Short days, flat skies, and constant drizzle can make a camera feel pointless once the world turns gray. If you want to keep making images that feel alive in those conditions, you have to treat that dull light as a problem to solve rather than a reason to stay home.
Coming to you from Max Kent, this practical video starts with the most basic decision that controls everything else: exposure. Kent talks about how gray skies either starve your scene of light or turn the sky into a glowing white sheet that tricks your meter. His solution is to stop worrying about saving every bit of detail in the sky and expose for whatever matters in the frame, even if that means letting the clouds clip. He suggests a small bump in exposure, paying attention to your subject and foreground instead of chasing a “perfect” histogram. You can do that with exposure lock on the main area of interest, then fine-tune later in editing rather than fighting the sky in every frame. The focus is on giving yourself a strong starting file instead of accepting muddy, underexposed scenes just because the weather looks flat.
Kent also leans into what the clouds actually give you, which is soft, forgiving light that wraps around faces and buildings. He points out that this “big softbox in the sky” is ideal for portraits and street scenes of people because you avoid harsh shadows and squinting eyes. The tradeoff is that everything can look a bit cold and lifeless, so he suggests opening up the aperture a little to create separation, something like moving from f/8 to around f/4 instead of jumping straight to f/1.8. That slight shift gives your subject a clean outline without turning the background into pure blur that kills context. You still see the environment, but your eye knows exactly where to land. By treating shallow depth of field as a subtle tool instead of an effect to show off, you keep the mood of a gray day without letting it flatten the frame completely.
Where the video really gets interesting is when Kent talks about leaning into bad weather instead of waiting it out. Rain changes how people move, how cars reflect in the street, and how light bounces off wet surfaces, and he shows how those moments turn an ordinary scene into something twitchy and dramatic. He suggests going out when most people stay inside, using the chaos of umbrellas, puddles, and gusts of wind as moving parts to work with, while staying safe, of course. When the weather is not dramatic and everything is just flat gray, he pushes you to strip things back and ask if you actually have a subject or if you were relying on pretty light all along. He references long lenses and tighter framing as ways to pull one person or small detail out of the mess, which is especially useful when the whole city feels like a single slab of tone. Kent also hints at shooting indoors or from sheltered spots, using doorways, archways, and big interior spaces as frames when the sky gives you nothing at all. You start to see gray streets, busy public buildings, and even ordinary homes at night as different stages where the light and weather change how people behave. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Kent.
3 Comments
I find it to be super easy to get perfect exposures and beautiful images when the sky is an umbrella of grey overcast. These are actually the most preferred conditions for the majority of wildlife and nature photography. A much bigger challenge is trying to get things right when the sun is out and skies are blue.
My thought sexactly ! Like one giant softbox.
I live in southern Nevada where we get 300 days a year of clear, harsh skies. Work in thoses conditions most of the year and you will actually be praying for rain clouds.
I keep seeing article after article here on Fstoppers about how to make the best of "difficult conditions" ..... but then whenever I read those articles they are actually talking about really good conditions that are easy to shoot in - cloudy skies. Why are the writers of these articles so misled? Clear sunny days are usually a nightmare to shoot in, yet these article writers and YouTube video makers have this all backwards. Why?