Talk:Golden hour (photography)

Not to be confused with "magic hour"? Why not?

Howbout merging Magic hour (photography) with this one? It's very obviously the same hour, and that article describes absolutely no connotation of the term which is inconsistent with what's in this article. 68.121.163.146 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought maybe they were different, but I find book refs that say they're the same. e.g.: [1]. So go ahead and merge, with a ref, unless someone comes up with a ref to the contrary. Put mergeto and mergeform tags in both (from there, to here). Dicklyon 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs revisiting. The issue isn't so much one of "golden hour" and "magic hour" referring to two different conditions as much as the terms being treated as synonyms but having two different and incompatible meanings:

1. The first "hour" after sunrise and the last "hour" before sunset.
2. The time between dawn and sunrise, and the time between sunset and dusk.

The first definition seems a bit more common, but I don't have a large enough sample to really support this (my reference, Singleton's Filmmaker's Dictionary, gives the second definition). Though the first reference in Dick Lyon's query ostensibly gives the former, it states

Magic hour: also known as "golden hour" or "l'heure bleu"

There's nothing "golden" about lighting more than a minute or so after sunset, so "golden hour" seems inappropriate for the second meaning. But that usage is nonetheless common.

The lighting characteristics of either condition are determined by solar altitude, and are fairly simply described. Shortly before sunset (or shortly after sunrise):

1. Sunlight is less intense because it passes through more atmosphere and is more attenuated.
2. The light is warmer because the passage through more atmosphere scatters more of the blue light.
3. Shadows are longer because the Sun is closer to the horizon (shadow length is given by cot h, where h is the solar altitude). Whether the shadows are "less pronounced" is debatable.

Between sunset and dusk and between dawn and sunrise (i.e., during twilight),

1. There is no direct sunlight, although there is some direct lighting from the twilight arch. This lighting is much softer than direct sunlight because the source is much broader.
2. The light is much cooler because most of the illumination comes from the sky.
3. The overall lighting is much softer because most of it comes from the sky, a very broad source.

The wedding portrait that was removed in October 2008 was actually an excellent illustration of twilight lighting, and was arguably as appropriate as the current image. An image of wildflowers or fall foliage could also be used to illustrate these characteristics. I wouldn't call them "golden", but they well could be "magic".

The material that correctly indicated the loose meaning of "hour" was actually very close to the mark—I don't think it was a distortion at all. The time between sunrise or sunset and any given solar altitude depends on latitude and the Sun's declination; for example, at the summer solstice, the time difference between sunset and any other given altitude is much less in Quito, Ecuador than in Anchorage, Alaska. So reference to solar altitude rather than time has much to recommend it (there actually are people who live outside the north temperate zone). The difficulty, of course is in choosing the appropriate altitude because most of the sources aren't particularly solid technically.

The greatest difficulty is in choosing definition 1 or 2, or perhaps a combination thereof. Sources, all ostensibly equally "reliable", seem to support all three, especially with "magic hour". Perhaps the best approach is to simply say that sources disagree, explain some of the characteristics that I've listed above, and that "hour" here is used very loosely. JeffConrad (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A minor clarification: Singleton actually defines "magic hour" rather than "golden hour", and does not give the latter as a synonym. JeffConrad (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at cleanup, adding a couple of references, a note, and making some copy edits.

• I've relegated the differing definitions to a footnote, essentially blowing off the second definition for the purpose of this article. Although I don't see a problem with this for "golden hour", I'm not sure it's always valid for "magic hour". As I've stated, describing the lighting characteristics with either definition is easy, but choosing which is the "correct" definition is not. Perhaps we just need to acknowledge both definitions and describe the lighting for both. We probably should add a reference supporting the first definition (perhaps one of the hits in Dick's Google Books query).
• I've trimmed the last phrase in the first sentence, but I'm still not sure it really says anything—I'm inclined to get rid of it completely.
• I don't understand the Rowell reference. Does it intend to say that Rowell described golden hour as a mild version of alpenglow or simply that Rowell has described alpenglow? If the latter, I'm not sure Rowell is the best reference. Although he probably did much to popularize the term among photographers, a source such as Lynch and Livingston is probably better for the nature of the phenomenon. I'm also not sure what a "mild version" is; does this simply mean that the light is less reddish? In any event, this sentence should be clarified and sourced or removed. The reference to alpenglow is even potentially confusing because the WL'd article appears to equate alpenglow with the antitwilight arch, which isn't the usual definition.
• Lynch and Livingston would probably support some additional inline citations if they're felt necessary.
• I've not attempted to source the material on the variation of the golden hour with location and time of year. I'd be surprised to find good support for it in a book on filming or photography (though Fred Picker did briefly discuss the day-long low-angled lighting in Iceland). It's quite easy to support with spherical trigonometry, but I'm not sure this article is the place for it. In any event, the effect is real, so I don't think it should be ignored.
• The EL sure looks like a link to a personal web page, so I wonder if it's appropriate. We've yanked a few other EL's on this basis. JeffConrad (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With a Google search for “magic-hour photography”, the preponderance of the results have the term applying to twilight. In light of this, I don’t think it’s appropriate to subsume Magic hour into this article, especially without reasonably equal treatment of the two definitions. I see two possibilities:

1. Again separate the articles.
2. Maintain a single article, but treat both definitions equally and explain the differing characteristics. Because “magic hour” is the more general of the two, the article should be moved to that name and “Golden hour” redirected to that page.

Either approach may entail taking a few liberties, but here’s a case where I’m not sure there really are any reliable sources. JeffConrad (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Magic hour and golden hour are not the same thing, at least not if the definition of golden hour is correct. I am not certain about the correct definition of golden hour, but I know that magic hour is twilight: before sunrise and after the sunset. The Singleton reference clearly defines magic hour as such, even though it is being used to illustrate golden hour (which is of course incorrect). From the Singleton text, page 176: "Time between sundown and darkness, when the light is very warm, the sky is a magical, deep blue and the shadows are long: also called twilight. An example of scenes shot at magic hour is Terrence Malick's film, Days of Heaven (1978)." Bad prose aside, this is very clearly the opposite of the definition on this page. I added another source from Ed Pincus, an academic and filmmaker with better writing credentials than Singleton, and his book, The Filmmaker's Handbook is likewise clear on the definition on page 517: "Because night scenes can require many lights, especially for a wide shot, it is often better to shoot at the magic hour just before sunrise or just after sunset when there’s enough light to get exposure on buildings and the landscape but it is sufficiently dark that car headlights and interior lights show up clearly..."

1. Ideally, these articles should be separate, as they are not the same, or at least reorganized under the title Magic Hour since it appears to be the better cited definition/broader term
2. Malick reference belongs to magic hour, not golden hour Ns194 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Long shadows?

In the fourth paragraph, there's a line stating that long shadows appear in midday. This doesn't seem right to me- if the sun is (nearly) directly overhead, wouldn't shadows be shorter than when the sun is at a more shallow angle? 71.188.229.254 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Long shadows can indeed appear midday depending on your latitude. Where I live, in the winter time, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, however it only passes by at a shallow angle in the sky, which is why its cold here in the winter time. We have long and tall shadows all day. In the summer, the sun passes directly overhead. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the assumption of tropical-to-mid latitude is inherent in the concept of “golden hour”; at extreme latitudes, the Sun never rises in winter, and never gets below 10° in summer. The former qualification is mentioned in the previous paragraph; perhaps we should add the second. Perhaps we should also directly mention, rather than just imply, that “golden hour” is meaningful only at tropical-to-mid latitudes.

Quite honestly, I also have a problem with reference to “too-bright highlights”; I'm for getting rid of this sentence altogether. I don't especially like the mention of overexposure in the next sentence, either; with the Sun high in the sky, the highlight–shadow contrast increases, but the result depends on how the photographer manages the exposure. JeffConrad (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely inaccurate. I'm removing the word. Jnelsonleith (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Hour?

Maybe it's just me, but the wedding portrait shown is poor example of magic hour or "golden hour."

Deepcloud (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree - moreover, with such a short article, I don't see a need for 2 photos. The skyline photo appropriately illustrates this article. TheMindsEye (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Link spam

I removed the recently added link to a personal web page, consistent with similar previous edits to this article. In fairness, I think the remaining link Golden hour calculator is in the same category, and should also be removed, and I will do so unless someone has a good reason for doing so. If we think a link to a calculator is indicated, I'd start with one that is definitely not personal and is unquestionably authoritative: the U.S. Naval Observatory, using Rise/Set/Transit Times for Major Solar System Bodies and Bright Stars. Admittedly, civil twilight is only one interpretation of “magic hour”. JeffConrad (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the last link is OK. I think it's interesting to have a link to a calculator because the duration may vary strong. I personal did not found an official site from the view of Wikipedias :policy on external links.

Also I am sure the civil twilight is one interpretation of “blue hour” (time before sunrise and after sunset) and not of the golden hour. Jensk369 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, it's quite easy for reasonable people to disagree on application of Wikipedia's policy on external links, and there is frequently a significant disparity between what the policy seems to say and the practice followed in articles; my main point is that the treatment be consistent. If we include one calculator, we can't reasonably exclude other comparable ones. The problem is in determining what's “comparable”. There are many accurate astronomical calculators (as the one you linked appeared to be), but there also are many that are quite inaccurate. Who then becomes the final arbiter?

I don't think there's anything such as an “official” site; I suggested the USNO site (which now has the correct link above) because it's generally accepted as authoritative.

A review of many definitions of “magic hour” has led me to believe that it often refers to civil twilight, as you suggest. Because of that, I think the article would be better titled Magic hour, with a general definition to the effect of the time at the beginning and end of the day when the Sun is near the horizon. The two different interpretations, corresponding to “blue hour” and “golden hour”, could then be given. It's easy to find times for the former using a calculator such as the USNO's; it's more difficult for the latter because I don't think there's an authoritative source for when “golden hour” begins or ends. I used the example of Los Angeles, California, because for many things related to lighting, if Hollywood says it is so, it is so. JeffConrad (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit of 12 August 2010

I've put much of the article back to where it was on 26 July 2010. A few comments:

• Changing citation styles violates WP:CITEHOW. The article used author-date and should continue to do so. Switching to templates requires discussion before changing to them; here the template formatting style doesn't quite match that of the other references (Chicago), so I removed it.
• All the works that were listed under References were consulted in preparing the article, so they belong there. I agree that we should add inline citations.
• The description of what happens as the Sun nears the horizon was making something very complicated out of something very simple. In particular, the latest edit attempted to make several effects out of one: as the Sun nears the horizon, the intensity of the direct light from the Sun relative to the indirect light from the sky decreases, softening the light because more of it comes from a large source (the sky). Perhaps filling the shadows is a separate effect, but I think it's simply a consequence of reducing the lighting ratio, as that article seems to make pretty clear. The WLs that were added are worthwhile if they can be used without convoluting the wording; in keeping the links, I may have stretched the wording a bit, but I still think “indirect light from the sky” is better than “indirect light reflected from particles in the sky”.
• The intensity of both direct and indirect lighting decreases, but the reduced luminance isn't really relevant to the effect covered in this article—the ratio and the colors are what are important.
• The mention of a low solar altitude softening shadow edges was unsourced, so I removed it. If a source can be provided, we can restore it.
• I don't think the bullet list after the second paragraph adds anything, but I don't have strong objections. The two-level list using the same mark for each level was confusing.
• The introductory sentence and the following sentences (or bullet items) that expand on it should have parallel structure: if any items are mentioned in the first sentence, all should be, including the longer shadows.
• I've left the the link to photon diffusion, though I question its relevance to this article because we're really concerned with the effect and not the explanation of the cause.
• Removing the note on the solar altitudes was far more than a copy edit. The values support the claim that “hour” is used loosely; what's key is the solar altitude rather than the time, and the values show that an hour is reasonable in Hollywood, it's less so elsewhere. We're probably pushing it here with regard to WP:OR, but if we remove the note, we also need to remove the reference to 10° in the last sentence of the paragraph, leaving much of what's said in the paragraph unsourced. We're already mighty light on sources, so I'm inclined to leave the note.
• No reason was given for removing the mention of Days in Heaven, so I restored it. If we think it doesn't belong, we should discuss before removing.
• I agree that the reference to alpenglow, and particularly to Rowell, did not belong in the article text, especially without a source. I question whether it even belongs in See also, but I've left it for now.

I agree there's a potential issue with Days in Heaven because the effect referenced was shooting during twilight, which is at odds with how we describe “golden hour”. But we now have Magic hour redirected here, and Because Malik uses that term, this is really the only place for it. The sources seem about evenly split on whether “magic hour” refers to golden hour (Sun low but above the horizon) or the blue hour (twilight), so it's questionable whether we can reasonably subsume “magic hour” into this article. This isn't a new issue, but we should eventually address it. The paragraph that begins “In the middle of the day” also needs a lot of work, so we should address that as well. In particular, we should not conflate management of high contrast with general overexposure. JeffConrad (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue hour = Magic hour = Golden hour

Blue hour, Magic hour and Golden hour, the same? or any difference ?--FOO LIM FSHEN (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)