset - the so called golden hours. I am facing north and the sun is setting to my left in this photo.

To me I found the light to be very pleasing and not harsh. Maybe I am missing something. Anyone else think this light is "harsh".

[NorthernFocus]

The lighting looks awesome to me, Erik. I'd say you're worrying too much about the comment. Since you know what lighting you shot in you have the proper context in which to place the person's opinion.

[Mike Buckley]

I would like to first mention that your image makes me think that everything in it is the result of your purposeful thinking, which is a high compliment.

It really depends on what the term, harsh, means to each of us. For me, the extreme example of harsh light outside is the quality of light in the northern hemisphere that exists from about noon to 2:00pm in the middle of the summer when there are no clouds diffusing the light. Clearly, your photo does not display anything remotely like that quality of light insofar as the time of day is concerned. However, the image is very contrasty because there seem to be no clouds diffusing the light. That alone will cause some people to describe the light as harsh.

[Geoff F]

The colours are fairly intense, particularly when viewed with the Lightbox setting; but what was reality when you shot this scene? Sometimes real life gets a bit 'intense' like this.

[bje07]

However, the image is very contrasty because there seem to be no clouds diffusing the light. That alone will cause some people to describe the light as harsh.

I agree with Mike , in addition maybe a tad too saturated (but I like)?

[DanK]

Some of the other comments point where I was headed. I don't think the lighting is harsh, but in some sense, the image does look a bit harsh. My first thought was saturation, but it could be some combination of saturation, contrast, and sharpening. Or maybe the uncalibrated screen I have in front of me...

Nice composition, regardless

[William W]

. . . I had a review of my work and the photographer commented that the photo below was in harsh light and that I should have come back later in the day.

This photo was taken in the evening just before sunset - the so called golden hours. I am facing north and the sun is setting to my left in this photo.

To me I found the light to be very pleasing and not harsh. Maybe I am missing something.

Anyone else think this light is "harsh".

The light is "HARD LIGHT".


***


I think this is what happened . . .

1. The commentator made the comment about the light using what I believe is an incorrect/inappropriate term "Harsh" - the commentator could have/should have used "Hard Light" (meaning ‘direct light that is not diffused and not dispersed'.)

2. The commentator then made a mistaken judgement call and wrongly assumed that the sun was overhead. The commentator did not consider that the scene the scene could have been side lit - ergo the suggestion to “come back later in the day”.

Further (and this point is integral to the commentator's critique): I think that the commentator probably believes that in times of the "Golden Hour" the Sunlight Light can never be HARD: this is an erroneous, but it is a common belief.

Probably the erroneous assumption concerning the time of day was made because of:

a) Misinterpretation by the commentator of the shadow’s placement in the furrows and also shadows in the tree.

b) Commentator not noticing what appears to be a shadow of another tree which is situated out of shot to camera left.

c) Commentator did not give due diligence to what appears to be Post Production work on much of the shadow area, especially the shadow are inside the tree.

d) Commentator did not give due diligence to what appears to be Post Production work on Vibrance and Saturation in much of the lit areas.

***

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS -

I also think that the (meaning of) the comment "Harsh Light" might have been made by the commentator but not meant literally: the comment made was literally about “the light” - but I think the commentator could have been making a more general comment about the image. The commentator might have been commenting more about the general intensity of the image (an Artistic Feature), rather than the Lighting Scenario (a Technical Feature).

Technical and Artistic comments are often intertwined and muddled up.

How versed and experienced in Comment and Critique / Judging, is this other Photographer?

WW

[William W]

As a general critique of the image – I concur with Mike Buckley and add –

Good shot.
Purposeful, meaningful and well composed.
Pleasing, but moreover stimulating to the eye.
Rich and vibrant.
Made me look longer than two seconds – i.e. captured my interest.

If it were mine I would crop-out the smidge line of orange at the top of the frame, middle to camera right.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

To follow up on Bill's point on terminology, the term, harsh light, is not very helpful because it means too many different things to different people. Anyone fulfilling the responsibility of formally reviewing images who uses that term in my opinion is not adequately qualified. As an example, that term isn't even listed in the index of Light: Science & Magic, which many people like me consider the authoritative book on the subject of light in the practical context of photography.

When it comes to describing the general quality of light that does not have to do with color, the following terms are much clearer in my mind because their definitions are clearly standardized: soft light, diffuse light, soft shadows, hard light, direct light and hard shadows. Note that all of those terms are related to the characteristics of transmitted light, which is what the OP asked about, rather than reflected light; once the light falls upon an object, the quality of the reflected light may or may not be the same.

[TheBigE]

How versed and experienced in Comment and Critique / Judging, is this other Photographer?

WW

To be honest, it was a paid for service to see how this would go....it is a professional photographer but perhaps more versed in Portrait Photography. It was MY choice of this commentator as I wanted a bit different viewpoint. Problem was that as I heard that comment it automatically resulted in the loose of credibility for the remaining review (14 photos). Looking back at this excercise I questions just submitting photos but rather also submitting some background on the photos. I feel that photos alone without a bit of backstory do not always tell the full story.

From my reading above - I think this is Hard Light - that is it is not diffused. The evening was cloudless and the sun was setting to the left of the image (hence the shadow). I am confident that if I would have taken this in the middle of the day (1300) it would have a much less pleasing appearance. Normally I would call that Harsh Light...but as we know now that definition really does not exist.

Colorwise - yes that was my artistic feature - I boosted it (Using Selective Color in PS). Maybe a touch to strong and that contributes to the comments...for me the vibrancy of the colors and the punch that is provide are a key part of making this a pleasing photo.

Thanks for all the feedback.