# For portraits do you use a flash in daylight also?



## Aakajx (Apr 7, 2014)

Just wondering if yous use the flash in daylight also? I've been taking a lot of photos of my kids without the flash in day light and at sport. Do you think it's best to use the flash in the day?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 7, 2014)

I use a flash whenever I need one, day time, night time or crepuscular time.  Personally, I feel that almost every image can be enhanced with at least some supplemental light, even if only to 'brighten up eyes and add a nice catchlight.  Sometimes a reflector is all you need, other times, it's two or three lights, modifiers, etc.


----------



## johnsmithphoto (Apr 8, 2014)

You have to be a little more careful about the lighting. If you are going to shoot portrait on a bright sunny day, it could be a little difficult for the subject to focus on the camera. The idea of this kind of photography is to make them feel comfortable. You can use reflectors in order to fill the shadow underneath their eyes. If you are going to shoot indoors, try to combine outdoor light with the camera flash lights. It will give an amazing effect. 

​


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2014)

Yes all the time. For my job I take lots of photos of people in hard hats which cast a very nasty shadow in overhead sunlight. Using a flash allows me to remove that shadow so I get clean faces.


----------



## JoeW (Apr 8, 2014)

Aakajx said:


> Just wondering if yous use the flash in daylight also? I've been taking a lot of photos of my kids without the flash in day light and at sport. Do you think it's best to use the flash in the day?



First, it's a tool--use it when you need it.  It's like asking "do you only use a hammer indoors?"...nope, I use it when and where-ever I need it.

Second, a pop-up flash is something I almost never use (as a flash) except during daylight.  It's great for fill light (when you have a strong background...like you're shooting in to a sunset, or when you want to illuminate only the immediate subject).  On a harsh noon sun, it's a great antidote for raccoon eyes.  Here's an example of a flash used for fill (warning:  NSFW):  Beautiful Sunset-1 by afplcc on deviantART

Third, I'm not wild about using a speed light or flash during sports, especially with kids.  If it's on a field (say...soccer) then that light is not likely to make much difference--they'll be too far away.  If it's closer (gymnastics or basketball for instance) than it's distracting to the kids.

Last of all, you can use the flash to eliminate harsh shadows.  Assuming it's on camera (and we're talking a speed light not a popup), bounce it off a wall to add a bit of fill.  Or set it off camera and shoot from the opposite direction of the sun to reduce light extremes.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 8, 2014)

Yuppers... I do it when the light is on the wrong side or when I need to overpower the sun for whatever reason.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 8, 2014)

Yes.  This is flashed.


----------



## BGeise (Apr 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> Yes all the time. For my job I take lots of photos of people in hard hats which cast a very nasty shadow in overhead sunlight. Using a flash allows me to remove that shadow so I get clean faces.



So now i know who is taking all of those risque construction worker calendars ;-)


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2014)

no. i 4get.  i should be. it helps balance the light.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 8, 2014)

Yeah I do a lot. I've been trying to get away from relying on it too much though, because then I start to use it in situations that don't necessarily require it. I've just started being lazy with it lol.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 8, 2014)

it will keep your iso lower and your colors more vivid if they are washing out too.


----------



## TWright33 (Apr 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> Yes all the time. For my job I take lots of photos of people in hard hats which cast a very nasty shadow in overhead sunlight. Using a flash allows me to remove that shadow so I get clean faces.



Just curious as to what you do for work?

Meaning who do you shoot for


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Yes all the time. For my job I take lots of photos of people in hard hats which cast a very nasty shadow in overhead sunlight. Using a flash allows me to remove that shadow so I get clean faces.
> ...



I work for the construction company. I handle all the media creation. Photos, video, websites, brochures, ads, proposals, presentations etc...

I am a busy man.


----------



## TWright33 (Apr 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> TWright33 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Ah I see. That's cool.

I'm about to PM you.


----------



## lambertpix (Apr 8, 2014)

I use it quite a bit.  I don't do a ton of portraits, but I find myself using flash quite a bit for candid stuff because it gives me a little more control over where lighting is coming from.

As runnah mentioned, getting light under caps is really helpful:





I also find it helps keep the bg from blowing out too much when exposing properly for the fg:





I'd have no detail at all on instruments, etc., here w/o flash:





Same here -- the sun was in my face for this, and unlike most portraits, I had to be where I could see the shot, rather than positioning everyone where the light was best.


----------



## hirejn (Apr 8, 2014)

You can use flash in daylight but unless you understand how to control ambient and flash, it will only be to fill shadows. To do this, simply set the flash to TTL and go to -2 flash compensation as a starting point. There are many ways to use flash in daylight but this is a starting point. The subject should be within the working distance of the flash, which will display on the flash LCD panel. If the subject is outside of that, the flash will have no effect.


----------



## 3Js (Apr 8, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> Yes.  This is flashed.



And it's not very natural looking.

How come the grass and other greenery doesn't get the same light as the boys?

Thank you for a very good example of how not to use a flash in daylight.

If this was a job, I'm sure the parents were happy about the shot but, as a nitpicky photographer, I find it a useless waste of my time to comment on.




To the OP: I use flash in daylight very often. I DO NOT use a pop up flash ever. A pop-up is mostly a useless piece of junk.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2014)

hirejn said:


> You can use flash in daylight but unless you understand how to control ambient and flash, it will only be to fill shadows. To do this, simply set the flash to TTL and go to -2 flash compensation as a starting point. There are many ways to use flash in daylight but this is a starting point. The subject should be within the working distance of the flash, which will display on the flash LCD panel. If the subject is outside of that, the flash will have no effect.



THIS DUDE gives good advice almost all the time. You might just want to listen to what he has to say.


----------



## runnah (Apr 8, 2014)

Derrel said:


> THIS DUDE gives good advice almost all the time. You might just want to listen to what he has to say.



make me!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2014)

3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. This is flashed.
> ...


Pretty strong words; perhaps youl could enlighten some of us lesser mortals with an example or two of how you combine flash and ambient light.


----------



## HitenNainaney (Apr 8, 2014)

Yeah, I'm looking forward to 3js response. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## glun (Apr 9, 2014)

Aakajx said:


> Just wondering if yous use the flash in daylight also? I've been taking a lot of photos of my kids without the flash in day light and at sport. Do you think it's best to use the flash in the day?



I use it so that my subject can face towards me behind the sun. So their eyes won't be squinting when taking pictures. I do think it's essential to have a flash with you during daytime shooting.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 9, 2014)

Nothing to see here... just a troll.



3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  This is flashed.
> ...


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 9, 2014)

Making it look "natural" with flash is not possible. Your visual cortex is fully capable of noting that there's mystery light in the picture. The game is to balance "natural" and "nice".

Often you can accomplish "looks very nice, and only slightly unnatural" to a degree that we're willing to accept it as natural looking since we've been raised on Life Touch portraiture anyways.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 9, 2014)

Flash allows you to take a passable photo anywhere. And as such, if you have to take photos on demand with little control over location (like Runnah's construction photography for instance), then a flash is not only useful, but pretty much mandatory on a sunny day, because it's the only way to make the photos not horribly harsh.

However, in my opinion, flash as typically used for outdoor shots looks a little forced to me, and unnatural, and I don't prefer it (i'm talking quick handheld type things, not huge studio outdoor setups with assistants and multiple lights etc. which can look just fine).

In order of aesthetics, IMO:
[sunny day, subject in sun, no flash] <<<< [sunny day, subject in sun, flash used well] << [sunny day, subject placed strategically, no flash] << [fully controlled lighting like a portrait studio OR outdoors if you're mostly overpowering the sun anyway -- though squinting is still an issue]

But "strategic placing" is very difficult, and there may not be more than a handful of convenient and suitable locations in an entire small town for taking good photos at the hardest times of day, like high noon in the summer.  An example of such a location AT high noon in the summer would be:
* a fairly narrow, but-not-too-narrow east-west alleyway
* with an interesting looking southern wall
* and a uniformly light colored northern wall and ideally a dark (like brick) southern wall
* where the southern building is no more than about 2-3 stories tall, and
* ideally long enough of an alley that you can position the subject far enough away from the far end of the southern wall to blur it out if you so choose.

This would allow you to place the subject in open shade so no direct light or harsh shadows, BUT the sun still hits the northern wall, and reflects right back immediately onto your subject, giving you a directional, city block-sized softbox. Shoot the model with the dark wall as background for manageable dynamic range, and turn them a bit to one side or the other to get butterfly or loop or rembrandt etc. key lighting. Then use a reflector to fill in remaining ratios as desired (works better for more control over this if the south wall is dark and thus not already reflecting too much)

If you can swing something like that, I think it tends to look much better than flash-fixed lighting. Which is great, but there might only be two places like that in town on public property... and you have to have the freedom to go there, which you won't if the shoot has a fixed theme or needs to be done on a specified location.

Gazebos are also nice in that they allow controlled shade at any time of day, and are usually in parks that serve as nice backgrounds. But the reflected main lighting is less directional and controllable and less uniformly colored than in the alleyway example (coming from skyshine above AND grass below AND trees to the side, etc. all about equally)

*tl;dr: If you have the freedom to make the stars align and line up a highly controlled, strategic natural light only shot in midday, then it will look the most natural. If you have ANY constraints on your time or location, though, a flash is a lifesaving necessity in midday.*


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2014)

Posts 24 and 25, one very short, the other longer, and thoughtful, are both really in most ways, spot-on.

Flash in daylight looks..."FAKED", for the most part. Maybe faked has negative connotations, but it looks like light-that-doesn't-really-belong in many,many real-world locations. I'm not saying this this try and put down anybody's photos or style or favorite ways of working, but bringing electronic flash lighting into a wide array of natural-light, and especially natural-world settings, brings with it a contrived, or expediency-over-aesthetics look, in many,many cases.

A lot of people will prefer the look of reflector fill, or scrim-diffused daylight, OVER FLASH's look. A good case in point is in catalog photography, or celebrity and high-end portraiture, or swimwear beach fashion; the prettiest lighting effect, and the most natural-loking, and I would say the most elegant, is NOT made with flash...it is made with scrims and reflectors, one, or both. But using scrims and or reflectors means a LOT MORE WORK and effort has to be thrown at the shooting situation...

If you have a three-man crew...you can shoot using scrims and reflectors to modify the daylight, and it can look gorgeous...

But, the reality is, it's a heck of a lot easier to use flash.


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  This is flashed.
> ...




​Personally, I think it is a great example of exactly one of the many ways flash _can_ be applied in good taste.


----------



## 3Js (Apr 9, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> Nothing to see here... just a troll.



Lol.

What a wonderful response from someone who has not a thing to say about why he did a certain something.

If 80% of an image is lit differently from the main subject, it looks un-natural. Therefore, you should have lit 80% of the image the same as you main subject.

If you don't understand this, let me explain it an easier way for you to grasp. Natural light ONLY comes from one direction. When light comes from two directions at the same time, you either have a very big mirror that was abandoned in the woods, just where you happened to need it or you have a very un-naturally lit photo.

Get over yourself and learn.

Or don't.

I couldn't care less.

Signed: The TROLL


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to see here... just a troll.
> ...



What is there to learn? Natural or unnatural, photography is more art than it is technicality.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 9, 2014)

Natural light does not all come from one direction. It usually has a clear dominant single source, which might be what 3Js means, I suppose.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to see here... just a troll.
> ...


Lighten up Francis! First of all, natural or un-natural, Robin's image is an excellent one, second, it is entirely possible for ambient light to come from multiple directions, and third, I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio.  Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!


----------



## 3Js (Apr 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Natural light does not all come from one direction.



Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Natural light does not all come from one direction.
> ...



No.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Natural light does not all come from one direction.
> ...


Does the word "reflections" ring any bells?


----------



## CdTSnap (Apr 9, 2014)

Wow... I wonder if your so confrontational outside of the forum 3Js, not all photos are meant to look "realistic". Even so i quite like that one...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 9, 2014)

Not natural looking.. I dont care.  The client came back the year after and more than likely do it again this year.


----------



## CdTSnap (Apr 9, 2014)

Thats an awesome shot


----------



## lambertpix (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing to see here... just a troll.
> ...



IMO, post #25 explains this pretty well, and benefits greatly from not having had to poke a stick at anyone.

I believe the main point of both posts is that the use of real natural light is fantastic.  Using flash to supplement natural light (in a way that still looks natural) is difficult, but preferred when using flash.

Gavjenks, however, goes on to acknowledge that sometimes you just don't have as much control over the timing, environment, and posing as you'd like, and under those circumstances, flash can still be used to improve a shot (not to put words in anyone's mouth).

As far as "naturalness" goes, it strikes me as somewhat ironic that light from two directions at once throws us into a fit, but two little boys with neat clothes and combed hair is "natural"?  Shoot -- one of 'em is even _smiling_.  Natural??

I think photographers eventually develop a heightened sense of light shaping (I know I've got a long way to go yet), but it's way beyond what other people can perceive.  I really think most people are just going to see two cute little boys, and if the backlighting suggests a hint of a halo around Mom's two little angels, then so much the better.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to be able to use light as a tool to help convey emotion -- maybe natural; maybe not.  I've seen a couple Joe McNally videos where he unloads a wheelbarrow full of speedlights and softboxes to create a lighting patten never before seen in nature, and yet, his work seems to be generally pretty well-received.  Am I missing something about his work, or is he a hack, too?

I get your point -- there's real elegance in using lighting to convey emotion without looking overt or gimicky, but I really don't see that here.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 9, 2014)

The above one looks more natural than the one earlier amongst the trees. I think the fact that the grass takes up more of the frame and is equally far from the lighting makes a greater portion of the image consistently lit.

To be clear, I very much like both portraits, and obviously, naturalness of light is just one of dozens of dimensions that may be more important in a given instance. But overall, I think that within the same photographer, I like the grass one better, because most of the other things are equal: similar PP, posing, composition, etc., but more lighting consistency = a slight edge to me.  And if fully naturally lit, it would go up a tiny skonce more.  

But then again, the setup and overhead required to make it 100% naturally lit might have added so much hassle that the whole photo would never have happened! Balances.


----------



## Designer (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> And it's not very natural looking.
> 
> How come the grass and other greenery doesn't get the same light as the boys?
> 
> ...



Robin's photograph is an excellent example of a flash that is properly aimed and regulated to illuminate the subjects and not the surroundings.


----------



## Designer (Apr 9, 2014)

3Js said:


> Are you telling us the sun is in different places at the same time?



It was not the sun.

Robin told us that it was flashed.


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 9, 2014)

tirediron said:


> ...I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio.  Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!


_
PLEASE, OH GREAT SUN GOD, ENLIGHTEN OUR IGNORANT MINDS! 

FOR WE HATH SINNED AND EATEN FROM THE TREE OF BOGOS, SNOOTS, AND OTHER MODIFIERS._


----------



## manny212 (Apr 9, 2014)

Ok if you all stop right now, I will bring back the  sun....


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 9, 2014)

togalive said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > ...I notice you still haven't put forth any examples from your own, what I must assume to be outstanding, based on your comments, portfolio.  Don't be shy, please show us how it should be done!
> ...



Ok, well in general not a good idea to get the sun god cheesed of at you.  Where do you think global warming comes from.  It's science man.

Don't sweat it though, we'll toss a couple of extra virgins at the volcano, problem solved.

In the meantime do we have any snoot fruit left? That stuff really wasn't half bad.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2014)

tirediron said:


> 3Js said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Not to mention that all light is "natural light."  Photons are photons be they from fusion or a man made source.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 9, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> ...in the meantime do we have any snoot fruit left? That stuff really wasn't half bad.


"snoot fruit"... snrk...  :lmao:


----------



## Tee (Apr 9, 2014)

My take away from Robin using flash is it's a great way to manipulate the environment to achieve a desired look.  But to answer the OP, I bring my lights with me on outdoor shoots.  I don't always use them but they come handy.


----------



## paigew (Apr 9, 2014)

I think Robin's shots look nice. They don't look natural though, they look flashed, but in a good way .  I'm curious Robin, do you have much success with OCF and little kids??

I rarely ever use flash, and never outside.


----------



## manny212 (Apr 10, 2014)

This is how we do it at work . Very rarely do the use any artificial light , unless they specifically want that 80's very flashed look . 

This is of course a catalog so the photog has three assistants , many stands , clamps , hands etc... 




DSCF7074-Edit by mannyher1, on Flickr


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 10, 2014)

paigew said:


> I think Robin's shots look nice. They don't look natural though, they look flashed, but in a good way .  I'm curious Robin, do you have much success with OCF and little kids??
> 
> I rarely ever use flash, and never outside.


No problem at all.. You should try it.


----------



## paigew (Apr 10, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I think Robin's shots look nice. They don't look natural though, they look flashed, but in a good way .  I'm curious Robin, do you have much success with OCF and little kids??
> ...



I am just constantly moving at my shoot. And often RUNNING after children LOL. Maybe I will with mine....Do you use your modifier?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 10, 2014)

You want to see my mane when I'm backlit in a setting autumn sun?  you use a fill flash.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 10, 2014)

paigew said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...




I am constantly moving too.  I used to use umbrella and one speedlite.  Now I use an alienbee and umbrella.


----------



## manny212 (Apr 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> You want to see my mane when I'm backlit in a setting autumn sun?  you use a fill flash.




Cat in headlights !!! :smileys:


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> You want to see my mane when I'm backlit in a setting autumn sun?  you use a fill flash.



That does not look natural at all.  I mean.. the cat is on a  leash for God sake!  Not natural!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > Robin Usagani said:
> ...



I've got a couple of sizes of Ezybox, and for portability and 'subjects on the run', I find this rig VERY useful.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



I prefer Valium.  It's so much easier and a lot less stressful.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Robin Usagani said:
> ...


So do I, but then I just spend the entire session dozing against the nearest tree.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 10, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> I prefer Valium.  It's so much easier and a lot less stressful.



You forgot one "trade secret" though....Duct tape photo - Google Search

It also works for older children as well    Duct_tape_wall.jpg


----------



## paigew (Apr 10, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



How have I never seen that before!! THat looks awesome  I love how small it is and that you can HOLD it.


----------



## paigew (Apr 10, 2014)

Derrel said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Derrel! That dog pic is SO sad! Grrrr  :*(


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 10, 2014)

A whole huge set of scrims and 20 reflectors can look good, but I wouldn't say "natural" usually. Light doesn't just magically diffuse onto the subject but not anything else in nature, or bounce in weird tight beams right where you need it.
Just because the light itself is literally from a natural source doesn't make the lighting look natural.

The more junk you use, the more inherently unnatural is looks, because the only reason for having the junk is to CHANGE what is naturally there.  Which again might be a necessary convenience, but still has almost all the same drawbacks a ton of lights would.


----------



## paigew (Apr 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> A whole huge set of scrims and 20 reflectors can look good, but I wouldn't say "natural" usually. Light doesn't just magically diffuse onto the subject but not anything else in nature, or bounce in weird tight beams right where you need it.
> Just because the light itself is literally from a natural source doesn't make the lighting look natural.
> 
> The more junk you use, the more inherently unnatural is looks, because the only reason for having the junk is to CHANGE what is naturally there.  Which again might be a necessary convenience, but still has almost all the same drawbacks a ton of lights would.



Yes, this is why I probably won't ever use flash outside. Unless I HAVE to, but I can usually make natural light work.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

paigew said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Robin Usagani said:
> ...



This is a great little toy if you shoot with an assistant!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

At this point, I have to ask:  WHY is it so important that an image look "natural"  just the act of creating the image implies that it's inherently un-natural; after all, it's not like you can run across naturally occurring images in photo-sensitive moss on mountainsides.  At the end of the day, producing an image which has the look and feel that the photographer (and if applicable, the client) desires is all that matters.  If you do that completely with ambient light, great.  If you need a scrim or reflector, equally fine, and if you like lights galore, finer still!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 10, 2014)

Most non-trained photographers, and most "normal, regular people" are not very adept at spotting bad lighting, nor identifying the source of bad lighting as being either flash, or daylight. It takes some training to be able to readily identify lighting "issues". As one poster commented on earlier, even people who are learning photographic lighting often (all too often, unfortunately) make the mistake of using electronic flash that DIRECTLY OPPOSES "the sun", and looks utterly craptastic to a trained eye. I'm not referring to any photos in this thread, or to any person in this thread, but a few weeks back we had a poster who was using flash and compositing images in which the foreground people were lighted by flash, but the backgrounds were composited in and had strong, DIRECT shadows that went in the OPPOSITE direction as the shadows from the background. While other people let it slide, I felt compelled to mention it because...that looks really poor.

Most normal, regular, everyday people do not look at photos with any degree of knowledge of how they were lighted; they look at the images based on who is in the photos, and their own personal, emotional attachment to the people in the photos. Just because a client likes a photo or photo set does not in ANY WAY, mean that the photographic technique is "good", "great", or "fabulous"; it means that the PEOPLE in the photos evoke a positive reaction, for them, the viewer.

If flash will help the photos look a bit better, use flash. If you cannot hold the highlights and the shadows are pretty dark...you'll probably wanna use some kind of fill lighting...reflector fill or flash fill...or move...or use a scrim to diffuse the light and lower the lighting ratio so the images look,well, "better". How good the images look really depends more on the skill of the shooter than on which method is used. I've seen really fabulous fill-flash work and also reallyt bad fill-flash. Same with reflector fill--I've seen it look fabulous, as well as really drecky.

[note: I wrote this post before seeing Tirediron's post above; my post had nothing to do with the question he asked...]


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 10, 2014)

> the act of creating the image implies that it's inherently un-natural


I'd say my cornea, lens, and retina are pretty natural things that creates images just fine.
Natural looks good all other things equal because it is what we are used to seeing ourselves.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > the act of creating the image implies that it's inherently un-natural
> 
> 
> I'd say my cornea, lens, and retina are pretty natural things that creates images just fine.
> Natural looks good all other things equal because it is what we are used to seeing ourselves.


They don't actually create anything; they allow your brain to process reflected light but it's not recorded.  Perhaps I should have said the act of recording...


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 10, 2014)

1) Making an image doesn't require recording. The image is just the projected shaped light on a surface. Which nature does constantly in all sorts of other places, as well. Every dapple of light through the leaves is a blurry image of the sun (as becomes obvious during an eclipse)
2) If images on my retina aren't recorded, then how do I remember what anything looks like that I've seen in the past? Of course they are recorded. In an extraordinarily similar way to how my DSLR records them, in fact. There are essentially biological pixels (the same number and kind as in a sensor! 3x color, 1x lightness), that meter for the light and respond progressively to more photons, and then they pass through some sharpening and contrast filters in an almost deterministic fashion, and then store it away in your temporal lobe / SD card at varying levels of resolution depending on how important it is.



> they allow your brain to process reflected light but it's not recorded.


More succinctly: the whole point of the "processing" mentioned above IS recording.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 10, 2014)

tirediron said:


> At this point, I have to ask: WHY is it so important that an image look "natural" just the act of creating the image implies that it's inherently un-natural; after all, it's not like you can run across naturally occurring images in photo-sensitive moss on mountainsides. At the end of the day, producing an image which has the look and feel that the photographer (and if applicable, the client) desires is all that matters. If you do that completely with ambient light, great. If you need a scrim or reflector, equally fine, and if you like lights galore, finer still!



it is important because you are capturing the moment not trying to change it. A record.  if you on the other hand trying to make something better looking for a showpiece that is another story.  Having it look natural usually IS what people desire isn't it? Hasn't that been the bar for camera manufacturers especially in terms of color? Having it look as natural as possible?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> ...More succinctly: the whole point of the "processing" mentioned above IS recording.


Okay... show me what you recorded this morning while you were in the kitchen having breakfast.





bribrius said:


> it is important because you are capturing the moment not trying to change it. A record. if you on the other hand trying to make something better looking for a showpiece that is another story. Having it look natural usually IS what people desire isn't it? Hasn't that been the bar for camera manufacturers especially in terms of color? Having it look as natural as possible?


Putting aside things such as photo-journalism in its purest form, don't most of us "un-naturalize" our images to a greater or lesser degree in the pixel room.  What I think of as a 'natural looking' image is one that could have been, not necessarily one that was.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 10, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > ...More succinctly: the whole point of the "processing" mentioned above IS recording.
> ...


well of course. Im not a pro, but I would say if im making a bw image im making a impression or giving impression of what I actually saw. Or if I attempt something artistic im attempting to change something I saw to more of artwork. There are attempts to make something more flattering. If I don't like a certain photo, may do some mild processing to it for appeal sake. These are all secondary though aren't they? Icing? Isnt the same fundamental principle the same, capture the record of what you see as the priority, the rest of it "play time"? 
Put in order of what is important to most (family images or children images). The natural might be more valuable than the processed, bw images I have of my children, the doctored photos. Thrown all in a fire, what do you think im going to reach for first to pull out? The real one. 
if you photo standard family portraiture, do a wedding, I think you will find a limit in how much your customer accepts or enjoys your use of artistic vision. And even the staged, excellent done family portraiture would probably be pulled from a fire after all the candid snapshots.

I venture to say the standard for artistic photography, and the fundamental purpose the average majority have or use photography in, are drastically different.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 10, 2014)

Just curious derrel, why would you not want to put the flash opposite the sun?  The subject will have a nice rim light from the sun, the trees in the background will have the shadow face facing you, the subject will not squint looking at the sun.  If I turn off the flash, this set up will yield a nice photo too.  I want that dark background.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 10, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> Just curious derrel, why would you not want to put the flash opposite the sun?  The subject will have a nice rim light from the sun, the trees in the background will have the shadow face facing you, the subject will not squint looking at the sun.  If I turn off the flash, this set up will yield a nice photo too.  I want that dark background.



I think you're totally mis-reading what I wrote. I specifically discussed a situation in which there are shadows cast one way in the background, and then shadows cast by a flash that lights the foreground from the opposite direction; when there are background shadows going in "one direction", and then foreground shadows go in the opposite direction, it looks like a noob shot it because the lights are in direct conflict with one another. That looks amateurish, at best, and ridiculous at worst.

I know what you mean; you're talking about today's fairly standard outdoor portraiture shooter's method of using the sun as a rim-light/back light/side-light source, and then using flash as a way to fill-in the shadows: position family at X spot, with sun behind or off to the side: fill in shadowed side with flash to create basic light source for faces,which are in shadow, allow the over-exposed edges of the people to create a bright, separation light; bonus points if background has a dark area so that family stands out more. 

Two totally different situations.

Another example of a lighting mess: Joe Photog lights background with light blasting in from one side; lights subject with light coming in strongly from opposite side. Hair light appears from opposite side of main light. Photo looks like a confused mess. Light blasting in from three directions. It just looks contrived, or faked...


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 10, 2014)

> Okay... show me what you recorded this morning while you were in the kitchen having breakfast.
> 
> ;-)


Just because I don't own a printer that accepts brain-formatted image files, doesn't mean they don't matter. >>I<< can still visualize my recorded images in my own mind, and I can still easily compare them to prints from a camera, and compare the lighting. Thus, the importance and relevance of natural looking lighting in photograph prints.

The way that you know whether they match up in my head is via language. I can just tell you if they do.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 10, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Okay... show me what you recorded this morning while you were in the kitchen having breakfast.
> >
> > ;-)
> 
> ...


Fair point!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 10, 2014)

Ahh.. I see.  I get it now.  



Derrel said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious derrel, why would you not want to put the flash opposite the sun?  The subject will have a nice rim light from the sun, the trees in the background will have the shadow face facing you, the subject will not squint looking at the sun.  If I turn off the flash, this set up will yield a nice photo too.  I want that dark background.
> ...


----------



## Designer (Apr 10, 2014)

paigew said:


> I am just constantly moving at my shoot. And often RUNNING after children LOL.



Get a flash bracket. (?)

Yes, it adds weight and size.


----------



## 3Js (Apr 14, 2014)

Wow!


----------



## 3Js (Apr 14, 2014)

What an amazing load of bull!


----------



## 3Js (Apr 14, 2014)

Why would I spend 25 secs trying to explain what I said when it is obvious that 99.99% of responders here have no interest in understanding any of it.


----------



## 3Js (Apr 14, 2014)

As for why i don't post any example of good stuff, you may want to just read my Intro post.

You all may want to learn how to read.


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 14, 2014)

3Js said:


> As for why i don't post any example of good stuff, you may want to just read my Intro post.
> 
> You all may want to learn how to read.



In a parallel universe, where things said mean the opposite of what is intended, I believe the phrase would be: 

_Such substance. Much expertise. Very wow.



_But who knows guys, the S_un God_ could be right. Who are we to ask for evidence of his masterful lighting?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 14, 2014)

I think the problem is not enough cats...





Majestic Pookie by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2014)

That is a fine-looking cat! But...it looks like it's fake. ;-)


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 14, 2014)

Your problem, 3js, is that you want your opinion to be objectively true. It's not, it's an opinion.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 14, 2014)

3Js said:


> As for why i don't post any example of good stuff, you may want to just read my Intro post.
> 
> You all may want to learn how to read.


I may not be a stellar photographer, but do I pride myself on my ability to read printed English.  Your introductory post:



3Js said:


> Ex photo journalist now turning pig farmer I hope to learn to use the digital SLR I bought a couple years ago, lol. I worked with film exclusively and it's been a while. I'm having a hard time getting into the digital world and hope to find some incentive here...
> 
> And if I do, you'll be blessed with images of my pigs and farm



I see nothing in there that explains why you can't "show us how it should be done".  If you're going to say that you do not have any digital files of your images, I should think that the small cost of scanning a couple of your [I assume] world-class images and posting them would be well worth it in order to put us in our place.  Heck, you could even take digital pictures of them, and I or another member will be glad to walk you through the process of posting them.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 14, 2014)

I'm not sure which one is the most full of S#!% there tirediron, but I suspect that it is not the pigs.


----------



## Designer (Apr 14, 2014)

3Js said:


> What an amazing load of bull!



Without a frame of reference, we can't tell what you think is a load of bull.

Please reply with quote.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2014)

Here are some videos to watch in which Joe McNally uses flash during daylight outdoors. 6 Lighting Tutorials from Joe McNally

And by the way, as far as MATCHING the direction of flash with actual daylight, note what he says in the second video [EzyBox Hotshoe], beginning at the 2:55 mark...just something to note...the idea of creating flash shadows that align with/coordinate with/echo the existing light's main direction is not just something somebody here made up utterly out of thin air...i_t's a fairly common concept_ among people who have studied photographic lighting

Joe McNally Ezybox Hotshoe (LL LR2462JM) from Lastolite on Vimeo


----------

