Where did all the good light go?


It’s a rainy day today, so I’ve been doing some thinking. It feels like this winter has been awful for skies and light in my area.



To be sure, there have been a good number of decent sunsets, and a few very nice ones. But almost all of them feel like they’ve come up short of what we’re all chasing. There have been a few great sunrises, but even for those, I notice holes of blue sky ruining my frames, preventing me from shooting at full width or in certain directions. What gives?


To see if I was crazy, I scrolled back in my catalog, looking for the last truly epic sunset in SF. We normally get several of these each winter, right? I could’ve sworn I recalled having weeks with several in a row. I scrolled back several months — none. I scrolled back a few years — none… was I crazy?!

Asking Escaypers


So, I asked our San Francisco Escaype group, which has over 100 members, when was the last true 100/0* sunset burn in SF? Dozens of us checked our catalogs, and NOBODY was able to come up with a definitive 100/0 epic sunset in the last three years.


Several of us were able to come up with some dates that were good, but for every sky that someone shared as a candidate, someone else was able to easily show a photo or share a report that rebuked it, noting that it wasn’t as good from their angle. Nobody could come up with one that was truly epic and everyone agreed was worthy of the 100/0 rating in over three years.


*"100/0" is our Escaype designation for the best sunrise/sunset sky forecasts, with 100% potential and 0% 'skunk'.


Cover photo: An undoubtedly epic 100/0 sunrise in Boston, October 2024.

(But, was it truly 100/0? What if I had been pointed toward the horizon with a telephoto lens, like I might do on Grizzly Peak?)

what's going on here?


So, what gives? Has it really been several years since SF last saw a truly epic sunset that was great from all angles? Or is something else going on here?


The answer appears to be, yes, it has been several years. Truly epic skies that light up 360 degrees, all the way up into the sky, are RARE. We do get more amazing sunrises than sunsets around here, but even those are quite rare.


Maybe conditions have just been subpar in recent years? Climate change? More pollution and wildfires creating blocking haze? Maybe some combination of those things have taken away a lot of our light, right?


Perhaps. But… well, let me show you a few photos from 2015-2018, each of which we were STOKED to see.


A handful of "great" skies from 2015-2018


Below are some skies that I chased in my first four years with Escaype forecasts.

Most of them were forecasted at 100/0.

Most are raw or very minimally processed, in order to most accurately allow you to compare to your photos.


Those who know my portfolio will likely recognize a handful of these skies from finished portfolio images, and some Escaype readers may have even been present on scene for certain photos here!

A lighthouse stands sentinel against a dramatic pink and purple sunset sky, casting a reflection on the wet walkway below.

A sunrise over Walton Lighthouse in Santa Cruz. This kind of soft color that lasted only 1-2 minutes would be called skunky today by many photographers. However, we all went home pretty happy that morning! I was easily able to process it into a portfolio image.

Golden Gate Bridge silhouetted against a pink sunset sky with turbulent waves in the foreground at Baker Beach, San Francisco.

A sunset over the Golden Gate Bridge. Aside from this one large cloud, extending a bit further to the left, most of the sky was clear or didn't burn, and the colors never got particularly intense. Regardless, it's easy to see how it lent itself to nice photos, especially with a good alignment.

Dramatic sunset over rocky coastline with crashing waves and vibrant pink and blue sky at Natural Bridges State Beach.

A sunrise in Santa Cruz. This also came from a forecast for a big burn. However, there was little to no color before sunrise, and this was as good as it got after sunrise. I was able to process and publish it, as one of my favorite images from this spot.

OK, Jeff, but that's just a few...


Reminder: We were generally VERY HAPPY with these skies! Phrases like "totally worth it", "it burned!", and "definitely got something" were typical.

Dramatic sunset over rocky coastline with stormy clouds and crashing waves against a dark moody sky.

This kind of sky might look familiar to anyone who photographed a great sunset we had recently in the Bay Area. Many of us called it skunky. However, a lot of low cloud sunsets look like this! I ended up with a great photo on this particular night, even though the color didn't spread much beyond this.

Silhouette of Golden Gate Bridge at sunset with dramatic pink sky reflected in rippled beach waters at dusk.

Christmas sunrise at the Golden Gate Bridge. What is "just a horizon burn" to many of us today, was a very workable sunrise for several of us who were shooting on the beach that morning, so long as we zoomed in a bit.

Aerial view of Chicago skyline during sunset with dramatic pink and purple clouds over Lake Michigan.

A few of us booked a helicopter tour over SF on this 100/0 morning. Well, this is about as good as the burn got in this direction. Nonetheless, the shots were fantastic once properly processed!

Many more examples


Of course, these are certainly not ALL the skies I captured in my first four years. I did, of course, capture skies that were far more intense and/or with more widespread color than these.


Nonetheless, there are A LOT that look similar to these, and resulted in portfolio images! There were certainly far more than I remembered.


As you look through these, consider this: if you saw this sky today, would you have called it a great burn? Would you have called it a true 100/0?

Would you expect to see reports from all over the bay area, photographed from many different angles and vantage points, to consistently indicate success?


👈 Scroll left or right below 👉


A few skies that we've called "skunky" recently


Compare these to the skies above. Have our sunsets actually gotten worse? Or might we be looking at them differently?

Natural stone arch formation at Natural Bridges State Beach during pink sunset with misty waves in Santa Cruz, California.

A sunrise over Santa Cruz on 1/31/25. Was reported by 6+ Escaypers in the area as a skunk due to soft and short-lived color with partial low cloud cover. (courtesy of Anirudh Choudhary, thanks!)

Dramatic orange sunset over rocky coastal cliffs with crashing waves and wildflowers in the foreground at Pacific Ocean.

A sunset in Carmel. Was reported by multiple Escaypers in the area as a skunk, because the color was fairly brief and didn't spread to the clouds overhead. (Photo courtesy of Anirudh, thanks!)

Silhouetted tropical plants against a vibrant sunset sky with orange and purple hues over the ocean.

A sunset in Santa Cruz. Was reported widely as a skunk due to limited color, despite the pre-sunset light. (Photo courtesy of Shaun Saha, thanks!)

Dramatic coastal sunset over rugged Pacific coastline with dark rock formations and crashing waves against orange sky.

A sunset in San Francisco (same day as the previous photo). Was reported by many Escaypers as unimpressive due to lack of post-sunset color. (Photo by Kevin Nyun, thanks!)

WE REALLY ARE ALL SPOILED, HUH?


I think most would agree that we photographers these days are spoiled rotten when it comes to chasing light. It's easier than before, because we have so many more tools available to us.


When we launched Escaype in 2015, common sentiment was "you can't predict sunsets". Today, it is much more widely accepted that sunsets are predictable, to a good extent.


But this begs a different question: why are we so spoiled now?


Explanation 1: We're not beginners anymore


This was the first thing that came to mind for me. A lot of us have been photographing around here for many years, and we're jaded.


However, we have realized this is not the only or even the most likely reason, because just as many of our skunk reports on these kinds of skies have come from people who are fairly new to Escaype and chasing light, and even to photography!

Explanation 2: Editing tools lead to unrealistic expectations


This idea slowly dawned on me after investigating and determining that there probably hasn't been a single sunset sky in SF that would be considered a 'true' 100/0 by many of today's standards. In the last several years, Photoshop and other apps have added the ability to replace a sky in one click. Lightroom, Camera Raw, and others are capable of selecting the sky to quickly make significant edits. Photoshop's -- and now even Lightroom's -- updated fill tools can easily and convincingly fill in less exciting parts of the sky.


These kinds of edits are no longer reserved for elite Photoshop wizards who are willing to invest hours to do so convincingly -- they're at all of our fingertips.


And that isn't entirely a good or a bad thing -- it just is.


As a result of these tools, we think everyone else is seeing more epic skies than they really are, and we go out with expectations that are usually unrealistic.

Explanation 3: Social media and changing trends distort our expectations


When we scroll down social media feeds, everyone is putting their best foot forward, and typically only showing their final processed image of the best light they have encountered. When viewing their image, we have no idea if they are sharing the only small part of the sky that was interesting, or if the event looked anything like their image depicts. Given how trivial it is to fill or replace a sky, our brains may be taking more things at face value than they should.


In addition, due to a general culture shift, fewer people are sharing their raw weather reports in online communities like Escaype, but are mainly interested in only showing their final product. This may be hurting all of us, by allowing us to forget that many kinds of skies are in fact beautiful and photographically useful.


As a result of this process, we think everyone else is seeing more epic skies than they really are, and we go out with distorted expectations.

100/0 represents a range of possible outcomes


With anything in meteorology, we are dealing in statistics and probabilities. This is true for storm forecasts, rain chances, wind warnings, and more.


If we rate a sunset highly, it doesn't automatically mean it will be the best ever -- it means it has a much higher chance than normal of landing in the high end. However, it still represents a range of outcomes, and the truly epic skies represent the top echelon of that already high range.


Note: I'm a photographer, don't hold my feet to the fire over my drawing skills 🙈

A graph showing two bell curves in red and pink representing range of preferences for sunset and sunrise quality.

Why don't y'all just revise the Escaype rating system?


Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply alert for only the epic ones? Unfortunately, it's not really possible in meteorology's current state. We just don't have the data available at the resolution it would require to consistently tell the difference between these kinds of skies. There are so many variables that influence the final outcome, and they can change in a matter of minutes. They are predictable enough that we can say with pretty high confidence that there will be good color and/or light, but only in certain situations are we able to tell with more confidence which directions will be good, how intense the colors will be, etc. Chasing the gold is part of the game.


One idea we have toyed with is making the 100/0 criteria more strict in one way or another. In the past, we penalized sunset ratings if the forecasted burn was too short, figuring longer burns provided more opportunity. They do, this is true -- but one moment of amazing light is enough, so we removed that component several years ago. Keeping in mind that all forecast ratings represent a range of outcomes, if we make the 100/0 criteria much stricter, we will fail to catch more of the best ones because they'll be increasingly likely to be rated as 70-90s that land in the upper range. We believe that if there's a solid chance of something good to great, the best thing to do is to get ourselves out the door. That's why we have the system we do: we'd rather not miss that great one. It does mean some of the ones in the same category will fall to the lower end, but even those are almost always at least workable. In other words, with a 90-100/0: you'll almost always see something nice, you'll often see something great, and sometimes you'll see something truly awe-inspiring.


In other words, even 100/0 forecasts may require some last minute chasing, different angles and focal lengths, skilled processing, and a bit of luck to get a compelling image. Of course, it's always the most fun to experience a true full sky blowup -- but as we confirmed, this scenario is exceedingly rare, and it's important that we're able to make great images with light that may be a bit more localized, less intense, or in slightly different places from what was predicted.

Any of these look familiar from the examples above?

(Some of them are taken a moment earlier or later, different composition, etc, but the light was pretty much the same)

👈 Scroll left or right below 👉

So you're telling me those photos are fake?


Personally, I don't think so. I undoubtedly use clever framing and cropping to hone in on the most interesting parts of each sky and scene. I also take some artistic liberties in bringing out existing light and color in each scene. But that is part of the magic of being a landscape photo artist. We get to create meaningful art from our experiences, and deliberately select elements from a scene to include (or exclude) in our finished piece.


In all of these cases, the bones of the image were all there in the experience. I may have embellished and interpreted moments, but I did not invent them. This is, of course, consistent with the widely accepted methods of numerous classic and revered painters, sculptors, musicians, and other artists.


Please note, there is no official standard for photographers, so not all photos you see online will reflect this approach.

Well, Jeff, what do you suggest?


Know that a forecast for a good sunset still represents a range of outcomes, with the floor being likely to be much higher than a lower rated sunset -- but the epic sky is the ceiling, and we can't expect the ceiling every time.


Stay flexible, be ready to adapt quickly to changing conditions, recognize the opportunities that ARE present and the things that make each outing special, and incorporate them into your photos. Despite our best efforts, sometimes we just won't be inspired, and that's ok.


Don't expect your experience to always feel like -- or expect your raw files to look like -- what you see on social media. Because we don't know what that person's experience actually was. Plus, many experiences that are worth having, don't look or feel like what you see on social media. Remember, as a viewer, we don't know what we aren't seeing.


And, of course, keep getting out there. Always just f*cking go!