How To Mimic Natural Light

[jcolman]

Jcolman, you could have made it harder, the catchlights give it away.

I should have PS'd the catchlights out but the OP didn't get all of them correct anyway.

 

[trevorcroft]

... she wishes to be able to create photographs by a certain moderately-talented photographer who relies heavily upon little more than heavy,heavy post-processing and border effects, but who uses electronic flash outdoors...

You guys keep saying this stuff, it really doesn't matter to me, bottom line is customers fly to her from around the world for her to take pictures of them, her business is VERY successful.

Natural light runs the gamut in color temperature, being almost unusable for human subjects both early and late in the day, except for cliche-like sunrise and sunset photos.

You must not have natural light experience, early and late in the day is the best time for human subjects.

I've worked in a number of photo studios. Not one has had a window in the camera room area. Not one.

Were these studios used for taking pictures of people to create works of art?

In reply to the quote that: "You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. " That apparent strawman scenario

This isn't a strawman, this is simply a fact, anyway, getting off topic again.

I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.

http://www.martalocklear.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/img_2865web.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3184617481_6bf6e4ca3d.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3747048109_d87c99ac14.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2204088156_26025a9f62.jpg?v=0

 

[camz]

How about reproducing natural light coming in through a 10'x'15' window into a studio? If it is possible, how expensive would this be to reproduce identically? Not only the initial cost of the lighting equipment, but it seems like it would take quite a bit of power to do so??

Producing artificial light equivalent to 10x15 window wouldn't be to hard. I think you've gotten enough suggestions here to do so to give your GF the idea.

there's a feeling that those who loudly proclaim themselves "natural light only" photographers are afraid of learning how to use supplementary lighting

hmmmmm funny how all along I thought using natural light was just my style...didn't know I was "afraid" to use supplementary lighting...interesting..

 

[musicaleCA]

I think it's absolutely impossible to fully reproduce natural light with just artificial lighting...impossible. Maybe in a controlled environment like a studio it is...but if you're shooting outdoors in order to produce as much light as the sun using artificial lighting...well man I don't think anyone can realistically do that. You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. So I think the answer to you're question is NO.

This is the most logical answer yet, everyone else was so quick to say it can be reproduced identically, but to be fair I initially did mention a studio.

camz, so everyone must agree its impossible to reproduce natural light outdoors.

How about reproducing natural light coming in through a 10'x'15' window into a studio? If it is possible, how expensive would this be to reproduce identically? Not only the initial cost of the lighting equipment, but it seems like it would take quite a bit of power to do so??

It takes as much power as the flash tube of the strobe you're using on the power setting it's at. As has been said before, set-up a softbox, some tape, and you're golden. You can do it with a simple Speedlite, though for stationary lighting you will get more bang for your buck by dumping the portability.

Light, is light, is light, is light, is light, is, well, light. Yeesh. Every source of light is a tool at one's disposal. This thread is really getting the the point where we're just splitting hairs over semantics.

As far as light being light being light, this simply is not true, all light has different properties, look at incandescent vs florescence vs LEDs. Obviously these lights are all different.

Sigh. *headdesks, and I do mean it quite literally* Of course they're different. Duh. If you want to mimick the colour casts of various light sources, you gel your light source. Every photog who uses off-camera lighting and lighting tech knows this. If you want to repoduce the colour of a sunset, you could gel your flash with a CTO and a red. Puke green fluorescent? Gel window green. Sodium vapour? Green and, was it 1/2 CTO? Can't remember that combo as I haven't used it myself. Tungsten? CTO. Dimmed tunsten? Slap on a red, perhaps a 1/2 CTO instead.

At first I thought a studio without a window would be more cost effective and not affect the quality of work, now I'm thinking it will affect the quality of work and might not even be cost effective! This is definitely not semantics.

Yes. Yes we are now into the world of splitting hairs and arguing semantics.

I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.

I'll take that challenge.

#1 Softbox from upper camera left, pointing down, and possibly some fill light from the ceiling. In total, two off-camera lights.

#2 Change the background, ditching the window (unless you want to build a window and frame, put a white background behind it and light that too, but we're just talking about the subject and not splitting hairs, right?). Then light from above, pointing down, through a softbox/umbrella. Looks like there might be some gold fill from the bottom too. Meh, play around and try things out, but that's where I'd start. One, maybe two lights but I highly doubt that's necessary.

#3 Softbox, or an umbrella would do in this case easily. Coming from camera right. This effect can also be achieved with bounce flash if the subject is placed close to a wall. Total of one light.

#4 Snoot aimed at the feet. Probably black to give quick fall-off around the edges. Total of one light.

 

[Kcc]

I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.

Arts, what is the definition of arts? Knowing the subject or not knowing the subject? Photo capturing it clearly or not clearly reflect to "knowing it or not for the subject". Different personality will like different aspect of viewing which reflect to the color of light (this thread topic). Natural light light source is approx. 6500K and as my personal loving, I like the color of 8500K (blueish white). In a photo, 8000K of light source looks better to me as if it is 6500K...

Expensive to reproduce using artificial light? Different cost different gears, depending what cost you are looking at and how many hours of photo taking you are looking at per day. This whole thread is about natural light and flashes, but to conclude it a little, why would you want your GF to use flashes instead of natural light? Or why would you want to know if flash could do the same as natural light? Is it because your GF could only take nice photo or in your word "artistic" photo in a certain time of the day which the "certain" time of the day does not give you enough time? It very depending on what you are looking for to goes with what kind of equipments or "windows"...

Anyways, I am new to strobe; still saving for more flash. Just a beginner thought to share with, no offence...cheers.

edit: oh, technically...#2 photo are totally over exposed. To me, I can't see the baby but only the natural window super bright light. (maybe my screen is too bright?)

 

[Derrel]

Quote:"I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all."

The key here is that I've actually worked as a professional portrait shooter,and as a small-product shooter,and have worked with studio lighting since 1987. NONE of the "art" you show has sophisticated lighting, and all four of those photos could have easily been made with the following equipment. Photo #2 is absolutely amateurishly lighted BTW.

ONE 600 to 800 watt-second power pack and three flash heads, plus a large (48 x72 inch) scrim fitted with a transparent white fabric. Three light stands. The window itself could easily be "faked/re-created" with one light shot through a layer of diffusion material,and the window frames would be purchased at Home Depot for the cost of, well, some window moulding. I used to work at a studio where we had a complete double-door window set that took about three hours to build,and which had been used for 20 years, with new curtains fitted every few years.

The comment "if its even possible at all" to re-create the type of lighting you show in those four shots is telling us that you really do not have the understanding to fathom that the samples you picked are dead-easy,simple natural light photos that could be EASILY re-created with one power pack and a few light heads and some simple tools like a PVC scrim and some light stands,a handful of clamps, fabric, wood paneling. Buying a well-known professional pack-and-head system like Speedotron Brown Line, the _entire_ range of samples you link to could be easily purchased on the used market for about $800,including all light stands.softboxes, umbrellas, reflectors, and loads of ancillary stuff. Seriously. Not one of the four photos you link us to would be difficult to shoot--or to shoot and light significantly better,using studio flash. And, every one of those photos could be shot on-location, or at night, using just one scrim and one softbox and either two or three light units. Adding a fourth light head would improve each of the photos and elevate them to the level of true professional portrait lighting.

The first photo could be done with one light and a softbox or umbrella. The second photo is a terribly lighted, backlighted photo that is very amateurishly executed; bringing in some fill light from the front would have prevented the horrible blown out skin tones. The window has distracting elements in it; it would have looked significantly better if a "fake" window would have been backlighted by two light heads with 100 watt-second each firing toward the camera, and one main light camera left firing at 400 watt-seconds. A cheap Speedotron 604 pack and three cheap M90 light heads, a $400 used outfit, would have lighted all four shots, and done it better with the addition of a 48x72 inch PVC frame (Home Depot, $16) and $12 worth of ripstop nylon from JoeAnne Fabrics.

The girl with the braided hair? One light head a shot through a 36x48 inch gridded softbox would have lighted that very much identically, but would not have blown out the details on the bustline area of her gown. One light shot through a $28 homemade scrim could have lighted the girl with braided hair.

The man's hand's and the baby's feet? One used 400 watt-second power pack and one $65 light head plus the $28 frame+ fabric scrim--total used cost, today, from eBay $100 for a D400 pack and a $65 light head, plus the $28.

 

[musicaleCA]

Hey cool! I came close to how a pro would do it. Sweet. :greenpbl: