I Tried Natural Lighting! (wedding)

DGMPhotography · Sep 24, 2017

I got to second shoot with a natural light photographer recently, and I was actually rather impressed by the results. I've never been interested in natural light photography, but I've now seen first-hand that, in the right circumstances, it can actually work rather well.

Excuse the low-res JPEGS. I haven't received my raw files back yet - these are just jpegs I transferred to my phone, and thus I've only done Lightroom editing. I'll save the fancy stuff for the full images.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

C&C welcome. Thanks!

pixmedic · Sep 24, 2017

it does look like your off to a good start with these.
her smile is either extremely forced in #1, or they are staring at the sun.
#5 is nice as well, but #6 is the winner of this set. great DOF on that one, although you might consider bumping the exposure just a hair and warming it up a tad.

natural light photographer eh?
I call those "dont want to learn supplemental lighting" photographers, but the other way is easier to say i guess. and snazzier sounding.
i know i know...you can take great shots using sunlight, but ive shot weddings not possible to do without flashes. do they turn those down i wonder?
"sorry, sun doesnt shine in here and the lighting sucks so i guess we cant shoot your wedding".

whats up with the bubbles in 3 and 4? dont care for that lighting in #4 either. I know its kinda faddy right now, but it makes the whole image look washed out.
oops, i mean "airy"...thats the new term for washed out now yes? airy? dreamy?
anyway, im not a fan. #3 was much much better than #4.

I like #2. sharp, crisp, colors not washed out...not quite the traditional angle, but it works.

#6 man...thats the shot to tweak just a bit. im not really a fan of chopping heads off, but...it doesnt detract too much here. I might have gone 8x10 tall on that one.
not sure if you have room to try that. i always at least try to shoot wide so i have cropping options later.

anyway, overall its a nice set so far. looking forward to seeing the rest.

DGMPhotography · Sep 24, 2017

pixmedic said:
it does look like your off to a good start with these.
her smile is either extremely forced in #1, or they are staring at the sun.
#5 is nice as well, but #6 is the winner of this set. great DOF on that one, although you might consider bumping the exposure just a hair and warming it up a tad.

natural light photographer eh?
I call those "dont want to learn supplemental lighting" photographers, but the other way is easier to say i guess. and snazzier sounding.
i know i know...you can take great shots using sunlight, but ive shot weddings not possible to do without flashes. do they turn those down i wonder?
"sorry, sun doesnt shine in here and the lighting sucks so i guess we cant shoot your wedding".

whats up with the bubbles in 3 and 4? dont care for that lighting in #4 either. I know its kinda faddy right now, but it makes the whole image look washed out.
oops, i mean "airy"...thats the new term for washed out now yes? airy? dreamy?
anyway, im not a fan. #3 was much much better than #4.

I like #2. sharp, crisp, colors not washed out...not quite the traditional angle, but it works.

#6 man...thats the shot to tweak just a bit. im not really a fan of chopping heads off, but...it doesnt detract too much here. I might have gone 8x10 tall on that one.
not sure if you have room to try that. i always at least try to shoot wide so i have cropping options later.

anyway, overall its a nice set so far. looking forward to seeing the rest.

Thanks for the feedback!
1 - you would think so, but that's actually just how her smile is. Her and her entire family had kinda weird faces like that. Some good instruction for her would maybe have been to smile less, but I wasn't in charge.
The lead knew how to use flash, and used it plenty during the reception. She just prefers using natural light for portraiture.
Between 3 and 4 I definitely like 3 better. I probably won't use 4.
I'm also a big fan of 6.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, and I certainly learned some things!

Designer · Sep 24, 2017

pixmedic said:
natural light photographer eh?
I call those "dont want to learn supplemental lighting" photographers, but the other way is easier to say i guess. and snazzier sounding.

Organic, sustainable, locally sourced, animal-testing free, all-natural light.

It's all the rage these days.

Vtec44 · Sep 24, 2017

Good job! I think #6 would have been even better if it's in portrait orientation. Regardless, as long as the lead and the clients like the photos then you've done your job!

I'm also a natural light photographer since I shoot film and digital side by side. I'm actually very well versed in OCF and studio lighting and teach lighting classes, but I still prefer natural light.

pixmedic · Sep 24, 2017

Vtec44 said:
Good job! I think #6 would have been even better if it's in portrait orientation. Regardless, as long as the lead and the clients like the photos then you've done your job!

I'm also a natural light photographer since I shoot film and digital side by side. I'm actually very well versed in OCF and studio lighting and teach lighting classes, but I still prefer natural light.

do you call yourself a natural light photographer? or are you just a photographer that happens to prefer certain mediums?
also, what does shooting film and digital side by side have to do with being a natural light photographer? Its been a while since ive shot any film, but
i kinda remember being able to use a flash with my mamiya 645 and pentax ME. even my pentax 110 super had a flash. dont get me wrong, im not against using the sun. ive used it plenty for weddings. im just not seeing the correlation.

Vtec44 · Sep 24, 2017

pixmedic said:
do you call yourself a natural light photographer? or are you just a photographer that happens to prefer certain mediums?
also, what does shooting film and digital side by side have to do with being a natural light photographer? Its been a while since ive shot any film, but
i kinda remember being able to use a flash with my mamiya 645 and pentax ME. even my pentax 110 super had a flash. dont get me wrong, im not against using the sun. ive used it plenty for weddings. im just not seeing the correlation.

I call my self a "published hybrid (film + digital) wedding and portrait photographer in Southern California".

Film handles natural light better than flash. My Pentax 645nii's can only sync up to 1/60th so it's kind of useless if I need fill light during day time.

Most clients don't care about the technical stuff behind flash and natural light. Since my portfolio is almost all natural light, they come to me for that natural light style. There's really no need for me to mix flash and natural light between the mediums and it's easier to keep things consistent. At light, I switch to all digital with multiple OCF's. I almost never post those since I don't care for drunk dancing and cake cutting photos.