The best way of photographically rendering a human being ...

ST4 said:
My view is using natural light can be great but often its harsh and undiffused. A little bit of fill flash, using a reflector etc never hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

That may depend on the subject. The more lighting equipment you introduce, the more artificial the environment. Some people may not "be themselves" in an artificial environment. Personally, if I wanted to capture me as me rather than as a false persona I'd use natural light to do it. If I wanted to capture me as I'd like to appear to the world (mean, moody and above all, magnificent - at the moment I only manage the first two), then a lot of judicious lighting and posing would be needed to have me both act the part and be lit accordingly.

So - intent and subject surely must have a (big) part to play.
 
ST4 said:
My view is using natural light can be great but often its harsh and undiffused. A little bit of fill flash, using a reflector etc never hurt anyone.
Click to expand...
Ok, Steve, thanks.
juggler said:
I suspect he's referring to another - prolific - member who often uses the word rendition.
Click to expand...
Might not the term 'prolific member' have an interpretation unsuitable for certain viewers ..?
StephenM said:
So - intent ... surely must have a (big) part to play.
Click to expand...
Did I not limit my initial query to a certain intent, & what might fulfil it? If not, I've made it clearer since.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Ok, Steve, thanks.

Might not the term 'prolific member' have an interpretation unsuitable for certain viewers ..?

Did I not limit my initial query to a certain intent, & what might fulfil it?
Click to expand...

I just wish we could use the term 'light' or 'illuminate' rather than 'render'! It sounds like you're trying to create some sort of 3 D model. I think this thread should be rejected by the Plain English Campaign !!!
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I just wish we could use the term 'light' or 'illuminate' rather than 'render'! It sounds like you're trying to create some sort of 3 D model. I think this thread should be rejected by the Plain English Campaign !!!
Click to expand...
The term was valid long before 3D software was (or even computers were) available - & it's still the most accurate word I can think of in this circumstance - because it's rendering that's the issue. Not the light itself, but what it conveys. I'm all for plain English. Of course as for most words it can have several meanings, and we judge the appropriate one from the context ... don't we?
 
Last edited:
droj said:
The term was valid long before 3D software was (or even computers were) available - & it's still the most accurate word I can think of in this circumstance - because it's rendering that's the issue. Not the light itself, but what it conveys. I'm all for plain English. Of course as for most words it can have several meanings, and we judge the appropriate one from the context ... don't we?
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm old school, whilst the English language evolves. It's cringeworthy and up there with 'nifty fifty' and 'zooming with you're feet' Feel free to use whatever words you wish. Just my opinion :)
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Sorry I'm old school, whilst the English language evolves. It's cringeworthy and up there with 'nifty fifty' and 'zooming with you're feet' Feel free to use whatever words you wish. Just my opinion :)
Click to expand...
I think that you may be contradicting yourself. Fatigue, or too much champagne? I'm trying to use language as accurately as I can, without buzz-words.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Ok - my initial question was meant to stimulate reflection & debate, but it arises out of my own current viewpoint. Maybe I should expand it a bit. Some of you are highly adept at light management, whether natural, artificial, or mixed. But I was talking in particular about the sensitive rendering of a human being - not their physicality or of them as actors in a scene, but more their inner being, without there being a domineering hint that it's been a technical exercise.

Rendering was the best word I could think of, pertaining to how we 'read' photographs ...
Click to expand...


Again, the answers will be the same. It's often a relationship with the person that makes the image. How you pose them... and yes, how you light them. It's about an affinity with the sitter as much as anything else, and those skills are often not photographic at all, but personal skills. As is the case with so many other subjects photographic, photography often has very little to do with it. Cameras, lights.. all important of course, but they don't MAKE the photo when it comes to people. People do that.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Is it just me who has no idea what we are talking about here?
Click to expand...

I think the question is "Is natural light (as opposed to artificial/flash) the best way to light a photo of a person in order to capture their personality and feeling rather than creating something bland"

To me this is a pointless question because the range of posssible lighting from both natural and unnatural sources is so huge that its impossible to generalise
 
droj said:
Ok - my initial question was meant to stimulate reflection & debate, but it arises out of my own current viewpoint. Maybe I should expand it a bit. Some of you are highly adept at light management, whether natural, artificial, or mixed. But I was talking in particular about the sensitive rendering of a human being - not their physicality or of them as actors in a scene, but more their inner being, without there being a domineering hint that it's been a technical exercise.

Rendering was the best word I could think of, pertaining to how we 'read' photographs ...
Click to expand...

This - obviously - strikes a chord. I've often tried to use light in a very technical way, whether natural or artificial, and the results can be sterile.

On the flip side, the physicality of some people is such an important part of them that to ignore it when creating their portrait would be to miss something; careful lighting is an invaluable tool in that case.

Ed Sutton said:
You don't need to play with artificial lights to do that, just learn to look, really look. That's what making pictures is all about. Looking and seeing.
Click to expand...

It's about also about seeing possibilities, ways in which you might use what is already there to create something - not just seeing what is already there. Playing with artificial light has made me much more aware of the possibilities. For example in natural light I'd choose where and how to place a model based on my experience. I don't try every possibility and select the ones I like.

Pookeyhead said:
Again, the answers will be the same. It's often a relationship with the person that makes the image. How you pose them... and yes, how you light them. It's about an affinity with the sitter as much as anything else, and those skills are often not photographic at all, but personal skills. As is the case with so many other subjects photographic, photography often has very little to do with it. Cameras, lights.. all important of course, but they don't MAKE the photo when it comes to people. People do that.
Click to expand...

I've said it often; this is the hardest bit. Especially for a geekish middle aged male mathematician/acrobat/engineer/photographer with a classically Northern British reserved upbringing. I'm working on it :)
 
juggler said:
It's about also about seeing possibilities, ways in which you might use what is already there to create something - not just seeing what is already there. Playing with artificial light has made me much more aware of the possibilities. For example in natural light I'd choose where and how to place a model based on my experience. I don't try every possibility and select the ones I like.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how using artificial light helps you understand available light any better than just looking at it. I'd have thought that stufdying natural light would be beneficial to setting up artificial lighting. But, what do I konw? I'm not an engineer...:D
 
Ed Sutton said:
I still don't see how using artificial light helps you understand available light any better than just looking at it. I'd have thought that stufdying natural light would be beneficial to setting up artificial lighting. But, what do I konw? I'm not an engineer...:D
Click to expand...

I think the point is that you can't look at light, only at what it hits - and the shadows that it creates. Experimenting with how light hits things and creates shadows is easier - for me - in a controlled environment. Plus you can easily devise more possibilities than are immediately obvious in a pure natural light setting.

And yes, studying natural light is definitely beneficial when setting up artificial lighting.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I still don't see how using artificial light helps you understand available light any better than just looking at it. I'd have thought that stufdying natural light would be beneficial to setting up artificial lighting. But, what do I konw? I'm not an engineer...:D
Click to expand...

I'm not an Engineer either but understand the laws of physics. An artificial light or point light source (Lamp, torch etc) can help simplify the understanding of the inverse square law which is pretty useful to know if you take photography seriously. This used to be taught as standard on photographic courses in colleges and universities .
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
That may depend on the subject. The more lighting equipment you introduce, the more artificial the environment. Some people may not "be themselves" in an artificial environment. Personally, if I wanted to capture me as me rather than as a false persona I'd use natural light to do it. If I wanted to capture me as I'd like to appear to the world (mean, moody and above all, magnificent - at the moment I only manage the first two), then a lot of judicious lighting and posing would be needed to have me both act the part and be lit accordingly.

So - intent and subject surely must have a (big) part to play.
Click to expand...
As many have said though, to do it properly requires skills from the photographer beyond either pressing the shutter or placing lights.

You can't easily get a natural picture of me using natural or artificial light, the instant a camera joins our relationship, I become a bad subject. Fiddling with lights doesn't make this much worse, and the only thing that can make it much better is the personality of the photographer.

I think lighting is a red herring in your scenario too. You're overthinking the photographic process (most people do)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I still don't see how using artificial light helps you understand available light any better than just looking at it. I'd have thought that stufdying natural light would be beneficial to setting up artificial lighting. But, what do I konw? I'm not an engineer...:D
Click to expand...
Because to move 'natural light' round a subject to see the effects means moving the subject. Whereas seeing the effect of different lighting with artificial light can be done by moving the light. :)

It's not pedantry, the result is similar, but it's a lot easier to move gear for 3 different lighting effects than it is to move a subject.
 
Phil V said:
As many have said though, to do it properly requires skills from the photographer beyond either pressing the shutter or placing lights.

You can't easily get a natural picture of me using natural or artificial light, the instant a camera joins our relationship, I become a bad subject. Fiddling with lights doesn't make this much worse, and the only thing that can make it much better is the personality of the photographer.

I think lighting is a red herring in your scenario too. You're overthinking the photographic process (most people do)
Click to expand...

I won't dispute that the photographer needs some skills. My point was that subjectively I do not behave naturally in an unnatural situation which is how I subjectively find artificial portrait lighting. I'm phrasing it like that because my avatar was taken under artificial lighting - but the "natural" artificial lighting of an hotel room.

I didn't think I was overthinking the photographic process so much as saying how I react to being photographed by artificial light. Perhaps I'm just not average :D
 
Natural lighting is a very easy concept to grasp. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It's never been known to fail. Occasionally it is obscured by cloud cover which can make make for dull and flat lighting. On other occasions it can be quite harsh and cast unwelcome shadows, but on a positive that gives shape and form. In the first instance the flat and dull lighting can be enhanced with the addition of a flashgun or additional point light source. On bright days the lighting can be subdued with the use of a defuser. At midday when the sun is at its meridian it is not at all flattering unlike the early morning or early evening. When light is either cool or warm respectively. There is no such thing as bad light - just different light. Watch it and learn to understand it and you will be able to predict it. Learn to study the clouds and read the weather forecast. Learn to read a compass and understand the four cardinal points and how that is relevant to your location, the time and the position of the sun. That's all there is too it the rendering of light debunked !!!

Of course that's only the start of it you have to be able to communicate and have a good report with your subject, understand what poses make the most impacting image. Perhaps the model knows best what pose suits him/her best ?

Let's not forget focus, depth of field, shutter speed but that's another subject altogether........!
 
StephenM said:
I won't dispute that the photographer needs some skills. My point was that subjectively I do not behave naturally in an unnatural situation which is how I subjectively find artificial portrait lighting. I'm phrasing it like that because my avatar was taken under artificial lighting - but the "natural" artificial lighting of an hotel room.

I didn't think I was overthinking the photographic process so much as saying how I react to being photographed by artificial light. Perhaps I'm just not average :D
Click to expand...
And you missed my point which us that many people don't behave naturally as soon as a camera is introduced. The addition of extra lighting doesn't add that much stress (for most people).

Given all that, the photographer has to overcome this artifice, and doing so is what we do (hopefully), and that's what separates the portrait photographer from the rest.
 
Phil V said:
And you missed my point which us that many people don't behave naturally as soon as a camera is introduced. The addition of extra lighting doesn't add that much stress (for most people).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I didn't pick up on that. But it's still the case that I don't suffer stress when I see a camera (in the case of my avatar I wasn't even aware of it); it's the lights and overwhelming size of them (to be more accurate, the accompanying reflectors) that affects me more. I've been photographed with studio flash on a DSLR and a 10x8 view camera and for both the camera attracted my interest and the lights my unease. A camera for me is a perfectly natural "accessory" whereas studio lights are an alien environment. Putting that another way, the lights create an environment into which I have to go; a camera per se creates nothing of itself, no more than an article of clothing does.

Possibly I am unique in reacting this way, and my experience/reactions should be discounted as atypical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top