What are your thoughts on natural light photographers

[Demers18]

No grrrr!!!! The beloved income tax return comes in Tuesday!

So I know what I'm doing Tuesday night!!!!!!

You must be excited!

 

[greybeard]

If it looks good, it is good, and that is all I have to say about it

 

[KmH]

I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere. I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.

I have vowed to use, not just run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.

So I will be a filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer from now on.

Plus sunlight is really, really old light. They think it takes 250,000 years or so for the light made by the nuclear fusion going on at the core of the Sun (people call that natural light?) to get up to the surface, plus the 8.3 minutes to get the 93,000,000 miles from there to the Earth at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second).

Light made by a flash unit is only a few nanoseconds old by comparison. Nice and fresh.

 

[480sparky]

...........Plus sunlight is really, really old light. They think it takes 250,000 years or so for the light made by the nuclear fusion going on at the core of the Sun (people call that natural light?) to get up to the surface, plus the 8.3 minutes to get the 93,000,000 miles from there to the Earth at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second)........

Well, it's not 'light' until it gets near the surface. It starts out as gamma & x-rays. Because of the "Drunkard's Walk" they must do in order to reach the surface, a lot of it's energy is lost....... so it becomes part of the spectrum known as visible light that we all know and love.

However, estimates range from 4,000 years to millions of years, depending on certain unknown variables involved in the equation.

 

[dxqcanada]

Seems to be people feel strongly one way or the other. Your thoughts?

So what you are really asking is ... should you, as a potential professional photographer, concentrate on using only natural light imagery ... or immediately start learning/investing in artificial lighting hoping that it pays off ?

 

[blackrose89]

Seems to be people feel strongly one way or the other. Your thoughts?

So what you are really asking is ... should you, as a potential professional photographer, concentrate on using only natural light imagery ... or immediately start learning/investing in artificial lighting hoping that it pays off ?

Yeah pretty much. I've been trying to collect information here and there without flat out saying my considerations of becomming a professional photographer one day. I got into photography school so I could be a professional one day. But when I started taking classes and learning it as "career possibility" it turned into some much more then a possible job. But I didn't want to say this because I know how crazy the "I'm thinking about opening my business" threads can get, but oh well . But I do want to make money one day as a photographer. Not tomorrow. Not soon. But I would like to do this as a job one day. Even if not full time, just some extra cash here and there. But I think I'd rather test the waters rather then jumping the gun. Business/marketing is part of my photography program.

So I thought pet portraits in the future might be a good place to start, especially seeing as you might be able to get away with natural light in this particular field. If this is going to be my focus I need to get to work on practicing my pet portait work. I was just trying to feel out some answers from some questions I had. But there it is, my plan out and about.

Here is what I have so far. Pet portaits - a set on Flickr I know I have a ways to go before I start charging.

 

[dxqcanada]

As many have already stated ... you will encounter situations, as a portrait (human or animal) photographer, when you will need control over illumination ... so I will say that learning to use artificial lighting and/or reflectors (and other light manipulators) will be an assist that will pay off.

 

[djacobox372]

I like photos where the light looks natural, which often requires a less then natural approach. "Natural" light often looks way too harsh and unnatural when captured within the limited dynamic range of a photograph.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I think anyone who turns up their nose at either natural or artificial light is just showing either their ignorance, or, much worse, their snobbery. All the full time pros I know do whatever it takes to properly expose their subject, regardless of what mother nature throws at you. I shoot plenty of outdoor portraits, and I definitely prefer the natural glow of the "golden hour", but I also have no problem at all pulling out a strobe and umbrella for some fill light if there are weird shadows. It's art, not science.

I think a lot of the posts on here about how natural light photographers only shoot that way because they don't understand photographic lighting are both inaccurate and offensive. Broad generalizations that like are really easy to disprove. I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the exposure triangle, and I'd almost always choose to use natural light if it's good light.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I think anyone who turns up their nose at either natural or artificial light is just showing either their ignorance, or, much worse, their snobbery. All the full time pros I know do whatever it takes to properly expose their subject, regardless of what mother nature throws at you. I shoot plenty of outdoor portraits, and I definitely prefer the natural glow of the "golden hour", but I also have no problem at all pulling out a strobe and umbrella for some fill light if there are weird shadows. It's art, not science.

I think a lot of the posts on here about how natural light photographers only shoot that way because they don't understand photographic lighting are both inaccurate and offensive. Broad generalizations that like are really easy to disprove. I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the exposure triangle, and I'd almost always choose to use natural light if it's good light.

I don't suspect anyone is turning their nose at any type of lighting. Its not serious anyway, its an internet forum. I laugh at the "clique" on FB that boasts "Natural Light Photographers" implying its better than home grown OJ, as I peek at their pics and see even their pop-flash could've improved the shot

 

[Vtec44]

You should always know various lighting styles, then decide which one is appropriate for the situation. There's no reason to limit yourself.

 

[cpeay]

Ever since my flash stopped flashing I am loving natural light.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Ever since my flash stopped flashing I am loving natural light.

You plan to replace it?

 

[The_Traveler]

I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere. I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.

I have vowed to use, not just run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.

So I will be a filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer from now on.

Plus sunlight is really, really old light. They think it takes 250,000 years or so for the light made by the nuclear fusion going on at the core of the Sun (people call that natural light?) to get up to the surface, plus the 8.3 minutes to get the 93,000,000 miles from there to the Earth at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second).

Light made by a flash unit is only a few nanoseconds old by comparison. Nice and fresh.

I have vowed to use, not just run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized AND CURED IN THE VASTNESS OF SPACE to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.

So I will be a filtered, totally organic, SPACE-CURED natural light photographer from now on. None of that ugly, new stuff, only light that has been aged like fine wine.

 

[cgipson1]

a Photographer uses LIGHT... Period!

Pigeonholing yourself.. but claiming to be a NLP or a Strobist.. just means that you are either into labels, joining faddish movements / groups, or don't have a clue!

It is the quality of the shots that count... That is it! The reason so many people are down on the TERM "Natural Light Photographer" is that many of the "photographers" who label themselves that way... don't produce quality work, mostly because they don't know and understand light. Not all.. but a large majority.

As mentioned:

a Photographer uses Light

a Good Photographer uses Light anytime, anyplace, anyhow.. to enhance the image they are trying to achieve.

A Professional Level Photographer uses Light anytime, anyplace, anyhow.. to enhance the image they are trying to achieve, and achieves that image consistently and repeatably.

A "PRO" maight get paid.. and yes, that makes them a "Pro" in that sense.. but if they are turning out crap images.... they are not a "PRO"..... in my book, anyway!