How To Mimic Natural Light

[jcolman]

You want pics? Fine. See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.

 

[epatsellis]

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

 

[musicaleCA]

Indeed. But I did find the third a little tricksy.

 

[Dao]

OP, first, I am still a beginner in terms of photography. But I can tell you if I am going to build a studio, I will not want to have the Natural Light.


Instead, using artificial light to simulate the Natural light. In that case, your gf will have total control. Night or Day, rainy day or sunny day, it will not affect her work. And every photos are going to be consistent.

Once you read/learn more about lightning, you will know what other people here talking about.

 

[Derrel]

I went to the Nichole Van web site,and I noticed that the first outdoor wedding portrait, the one where the bride is on the hood of an old FOrd pickup truck out in the desert of Utah--in the chrome hubcab, I can see a photo assistant holding an electronic flash,elevated on a long pole.

I'm with those who would tell you that window light is easy to simulate using large softboxes, as well as scrims,and sunlight can easily be created using umbrellas or large parabolic reflectors in the 16 to 20 inch range, as well as bare-tube flash.

No offense to NV's work, but I see her skill set as being very minimalist on lighting,and very heavily based upon extreme Photoshop effects and extensive post work. Her use of lighting does not come through in her web site's images.

I would seriously suggest your GF look into what's possible with a full and complete line of studio flash and modifiers, like those made by Speedotron for example.

 

[JerryPH]

For professional studio work, Alien Bee, Lightrein, White Lightning, Elinchrom, Photogenic, Profoto, Bronfcolor... in that order from lowest (budget) to highest (meaning 5-6 digits of ca$h for lighting alone!) are the brands that I would suggest. There are others, but these are the ones best known for being the most used by "the pros".

I'm not discounting speedlights under any circumstance, but if we are talking a pro studio here, let's talk the big guns and market segment leaders.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, definitely go with one of the market leaders in studio flash, like Speedotron, where there are lots of light modifiers available, as well as affordable flash tubes,and a good,solid mounting system for softbox attachments,as well as professional-grade grids, reflectors, barn doors, diffusers, and all the ancillary things you might ever want.

Some very significant amounts of money will be spent on light modifiers,and that's an area where Speedotron gives you a lot of value for the money,since the system has been around for so long (since 1939),and has so many professional shooters who have depended upon it long before most of the Euroflash makers even began manufacturing their lighting lines.

Speedotron mounting collars are available for around $17,and can be screwed or pop-riveted or bolted or epoxied to almost anything you might want to DIY.

A single six-outlet Speedotron generator and four 102 heads would be an excellent start. And definitely, look at used equipment,since so,so many new studios go broke and end up selling off their lights hardly used. While natural light is fine, it's just not very dependable in many locations.

 

[JerryPH]

A fun question... who do you think has been around the longest in the photography industry as a provider of lighting equipment AND exists today?

It may surprise you all, but Photogenic, which was founded in 1903 has been around for over 105 years!

Photogenic Professional Lighting Equipment - Photographic Lighting Equipment and Accessories

 

[trevorcroft]

You want pics? Fine. See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.

All I go by is what I like, its my personal taste, but I'm not crazy about any of those 4 portraits, the 2nd one isn't bad, but its not finished (needs some post processing). I'm not talking about anything technical here, just saying what I like, just my personal preference. Thanks for posting these, this is what I'm looking for, all I need is 1 picture that makes me go "wow, thats amazing", and if its all artificial light I am sold!

As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light. 1st and 3rd use no natural light. I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!

Just because I am able to pick out if a picture was taken with natural light or not doesn't mean its good or not, there are a ton of bad natural light pics.

But I do see where you're going with this, and you have kind of made your point, but the answer to this question: "Is it possible to post a group of pictures where one uses some or all natural light and the rest use purely studio light where it is very difficult or impossible reliably determine which of the group used natural light?" Isn't really what I was going for, although I can see how my initial question would come off that way.

Oh, and when I say natural light all I mean is that the picture has some natural light, I don't mean purely natural light. Some people keep posting that you need to use artificial light WITH natural light, this isn't the discussion, the discussion is to be able to replicate the beauty of a picture with some (or all) natural light with using purely artificial light.

Obviously Nichole Van uses artificial light outdoors sometimes, again, not the discussion. And you can say whatever you like about her skills, doesn't matter to me, but the bottom line is her pictures invoke emotion, they make people go "wow", this is why her business is so successful, people don't book photographers based on technical skills, they book based on the end result, they give you money for the end product, its by far the most important part of a photography business, unless you are absolutely terrible at the other things like customer service, presentation, etc.

 

[camz]

You want pics? Fine. See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.

All I go by is what I like, its my personal taste, but I'm not crazy about any of those 4 portraits, the 2nd one isn't bad, but its not finished (needs some post processing). I'm not talking about anything technical here, just saying what I like, just my personal preference. Thanks for posting these, this is what I'm looking for, all I need is 1 picture that makes me go "wow, thats amazing", and if its all artificial light I am sold!

As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light. 1st and 3rd use no natural light. I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!

Just because I am able to pick out if a picture was taken with natural light or not doesn't mean its good or not, there are a ton of bad natural light pics.

But I do see where you're going with this, and you have kind of made your point, but the answer to this question: "Is it possible to post a group of pictures where one uses some or all natural light and the rest use purely studio light where it is very difficult or impossible reliably determine which of the group used natural light?" Isn't really what I was going for, although I can see how my initial question would come off that way.

Oh, and when I say natural light all I mean is that the picture has some natural light, I don't mean purely natural light. Some people keep posting that you need to use artificial light WITH natural light, this isn't the discussion, the discussion is to be able to replicate the beauty of a picture with some (or all) natural light with using purely artificial light.

Obviously Nichole Van uses artificial light outdoors sometimes, again, not the discussion. And you can say whatever you like about her skills, doesn't matter to me, but the bottom line is her pictures invoke emotion, they make people go "wow", this is why her business is so successful, people don't book photographers based on technical skills, they book based on the end result, they give you money for the end product, its by far the most important part of a photography business, unless you are absolutely terrible at the other things like customer service, presentation, etc.

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.

My opinion for shooting mostly in natural light is to capture naturally at that time what the story was. It is not to limit myself...I think weather or not the lighting is poor or great it tells the character of what really happened then and there. This is just my preference for shooting this way.

I think whatever your GF choses it has to be her style of expressing the art since she's the photographer and no one elses. Artifical or natural light or a combination for that matter.

 

[musicaleCA]

Oh man, now I feel like we're all just being trolled. *headdesks*

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.

 

[KD5NRH]

Is it possible to mimic natural light with man made light?

It depends on how much you're willing to spend: an 864,000 mile wide diffuser is pretty pricey, before you even get the 175x10^15W strobe or the 94.5 million mile high light stand to put them on. (Don't forget you'll need tilt and height controls from the ground to emulate different seasons and times of day.)

If she has a studio big enough to handle the above, I'd like to borrow it for a couple of model rocket launches. :greenpbl:

 

[trevorcroft]

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??

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.

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.

 

[Derrel]

I went back an re-read the original post,asking it it was possible to mimic natural light with artificial light,and asking for links to photos to support the idea that artificial light can mimic natural light. All asked by a person who says he's not a photographer, but his girfriend is, and 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...

There is no inherent "beauty" in natural light; much of the time, natural,unmodified light is dull, shadowless, dim, OR it is harsh,highly directional,and quite difficult for subjects to look into. 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. Natural light is too dim to work by for many hours of the day; after work photo sessions relying on a northlight studio would be out of the question for six months out of the year in many North American citites.

I've worked in a number of photo studios. Not one has had a window in the camera room area. Not one. They were built ranging from around 1940 to around 1990. With all due respect, among many photography enthusiasts and professional photographers, there's a feeling that those who loudly proclaim themselves "natural light only" photographers are afraid of learning how to use supplementary lighting. I myself would never, ever even consider hiring a 'photographer' that had no studio lighting equipment; being able to light things is a hallmark of a true professional photographer. Today, it has never been easier to locate and buy professional studio flash and light modifiers,and there's plenty of information on how to learn how to light.

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 omits the obvious answer--if you were relying upon the SUN, from midnight you'd have to wait somewhere between eight and 10 hours before you could make ANY kind of a decent picture to illuminate subject/foreground/background. However, if one had one 2,400 watt-second Speedotron power pack with six flash heads,six light stands, and a few extension cables and a portable sine wave inverter or generator, you could shoot through the night, photographing dozens of poses...the sun is an extremely un-reliable source of illumination...power packs and heads are very dependable and consistent. If you wish to see what studio flash looks like, simply open a high-end furniture catalog,and look at the typical sunlight simulation photographs,complete with warm-toned shafts of "sunlight" entering the room sets,created by studio flash in almost all cases. Overpowering the sun with flash....uh....that's no big thing these days--I can do it with only 400 watt-seconds and a parabolic reflector. Setting up strawmen must be done carefully!

I'm not sure it's fair to ask if artificial light can mimic natural light, since studio lighting is more powerful than natural light, more easily modified, and more versatile. Natural light is actually not all that versatile compared with professional studio lighting and modifiers, and natural light is not available 24/7. So, don't worry about the window in the studio; it could be easily created with a large scrim and two light heads fired through it. Only, with higher power, actual motion-stopping ability ,and more reliable color temperature than skylight/windowlight.

 

[jcolman]

You want pics? Fine. See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.

As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light. 1st and 3rd use no natural light. I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!

You're close but you fail. The first pic uses a combination of natural and strobe light. There was a small softbox used to accentuate the light.

The second pic is all window light. (and for the record, the delivered product was finished and retouched)

The third is a combination. The hair light is strobe. The key (main) light is natural.

The fourth is all strobe. No natural light whatsoever.

So the point is, you don't need a studio with "natural light". While I would love to have a studio with a big north facing window, the first thing I'd do is install some blinds so that I could cut off all natural light.