About Natural light photography. So I got to wondering about things. Exposure

[Village Idiot]

Scrim dude, scrim...

 

[Robin Usagani]

Please check out my overexposed, blown photos here. Mostly natural.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/271923-nsfw-miss-b-boudoir.html

 

[davesnothere11]

This thread has become madness!

1. ALL light is natural. There is NO SUCH THING as a synthetic photon.

2. Photography is nothing more than recording light. Good photography requires a knowlege of HOW to control and modify light. A photographer saying that he/she will not/should not use a flash is like a carpenter who says that he/she will not use a hammer, but rather will drive nails with their fist because it's "natural carpentry".

HA! I suppose since all beef contains organic compounds ALL beef is organic and should be sold as such?

You have defined "natural" to suit your need to win an argument.

If photography is nothing more than recording light, then what is the point of composition? Good photography needs to do a lot more than control light. Seems you want an interesting subject, good composition, flattering poses, emotional responses and on and on.

But MOST importantly this whole thread was started IMO to be an example to beginners to experiment and use naturally occurring light( ie. the sun in this case) so that a beginner photographer can improve their skills. This thread is in the Beginner's Forum, right?

The need for a pissing match is silly. You might as well argue which is the best camera maker, Nikon or Pentax?

 

[rexbobcat]

You just over-exaggerated. People weren't saying that flash is the only way, they were saying that it's the only way to become a respectable photographer. when's the last time that you heard a photographer tell a client "oh, well, the lighting is too harsh, so we'll have to reschedule.

You don't always have to use flash, but having the skill to make the decision to either ALWAYS use flash, NEVER use flash or SOMETIMES use flash is something that I believe every photographer should have.

Also; your example is a bad example.

 

[luvmyfamily]

So anywho, I red all thru that natural light phographer thread.
I Kinda said screw it and stayed out of it making maybe one comment , that is, to learn both.
But what I saw in there were people stuck on flash.
Like that's the only way.........and since this is a beginners forum, I thought I might add some input on that, if I may.

You see, once you start playing with flash, it's like real easy to get stuck on flash.
Even when the obvious is right in front of you.
I thought this may benefit the beginners who continue to hear all this stuff about, BUY A FLASH........YOU MUST HAVE A FLASH FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO!
Don't listen to all that crap. It's blatantly false.
There's a time to flash and a time not to flash.
Oh yeah......I almost forgot. When things are wet, and you're flashing, Look out!

And away we go. Obviously not the best image I've ever produced. It was one of those, " let me see if I can make this look real, in camera, with very little post processing" moments.
I'm never going to do anything with this image, I just wanted the practice.
In the rain. Oh yeah almost forgot. I don't have photoshop. I wish I did.

Natural light.

Moral of the story: Flash aint gonna get you a hot chick. And if you're a woman, It aint gonna get you a good looking , smart, handsome and funny fella like me.
I am LightSpeed. And I approve this message. LightSpeed be Dialed in baby........
MIRROR BREAK!

This was very helpful, thank you.

 

[davesnothere11]

You just over-exaggerated. People weren't saying that flash is the only way, they were saying that it's the only way to become a respectable photographer. when's the last time that you heard a photographer tell a client "oh, well, the lighting is too harsh, so we'll have to reschedule.

Also; your example is a bad example.

How about a landscape photographer to a client at noon when morning light would suit his needs better? Not all "respectable" photographers shoot in a studio.

But my main point was this thread was an example for beginners to improve their all around skills. In this case with natural light.

 

[tirediron]

HA! I suppose since all beef contains organic compounds ALL beef is organic and should be sold as such?

Yes, indeed!

You have defined "natural" to suit your need to win an argument.

Hmmm.... Let's see:
or·gan·ic -- [awr-gan-ik] adjective
1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

All beef is organic. The food industry has redefined the word to suit their own purposes. If you disagree so heartily with my opinion, please explain to me the difference between a photon generated by the sun and one generated by a speedlight.

If photography is nothing more than recording light, then what is the point of composition? Good photography needs to do a lot more than control light. Seems you want an interesting subject, good composition, flattering poses, emotional responses and on and on.

You're right; what I should have said is that a photograph is nothing more than the product of recording light. Granted there are many elements to it, but if you can't control the light, you won't have a good end product.

 

[davesnothere11]

Yes, indeed!
Hmmm.... Let's see:
or·gan·ic -- [awr-gan-ik] adjective
1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

All beef is organic. The food industry has redefined the word to suit their own purposes. If you disagree so heartily with my opinion, please explain to me the difference between a photon generated by the sun and one generated by a speedlight.

You're right; what I should have said is that a photograph is nothing more than the product of recording light. Granted there are many elements to it, but if you can't control the light, you won't have a good end product.

In the end you are arguing a scientific definition versus a conventional usage and it does the intent of the thread no benefit.

 

[tirediron]

But my main point was this thread was an example for beginners to improve their all around skills. In this case with natural light.

So you feel that it would be better to allow someone new to photography, who wants to learn, to labour under the misconception that there are multiple types of light? I can think of little of more benefit to someone beginning any hobby than to ensure that they have a good understanding of the most basic precepts.

 

[rexbobcat]

This thread has become madness!

1. ALL light is natural. There is NO SUCH THING as a synthetic photon.

2. Photography is nothing more than recording light. Good photography requires a knowlege of HOW to control and modify light. A photographer saying that he/she will not/should not use a flash is like a carpenter who says that he/she will not use a hammer, but rather will drive nails with their fist because it's "natural carpentry".

HA! I suppose since all beef contains organic compounds ALL beef is organic and should be sold as such?

You have defined "natural" to suit your need to win an argument.

If photography is nothing more than recording light, then what is the point of composition? Good photography needs to do a lot more than control light. Seems you want an interesting subject, good composition, flattering poses, emotional responses and on and on.

But MOST importantly this whole thread was started IMO to be an example to beginners to experiment and use naturally occurring light( ie. the sun in this case) so that a beginner photographer can improve their skills. This thread is in the Beginner's Forum, right?

The need for a pissing match is silly. You might as well argue which is the best camera maker, Nikon or Pentax?

You just mixed two completely different areas of thought, scientific, and artistic.

Literally photography is "light writing". Scientifically it's the recording of photons onto a recording medium whether it's electromagnetic tape or digital media, just like painting is the application of paint to a surface to create an image. The end.

I think that there needs to be clarification...even if a beginner just uses natural light, they need to learn how to manipulate light in general (even natural light), otherwise they'll only be able to photograph on overcast days when the light is naturally diffused....excuses, excuses.

 

[davesnothere11]

So you feel that it would be better to allow someone new to photography, who wants to learn, to labour under the misconception that there are multiple types of light? I can think of little of more benefit to someone beginning any hobby than to ensure that they have a good understanding of the most basic precepts.

Their are different origins for that light that is all the same in your scientific definition. A beginner needs to learn to take good photographs in a variety of situations. This thread concerns only one. So yes I find it beneficial as one of many lessons to be learned.

 

[tirediron]

In the end you are arguing a scientific definition versus a conventional usage and it does the intent of the thread no benefit.

I disagree - photography of any type relies heavily on the physics related to the transmission of light (colour temperature, inverse square law, angle of reflection, etc). Helping photographers understand these physics will help them be better photographers. Why do you feel that an incorrect convention is something which should be perpetuated?

 

[davesnothere11]

You just mixed two completely different areas of thought, scientific, and artistic.

Literally photography is "light writing". Scientifically it's the recording of photons onto a recording medium whether it's electromagnetic tape or digital media, just like painting is the application of paint to a surface to create an image. The end.

I think that there needs to be clarification...even if a beginner just uses natural light, they need to learn how to manipulate light in general (even natural light), otherwise they'll only be able to photograph on overcast days when the light is naturally diffused....excuses, excuses.

I agree with you. I chimed in because this thread was being hijacked into a discussion about defining a word and not beginners learning one particular skill.

 

[o hey tyler]

Yes, indeed!
Hmmm.... Let's see:
or·gan·ic -- [awr-gan-ik] adjective
1. noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

All beef is organic. The food industry has redefined the word to suit their own purposes. If you disagree so heartily with my opinion, please explain to me the difference between a photon generated by the sun and one generated by a speedlight.

You're right; what I should have said is that a photograph is nothing more than the product of recording light. Granted there are many elements to it, but if you can't control the light, you won't have a good end product.

In the end you are arguing a scientific definition versus a conventional usage and it does the intent of the thread no benefit.

Dude, I know you're a beginner, so this may not be apparent to you... But light is light. There's incidental light which is ambient (sun, room lights, streetlights, tv screens, etc) and then there's strobed light (speedlights, monolights, studio flashes, etc). It's all light. There's no "natural" or "unnatural" light, despite what you may think. Photons are photons, some just are continuously beaming, and others are only beaming at a fraction of a second.

 

[rexbobcat]

You just over-exaggerated. People weren't saying that flash is the only way, they were saying that it's the only way to become a respectable photographer. when's the last time that you heard a photographer tell a client "oh, well, the lighting is too harsh, so we'll have to reschedule.

Also; your example is a bad example.

How about a landscape photographer to a client at noon when morning light would suit his needs better? Not all "respectable" photographers shoot in a studio.

But my main point was this thread was an example for beginners to improve their all around skills. In this case with natural light.

*sigh* If you can manipulate light then you don't have to worry about "what would suit her best." If she was a knowledgeable photographer, she would have the tools to get the job done regardless...I never said anything about a studio did I?

You don't ever hear about a construction company not working to get the job done for the client because "the weather is too cold/hot/rainy, unless there is a reason. Now, if it's raining or something, I can understand a photographer being apprehensive, but cancelling because you don't have the knowledge of your craft to get the job done? Unacceptable.

Look at these two images:

The one of the top was created using sunlight, the one on the bottom was using a studio light. Can you guess the difference? I manipulated light in both photos. On the top, I diffused the light. That's it. On the bottom, I setup one light behind my subject and used several reflectors to bounce the light onto the front of them. Both simple, but both require photographic knowledge to pull off.