photographing fog

[hammy]

I am wondering some tips on how to achieve some good photos of fog. I usually end up getting a very flat look. Any tips? Thank you.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I'd like to know the same thing...

 

[santino]

I think that actually a foggy scene is flat. if you use digital turn up the contrast, if you shoot b&w film do N+2/N-2 (contrast increasing exposure/development combination)

 

[markc]

Run the film through an x-ray machine? Er...

I think it's going to be tough to get the effect that your eyes see. We have the benifit of taking it all in in 3D. We can see that it gets thicker as you get deeper, but on film, it tends to just turn out as a haze.

I haven't worked with it much, but if you want to do fog, you might keep your eye out for when there is a distinct gradient or cut-off, like when it looks like a cloud is taking up the first few feet off the gound and maybe has some whisps coming up off of it, but is somewhat clear above. I would guess that a long telephoto could help also. Since it compresses distance, you would probably notice a greater distinction of the fog, but you'd have to include subject matter over a range of distances. But then a wide-angle would allow you to easily have something close and unaffected in the foreground. I guess it would depend on conditions, but that's something you can experiment with. I'm guessing a thick fog = wide-angle and thin haze = telephoto.

 

[Unimaxium]

My guess is you might want to try including some stuff in the foreground where it is clear so you can show a gradient of fogginess increasing as other objects become more distant.

 

[Peanuts]

Other than showing the fog suspended above the ground, I may also suggest using light and trees. You have probably seen the effect where light rays are filtered through the tree branches and show with fog, sometimes casting an interesting shadow on the ground or more of the 'mystical' atmosphere.

 

[itskub]

another fog question. suppose you go for a long film exposure during the night, with fog of course.
without any lighting besides the overcasted nightsky, would objects such a car in the foreground be descernable, or would everything just appear flat?

 

[Rob]

It depends on what the fog is like, but:

long exposure + fog = grey picture

Most likely anyway. Fog is a nightmare as your eyes/brain can discern using intelligence and you're not actually seeing what's there. What's there is usually an unappealing grey mess. Your brain can put things together and see stuff in the fog that isn't there. The camera won't lie and it'll give you really what's there - nothing (normally!).

Photos need some kind of contrast and misty scenes are one of the toughest subjects to tackle. There has to be something strong in the scene to counter the greyness or your photo will be very flat, dull and uninteresting.

Rob

 

[matdjj]

You might try looking for things like bridges that are half covered in fog. The Golden Gate Bridge comes to mind.

 

[ScoobyRoo20]

Here's my only shot of fog that's worth posting. Here in N Texas, this the only type of fog that I've seen. It's pretty hard to get the right capture with fog. I too, would liket o find that cool type of fog that doen't really cover everything. Just like a bridge as matdjj was saying.
This picture was taken with the point and shoot mode of my old nikon at night. I am suprised that anything actually came out. Good luck with your fog. post em up when you get them. I sure would like to see what you get.

 

[KMac]

I have found that a bit of overexposure (1 or 1.5 stops) helps on negative film. If you just use your camera's recommended exposure, the film is quickly exposed by light scattered off the fog and you dont record any detail in your subject. A bit of overexposure allows to to record some detail on foreground subjects. Printing exposure times will need to be increased to compensate for the "thick" negative.

I hope this helps,
Kevin.