Natural light photographers?

[jamiebonline]

Hi all,

I have experimented a lot with speedlights inside and out, on camera and off camera with softboxes and so on, as well as doing shoots in professional studios and I really have to say I have developed a disliking for artificial light on subjects. I still see a flatness, even off camera with a softbox. I still see that something is forced. Since I don't use much LR or PS nor have I heavily made up the models I shot, my style lends itself to natural light anyway. In my opinion, the effect of window light on skin and hair is the most flattering and beautiful kind of lighting. Outdoors I stay in the shade on sunny days. If the sun is soft I backlight with it. I rarely shoot in really low light situations. Never so low than 800 ISO and 1.8 can't manage it. (I admit to having a preferences to slightly darker shots anyway which some might see as underexposed)

So just wondering is there anyone else here intentionally avoiding artificial lighting? What are your reasons and how do you deal with it?

 

[itsdavedotnet]

For me, motivation is more important than if I'm using lighting or not. My style ( http://davebirdphoto.com ) is pretty natural, I hate stuff looking overlit or with no reasoning behind the light in a situation. It's much the same way that Deakins, as a most famous example, lights his movies, light should have a source or place that it's coming from.

Window light on skin is indeed generally incredibly kind - though of course there's also lots of types of window light too. Sometimes a bit of direction is good, like a sunny day - other shoots the ultra soft feel of a cloudy day. If you're not getting the 'look' that you want that particular day, that's where artifical light comes in for me - but in that instance it's about mimicking what would be the case in 'real life' - so in this instance of wanting more direction coming through a window, I'd put a flash on a tall stand outside the window, in roughly the same position as the sun (relative to the subject) etc


certainly don't feel bad for not using any lighting - though don't associate it automatically with the very lit photographs that you see from some people. Get a 5 in 1 reflector for a tenner off ebay and have your wallet thank you that you're not too into flash!

 

[mike weeks]

Light is light, some would even say that using a reflector is not natural light, others would say that people claim to be natural light photographers because they do not understand how to use lighting - me, I say there are good and bad images. This is however the lighting section where we generally discuss how to light things, not how to avoid lighting them. It would be interesting to see some good discussion of the best use of available light.

Mike

 

[jamiebonline]

Light is light, some would even say that using a reflector is not natural light, others would say that people claim to be natural light photographers because they do not understand how to use lighting - me, I say there are good and bad images. This is however the lighting section where we generally discuss how to light things, not how to avoid lighting them. It would be interesting to see some good discussion of the best use of available light.

Mike

Reflectors I think harness natural light. It's a bit different. The light is not produced by a gadget. Not sure I agree that ''light is light''. Some people don't know how to use artificial light well or at all. Of course that's true. Also the studio look is a style in itself, whatever the set up is. It is part and parcel of that look. Outdoors too there are variations of how realistic you want the look or not. I notice a lot of photographers using high speed synch to compete with the sun like on a beach. Again it has a very characteristic look. Fill light I used to use a lot myself but grew tired of it.
I agree with you it is good to talk about using available light in different ways. Maybe I posted in the wrong place. I notice very many people have read this thread and said nothing so it's safe to assume all of them use some kind of artificial light system and maybe don't see the point of using only natural light or don't avoid artificial light. I think it is hard to use artificial light well but it is equally hard to use natural light well.

 

[RichardTaylor]

As a hobbyst, who sometimes has "clients", I use available light, which is sometimes artificial, 99% of the time.
That is mainly because of most of the subjects I shoot, and locations where I shoot. the use of additional lighting is not approriate.
I also do not have the skills to use flash etc very well..

 

[Phil V]

Reflectors I think harness natural light. It's a bit different. The light is not produced by a gadget. Not sure I agree that ''light is light''. Some people don't know how to use artificial light well or at all. Of course that's true. Also the studio look is a style in itself, whatever the set up is. It is part and parcel of that look. Outdoors too there are variations of how realistic you want the look or not. I notice a lot of photographers using high speed synch to compete with the sun like on a beach. Again it has a very characteristic look. Fill light I used to use a lot myself but grew tired of it.
I agree with you it is good to talk about using available light in different ways. Maybe I posted in the wrong place. I notice very many people have read this thread and said nothing so it's safe to assume all of them use some kind of artificial light system and maybe don't see the point of using only natural light or don't avoid artificial light. I think it is hard to use artificial light well but it is equally hard to use natural light well.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but you run the risk of looking daft when you suggest that 'light is light' is incorrect.

I've no idea whether I use either natural or artificial light 'well', but my favourite images have some consideration of the light source, whether that's positioning a subject close to a window, adjusting curtains, or positioning a beauty dish.

 

[jamiebonline]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but you run the risk of looking daft when you suggest that 'light is light' is incorrect.

run the risk? I think it means I do in fact look daft. I don't think light from the sun has the same quality as light from a speedlight. That's all I meant. Just talking about source. Speedlight on the hotshoe produces pretty poor results in general and off camera it is not much better unless you use something like a beauty dish as you said. So the light source is very different in quality. Of course all light can be manipulated. To produce the effect of evening/morning sun as a backlight or light on a soft cloudy day where there you can see the sun through the clouds. That quality. I don't think that is easy.

I am thinking this area of expertise does seem to produce some strong positions. I noticed this on other sites. The suggestion that if you don't like using flashes, for example, it means you don't know what you are doing. Honestly, and I know there are levels, I don't think it is rocket science to do a basic three light set up. Sure, it's a bit confusing in the beginning with compatible triggers and flashes, their modes, synch speeds and then positioning (I don't exactly enjoy this) but you learn it like any other aspect. I was just curious if other people here exclusively used natural light because they preferred it.

 

[Phil V]

The light 'source' doesn't affect the 'quality of light' what happens to that source next is the key to 'quality of light'. Then how we position that source is what creates our choice of shadows.

The sun and a speedlight are both point light sources. In the right position the can both create a pleasing result (too harsh for most uses though)

An overcast sky is very common in the UK, produces a flattering but some might say boring result. The same would be available from a carelessly placed window light or softbox.

Carefully position a softbox or window light though and it comes to life.

It's naive to see flash as just direct on camera, because almost no 'photographer' would actually use this as a preferred option. If I'm stuck with an on camera flash, I'll be choosing a zoom setting and bounce direction that'll give an 'interesting' light, but likewise if I'm shooting inside without flash, I'm positioning my subject and maybe even manipulating the light source to create 'interesting' light.

So I'd have to say 'light is light', it's all about understanding it, reading it and using it to create your chosen image.

 

[mike weeks]

Maybe I posted in the wrong place. I notice very many people have read this thread and said nothing so it's safe to assume all of them use some kind of artificial light system and maybe don't see the point of using only natural light or don't avoid artificial light. I think it is hard to use artificial light well but it is equally hard to use natural light well.

The reason many will have looked at but not posted could be because

1. This looks a bit like a troll posting
2. They do not understand your point
3. They expected to learn something and there was nothing there to learn from
4. They were just passing by

I was a bit flippant with the light is light comment but the truth of the matter is that sometimes natural light will never cut the mustard such as advertising and product shots and the best of those do not look they are a victim of the lighting, in fact any lighting used correctly will make the viewer like the image without thinking that light is strange regardless of the light source. It is a bit like the over use of HDR, done well you would never know, done badly it looks like a cartoon or worse.

Mike

 

[Phil V]

There are as many snooty 'natural light photographers' as there are photographers who dismiss them as being 'unable to use flash'.

The truth is simple, it's irrelevant, what we're all aiming for is lighting that delivers what we want, and to do that well requires an understanding of light. I see a lack of that with natural light as much as with flash, then I don't see myself as an 'expert' either, I'm still learning after 30 years and maybe I'm not qualified to answer

My favourite wedding photographer is indeed a 'natural light' photographer, but he's not 'perfect' and I'm not looking to replicate his work, other photographers who inspire me use their own lighting sometimes. My 'style' currently is a mix of available and added light, candid and posed, let's see where I land in another 20 years when the gear has changed, fashions have changed and I have changed.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•
I have no preference daylight vs artificial light vs added flash.
When I see a shot, quickly, I evaluate what is needed to make that very shot. My
priority is to get a proper histogram, the rest is rendition and artistic intent… making
sure that any treatment will be hard to detect.

 

[cowboy]

You need light to produce a photograph, whether it is lit with natural, flash or a mixture of both doesn't matter.

If anyone excludes natural or artificial light they limit themselves.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I try for nice light - where that comes from I don't give a toss

There are plenty of times when I do like to add light though for effect - OCF being my preferred option

As cowboy says, to exclude a form of light is limiting and (for me at least) a bit daft

Dave

 

[Graham W]

I only use available light....whatever light is available.

 

[UaeExile]

Reflectors I think harness natural light. It's a bit different. The light is not produced by a gadget. Not sure I agree that ''light is light''. Some people don't know how to use artificial light well or at all. Of course that's true. Also the studio look is a style in itself, whatever the set up is. It is part and parcel of that look. Outdoors too there are variations of how realistic you want the look or not. I notice a lot of photographers using high speed synch to compete with the sun like on a beach. Again it has a very characteristic look. Fill light I used to use a lot myself but grew tired of it.
I agree with you it is good to talk about using available light in different ways. Maybe I posted in the wrong place. I notice very many people have read this thread and said nothing so it's safe to assume all of them use some kind of artificial light system and maybe don't see the point of using only natural light or don't avoid artificial light. I think it is hard to use artificial light well but it is equally hard to use natural light well.

Like has already been said, I'm not entirely sure you're not on a wind up. Possibly an ex poster looking to kill some time winding people up. I actually thought this after your first thread about a "full face" lens where you suggested an 85mm would give you too much distortion...

That's why people are dodging the thread.

 

[Phil V]

Like has already been said, I'm not entirely sure you're not on a wind up. Possibly an ex poster looking to kill some time winding people up. I actually thought this after your first thread about a "full face" lens where you suggested an 85mm would give you too much distortion...

That's why people are dodging the thread.

This^

The OP says things like 'basic 3 point lighting isn't rocket science', whilst clearly not understanding where 'quality of light' happens and recently hasn't been able to grasp other fundamental concepts.

Actually, a classic 3 light setup isn't difficult, but neither is understanding what focal lengths produce flattering results or whether a 'pro' needs full frame.

Whilst Mike thinks he was flippant, I'm afraid light is indeed just light, and the best light is what's appropriate to your desired result.

It'd be useful if the OP could post some examples of awesome natural light images that'd be impossible to recreate with artificial light. Or even set a challenge, but to just waffle with no examples, and an obvious lack of knowledge isn't that helpful.

 

[clicktor]

The OP made a thread valid for discussion on a photography forum. I can't see how he should be branded a troll/wind up/lacking knowledge. If you don't want/can't discuss it, it doesn't make them a troll.

I shoot natural light almost exclusively and always have done. In my case, it really is due to never having explored artificial lighting at all (other than on board flash or hotshoe). I do want to one day, but I don't tend to shoot scenes where I have or want control over it. I tend to see things "as they are" rather than imagining a shot, which I think you have to do with artificial light. That's where experience comes in which I don't have in "seeing" a scene.

 

[Phil V]

The OP made a thread valid for discussion on a photography forum. I can't see how he should be branded a troll/wind up/lacking knowledge. If you don't want/can't discuss it, it doesn't make them a troll.
...

You'll see (if you read the thread) that plenty of people have engaged with the question, however the OP has failed to do so

If you add that to the OP's previous threads, it creates a track record the OP should be aware of and maybe put some effort into putting straight

Let's see how it plays out

 

[simonbarker]

The OP made a thread valid for discussion on a photography forum. I can't see how he should be branded a troll/wind up/lacking knowledge. If you don't want/can't discuss it, it doesn't make them a troll.

I agree and it seems a massive overreaction for anyone to be wound up by what is a fairly innocuous question (regardless of intent).

I shoot natural light almost exclusively and always have done. In my case, it really is due to never having explored artificial lighting at all (other than on board flash or hotshoe). I do want to one day, but I don't tend to shoot scenes where I have or want control over it. I tend to see things "as they are" rather than imagining a shot, which I think you have to do with artificial light. That's where experience comes in which I don't have in "seeing" a scene.

Probably best not to think of it in terms of natural or artificial light, it's just light.

 

[Toxic]

I only use available light....whatever light is available.

This...

 

[juggler]

it seems a massive overreaction for anyone to be wound up by what is a fairly innocuous question (regardless of intent)

I suspect that the OP hasn't phrased it very well, but he does unfortunately give the impression that he thinks he can do a better job than all the lighting geeks who hang out in here.

Also the studio look is a style in itself

Only if you choose to create something which doesn't occur naturally. It's quite possible to emulate direct sunlight, or diffuse window light, or any other setup in the studio.

I think it is hard to use artificial light well but it is equally hard to use natural light well.

For me the best way to learn about light is to do it in a controlled environment, i.e. a studio. That experience has transformed my appreciation of natural light, so much so that I believe that any serious photographer should spend some time learning about artificial lighting even if they never plan on using it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'll (finally) chip in here, although I haven't really got anything to say that has been said (or alluded to) before...
At its most basic, studio lighting is just bringing the outdoors indoors, it's as simple as that.
And we do it so that we can get control of the environment, which includes but which is not exclusive to, lighting.
In other words, we can move into the studio to get the weather we want, which may not be available outdoors, and to get the lighting conditions we want, which again may not be available outdoors, or at least not at that time. We can very easily emulate window light, bright sunlight on a cloud-free day, hazy sunshine, overcast weather, backlighting and everything else. All that's needed is a bit of equipment, thought and skill.

Of course, there are always a lot of people who view things differently and who want to create lighting effects that do not occur naturally, for exaple they take portraits that have lights from all sorts of different and conflicting directions, and they photograph against so called "high key" backgrounds. These approaches are just as valid as any others, but I suspect that the effects they produce are what the OP (and others) want to avoid.

And of course, artificial lighting can be used outdoors too, we can use hotshoe flashguns, both on and off camera, we can use powerful portable flash systems, we can also use studio flash provided that we power it with a battery or run mains power, it doesn't matter. Even an on-camera or built in flash can be extremely useful, even if all that it does it to provide a bit of fill and to provide a catchlight in the eyes.

You don't have to like it, but here I used a portable lighting kit, and a watering can, to create te effect of rain. What I wanted was real rain but the shoot was arranged on what turned out to be the brightest and hottest day of the year - which is often the point of using artificial lighting.

 

[Fatheadedlizard]

There is a time and place for it imo.
Lets face it no one wants to drag crap loads of kits half half into the woods or up a hill, but if the light just isn't there and you can get the look you are after then that's up to the Photographer to do what they need to get the shot, better to learn it and not need than to need it and not know it.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Personally I love light, what comes from the sun, moon and even stars, I also love what comes from my small studio strobes and my speedlights, I have four 600exrts in my bag and am happy to lug them around with me, when the light is poor I can use them to fill or light my subject, I think mastering artificial light is a crucial part of photography given that it is light we can produce on demand, also it's easy to recreate a setup down to the last detail if needed. What ever form of light you shoot with understanding how it works is key, at times you may not have a choice and have to accept it is what it is...the only down side is the more light sources you have the more complex it becomes IMO.