For portraits do you use a flash in daylight also?

[tirediron]

Nothing to see here... just a troll.

Lol.

What a wonderful response from someone who has not a thing to say about why he did a certain something.

If 80% of an image is lit differently from the main subject, it looks un-natural. Therefore, you should have lit 80% of the image the same as you main subject.

If you don't understand this, let me explain it an easier way for you to grasp. Natural light ONLY comes from one direction. When light comes from two directions at the same time, you either have a very big mirror that was abandoned in the woods, just where you happened to need it or you have a very un-naturally lit photo.

Get over yourself and learn.

Or don't.

I couldn't care less.

Signed: The TROLL

Lighten up Francis! First of all, natural or un-natural, Robin's image is an excellent one, second, it is entirely possible for ambient light to come from multiple directions, and third, I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio. Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!

 

[3Js]

Natural light does not all come from one direction.

Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?

 

[photoguy99]

Natural light does not all come from one direction.

Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?

No.

 

[tirediron]

Natural light does not all come from one direction.

Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?

Does the word "reflections" ring any bells?

 

[CdTSnap]

Wow... I wonder if your so confrontational outside of the forum 3Js, not all photos are meant to look "realistic". Even so i quite like that one...

 

[Robin Usagani]

Not natural looking.. I dont care. The client came back the year after and more than likely do it again this year.

 

[CdTSnap]

Thats an awesome shot

 

[lambertpix]

Nothing to see here... just a troll.

Lol.

What a wonderful response from someone who has not a thing to say about why he did a certain something.

If 80% of an image is lit differently from the main subject, it looks un-natural. Therefore, you should have lit 80% of the image the same as you main subject.

If you don't understand this, let me explain it an easier way for you to grasp. Natural light ONLY comes from one direction. When light comes from two directions at the same time, you either have a very big mirror that was abandoned in the woods, just where you happened to need it or you have a very un-naturally lit photo.

Get over yourself and learn.

Or don't.

I couldn't care less.

Signed: The TROLL

IMO, post #25 explains this pretty well, and benefits greatly from not having had to poke a stick at anyone.

I believe the main point of both posts is that the use of real natural light is fantastic. Using flash to supplement natural light (in a way that still looks natural) is difficult, but preferred when using flash.

Gavjenks, however, goes on to acknowledge that sometimes you just don't have as much control over the timing, environment, and posing as you'd like, and under those circumstances, flash can still be used to improve a shot (not to put words in anyone's mouth).

As far as "naturalness" goes, it strikes me as somewhat ironic that light from two directions at once throws us into a fit, but two little boys with neat clothes and combed hair is "natural"? Shoot -- one of 'em is even smiling. Natural??

I think photographers eventually develop a heightened sense of light shaping (I know I've got a long way to go yet), but it's way beyond what other people can perceive. I really think most people are just going to see two cute little boys, and if the backlighting suggests a hint of a halo around Mom's two little angels, then so much the better.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to be able to use light as a tool to help convey emotion -- maybe natural; maybe not. I've seen a couple Joe McNally videos where he unloads a wheelbarrow full of speedlights and softboxes to create a lighting patten never before seen in nature, and yet, his work seems to be generally pretty well-received. Am I missing something about his work, or is he a hack, too?

I get your point -- there's real elegance in using lighting to convey emotion without looking overt or gimicky, but I really don't see that here.

 

[Gavjenks]

The above one looks more natural than the one earlier amongst the trees. I think the fact that the grass takes up more of the frame and is equally far from the lighting makes a greater portion of the image consistently lit.

To be clear, I very much like both portraits, and obviously, naturalness of light is just one of dozens of dimensions that may be more important in a given instance. But overall, I think that within the same photographer, I like the grass one better, because most of the other things are equal: similar PP, posing, composition, etc., but more lighting consistency = a slight edge to me. And if fully naturally lit, it would go up a tiny skonce more.

But then again, the setup and overhead required to make it 100% naturally lit might have added so much hassle that the whole photo would never have happened! Balances.

 

[Designer]

And it's not very natural looking.

How come the grass and other greenery doesn't get the same light as the boys?

Thank you for a very good example of how not to use a flash in daylight.

If this was a job, I'm sure the parents were happy about the shot but, as a nitpicky photographer, I find it a useless waste of my time to comment on.

To the OP: I use flash in daylight very often. I DO NOT use a pop up flash ever. A pop-up is mostly a useless piece of junk.

Robin's photograph is an excellent example of a flash that is properly aimed and regulated to illuminate the subjects and not the surroundings.

 

[Designer]

Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?

It was not the sun.

Robin told us that it was flashed.

 

[Austin Greene]

...I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio. Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!

PLEASE, OH GREAT SUN GOD, ENLIGHTEN OUR IGNORANT MINDS!

FOR WE HATH SINNED AND EATEN FROM THE TREE OF BOGOS, SNOOTS, AND OTHER MODIFIERS.

 

[manny212]

Ok if you all stop right now, I will bring back the sun....

 

[robbins.photo]

...I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio. Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!

PLEASE, OH GREAT SUN GOD, ENLIGHTEN OUR IGNORANT MINDS!

FOR WE HATH SINNED AND EATEN FROM THE TREE OF BOGOS, SNOOTS, AND OTHER MODIFIERS.

Ok, well in general not a good idea to get the sun god cheesed of at you. Where do you think global warming comes from. It's science man.

Don't sweat it though, we'll toss a couple of extra virgins at the volcano, problem solved.

In the meantime do we have any snoot fruit left? That stuff really wasn't half bad.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

Natural light does not all come from one direction.

Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?

Does the word "reflections" ring any bells?

Not to mention that all light is "natural light." Photons are photons be they from fusion or a man made source.