is it better to...

[Buckster]

The main point for the OP to take away is that using strobed light with a variety of light modifiers allows substantially greater flexibility and control.

^^^pretty much nails it.

I thought it was that the OP should move the window in the room to the North wall...?

 

[pixmedic]

The main point for the OP to take away is that using strobed light with a variety of light modifiers allows substantially greater flexibility and control.

^^^pretty much nails it.

I thought it was that the OP should move the window in the room to the North wall...?

nothing to stop the OP from doing both is there?

 

[Village Idiot]

I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".

Expanding on what Buckster said: Natural light is generally considered light that naturally occurs in nature. Artificial light is generally considered light emitting from man made devices such as light bulbs and flashes.

Saying that there is only one type of light means that the light that is emitted from the sun is the same particles that are emitted from a flash. Going out side and shooting a portrait during a cloudy day with nothing but the sun as illumination can get you the exact same look as going outside and shooting on a cloudless day with a giant sheet to diffuse the sun or a powerful enough light to overpower the sun slightly and with a giant diffuser like a soft box, sheet, umbrella, etc...

Electing to shoot only with sunlight coming through a window limits your photography to certain times of the day which are shorter certain times of the year which is totally dependent on mother nature to provide you with enough light for a proper exposure or clouds so that not all your lighting is hard. If I wanted to emulate a sunny day or a cloudy day with my lights and modifiers, I can. It's more expensive of course and it takes the commitment to learn what you're doing, but it allows you to deliver a much more consistent product to your clients and doesn't stop you from scheduling do to "inclement weather". Besides, a good photographer can make artificial lighting look so much like natural lighting that it's completely indistinguishable. The only benefit I could see as billing yourself as a natural light photographer is for marketing purposes to clients who generally don't know better.

Can anyone tell which of these three were shot with a flash?

1.

2.

3.

 

[Lmphotos]

I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".

Expanding on what Buckster said: Natural light is generally considered light that naturally occurs in nature. Artificial light is generally considered light emitting from man made devices such as light bulbs and flashes.

Saying that there is only one type of light means that the light that is emitted from the sun is the same particles that are emitted from a flash. Going out side and shooting a portrait during a cloudy day with nothing but the sun as illumination can get you the exact same look as going outside and shooting on a cloudless day with a giant sheet to diffuse the sun or a powerful enough light to overpower the sun slightly and with a giant diffuser like a soft box, sheet, umbrella, etc...

Electing to shoot only with sunlight coming through a window limits your photography to certain times of the day which are shorter certain times of the year which is totally dependent on mother nature to provide you with enough light for a proper exposure or clouds so that not all your lighting is hard. If I wanted to emulate a sunny day or a cloudy day with my lights and modifiers, I can. It's more expensive of course and it takes the commitment to learn what you're doing, but it allows you to deliver a much more consistent product to your clients and doesn't stop you from scheduling do to "inclement weather". Besides, a good photographer can make artificial lighting look so much like natural lighting that it's completely indistinguishable. The only benefit I could see as billing yourself as a natural light photographer is for marketing purposes to clients who generally don't know better.

Can anyone tell which of these three were shot with a flash?

1.

2.

3.

#3?

 

[Mike_E]

I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".

And it's easier to limit yourself by defining yourself as a "natural" light photographer than to fully embrace the discipline of being a photographer.

Had you taken the actual point of my post rather than the first sentence we'd be talking about cautioning someone new to this forum against limiting themselves rather than discussing the origin of photons.

 

[KmH]

I vote for #1 as having both flash and available used to make the photo. Look how the cup is lit relative to it's shadow.

I prefer the term available light over the term natural light.

 

[manaheim]

Every time I hear someone say "I'm a natural light photographer" I bang my head on the desk. I used to say it too. Why? Because I had no idea how to use a flash, didn't have the budget to buy any real lighting, and it (frankly) all scared the crap out of me. So, like everyone else does I held my head aloft and said "I use only NATURAL light."

It's not a distinguishing point. It's a crutch. Trust me.

Having the skill to use natural light is valuable and important. Having the sense to know how to use "unnatural" lighting properly (including combining it with natural light), is where the real work is done.

 

[Lmphotos]

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.

 

[Village Idiot]

#2, au natural! It just happened to be the right time of day in a shed at an old round house the city has been renovating and the sun was falling just right.

 

[o hey tyler]

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.

Going to Ethiopia? Going to pack some monolights that are strong enough to overpower African sunlight as well as external power sources? Probably not.

Shooting outdoors in Africa is quite different than shooting in the states in a home studio. There is absolutely not a reason to limit yourself to available light coming in through a window. That kinda puts a poop blanket on any prospects of doing a shoot on a cloudy day.

Without accessible, consistent lights indoors, you are at the mercy of the weather. It also will significantly cut down shooting time during the winter. Being a "natural light photographer" is kind of a joke. And by "kind of" I mean I laugh out loud every time I read "I am a natural light photographer."*

*Unless the natural light photographer has some kind of god tier portfolio.

 

[Village Idiot]

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.

Going to Ethiopia? Going to pack some monolights that are strong enough to overpower African sunlight as well as external power sources? Probably not.

Shooting outdoors in Africa is quite different than shooting in the states in a home studio. There is absolutely not a reason to limit yourself to available light coming in through a window. That kinda puts a poop blanket on any prospects of doing a shoot on a cloudy day.

Without accessible, consistent lights indoors, you are at the mercy of the weather. It also will significantly cut down shooting time during the winter. Being a "natural light photographer" is kind of a joke. And by "kind of" I mean I laugh out loud every time I read "I am a natural light photographer."*

*Unless the natural light photographer has some kind of god tier portfolio.

Joey L shot portraits in Africa and if I'm not mistaken it was with profoto lights and batteries. Elinchrom Quadras are a light portable system that provides up to 400w/s to one light. There are options.

 

[Lmphotos]

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.

Going to Ethiopia? Going to pack some monolights that are strong enough to overpower African sunlight as well as external power sources? Probably not.

Shooting outdoors in Africa is quite different than shooting in the states in a home studio. There is absolutely not a reason to limit yourself to available light coming in through a window. That kinda puts a poop blanket on any prospects of doing a shoot on a cloudy day.

Without accessible, consistent lights indoors, you are at the mercy of the weather. It also will significantly cut down shooting time during the winter. Being a "natural light photographer" is kind of a joke. And by "kind of" I mean I laugh out loud every time I read "I am a natural light photographer."*

*Unless the natural light photographer has some kind of god tier portfolio.

Still disagree with you if you have mastered your craft you have mastered it whether it is strobes or available light. There are famous natural light photographers who given side by side with an advanced flash photographer I would choose the natural light 100% of the time. Maybe it is preference I do not know but I also think they get a bad wrap when in all actuality they are seriously talented.

 

[Buckster]

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.

Going to Ethiopia? Going to pack some monolights that are strong enough to overpower African sunlight as well as external power sources? Probably not.

Shooting outdoors in Africa is quite different than shooting in the states in a home studio. There is absolutely not a reason to limit yourself to available light coming in through a window. That kinda puts a poop blanket on any prospects of doing a shoot on a cloudy day.

Without accessible, consistent lights indoors, you are at the mercy of the weather. It also will significantly cut down shooting time during the winter. Being a "natural light photographer" is kind of a joke. And by "kind of" I mean I laugh out loud every time I read "I am a natural light photographer."*

*Unless the natural light photographer has some kind of god tier portfolio.

Still disagree with you if you have mastered your craft you have mastered it whether it is strobes or available light. There are famous natural light photographers who given side by side with an advanced flash photographer I would choose the natural light 100% of the time. Maybe it is preference I do not know but I also think they get a bad wrap when in all actuality they are seriously talented.

Just looking at the end photos and not knowing who shot them or under what conditions, when advanced flash photographers want a natural light look, they achieve it. So no, you wouldn't choose the natural light 100% of the time, because you wouldn't even know which is which.

Obtain and read all of Joe McNally's books, and you'll see plenty of examples of this.

This is not to say that photographers who use only natural light cannot get good results. Obviously, they can, IF the available light is available AND will work to their advantage. And that's the crux of the biscuit: They're limited by that available light, time of day, angle associated with their subject(s), atmospheric conditions, etc., etc., etc., whereas a photographer who can use either available light OR flash effectively is not constrained or limited.

 

[jake337]

Just looking at the end photos and not knowing who shot them or under what conditions, when advanced flash photographers want a natural light look, they achieve it. So no, you wouldn't choose the natural light 100% of the time, because you wouldn't even know which is which.

Obtain and read all of Joe McNally's books, and you'll see plenty of examples of this.

This is not to say that photographers who use only natural light cannot get good results. Obviously, they can, IF the available light is available AND will work to their advantage. And that's the crux of the biscuit: They're limited by that available light, time of day, angle associated with their subject(s), atmospheric conditions, etc., etc., etc., whereas a photographer who can use either available light OR flash effectively is not constrained or limited.

Not to mention most of the great natural light photographers extensively use light modifiers for their work.

Light is light.

Understanding how to use/modify what is available and know when additional lighting is needed is what is most important.

 

[pixmedic]

The difference is... A good photographer knows how to make use of natural light when conditions are just right, AND knows how to use strobed light and modifiers for all other conditions. It isnt about whether or not you CAN get good photos with natural light, but WHY you limit yourself by not having and learning how to properly use flashes.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2