# How To Mimic Natural Light



## trevorcroft

I am not a photographer, but my girlfriend is, and she is in the market for a studio.

Should studio's contain a window for natural light?  She is very adamant that it must, but this limits the choices quite a bit.

She is very good with using natural light and prefers her photos to look a certain way which she feels can only be done using natural light.

Is it possible to mimic natural light with man made light?  If it is possible, please provide a link to your photos.

Thanks!


----------



## KmH

Natural light can be mimiced with studio lights, strobes, speedlights and reflectors.

Top pros always use lights, reflectors, and other light modifiers even when they shoot outside.

Don't let your girlfriend find out about this thread, unless you can take the heat.


----------



## musicaleCA

Yup. Totally possible. If you want a "window" take some gaffer's tape and put it across your soft-box (in a cross pattern, like, um, a window) to make the specular highlights more window-like. Piece-of-cake. If we're talking about warming up the light, gold reflectors and CTO gels are your friend.


----------



## Cinka

I'll just interject - my studio has a lot of natural light - windows - and I've found that depending on the shoot, I end up covering them anyway. Sometimes they cast really neat reflections and shadows, but a lot of times, my clients wants standard studio lighting, so up go the sheets. Natural light isn't as versatile as you'd think. You have more control over studio lighting - that is to say, if she's using natural light, she'll be chasing the sun or can only work during certain hours of the day.


----------



## trevorcroft

Thanks for the replies everyone!  Now I need some evidence, actual pictures taken without natural light that look like they were taken with natural light.

She is a big Nichole Van fan, and her studio has a window... if any of you have or know of someone who has a similar styles to hers, but shoots with man made light that looks natural that would be amazing.

Thanks!


----------



## Big Mike

It's totally a preference and most photographers go through stages where they use more or less natural/artificial light.  

Given the choice, I'd love to have lots of big windows, but also have the option of blocking them off when needed.  

The great thing about natural light is that it's cheap (unless we're talking about getting a studio with lots of big windows ).  Large softboxes & diffusion panels can be expensive (not to mention the lights themselves).


----------



## JerryPH

When you use windows, nature is the one in control of the lighting.  When there are no windows... it is the responsibility of the photogrpaher to understand what tools are needed and how to use them to take control of a particular situation so that it works to your advantage.

Personally, I feel that natural light is nice... but it is limiting.  When I have control of the light, I can do things with it that are just not possible to do if you are limited to a single constantly varying light source like a window (ie: ask her to take a picture next to that window after 9:00PM or when clouds constantly come and go causing conditions to change every few seconds   )

I've used this example in the past... but:

When you meter for the light outside, the results are thus:






When you meter for the light inside, the results are thus:





When *I* take control of the light, my results are thus:





Ability to control the light is what it is all about in a studio.  To have the option of natural light is nice to have... but I'd not want to run my business depending on if the sun would be very accommodating all the time.


----------



## jcolman

trevorcroft said:


> Thanks for the replies everyone!  Now I need some evidence, actual pictures taken without natural light that look like they were taken with natural light.
> 
> She is a big Nichole Van fan, and her studio has a window... if any of you have or know of someone who has a similar styles to hers, but shoots with man made light that looks natural that would be amazing.
> 
> Thanks!



Without being rude I would say your girlfriend could use a lesson or two in "how to light" instead of a studio.


----------



## UUilliam

jcolman said:


> trevorcroft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the replies everyone!  Now I need some evidence, actual pictures taken without natural light that look like they were taken with natural light.
> 
> She is a big Nichole Van fan, and her studio has a window... if any of you have or know of someone who has a similar styles to hers, but shoots with man made light that looks natural that would be amazing.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without being rude I would say your girlfriend could use a lesson or two in "how to light" instead of a studio.
Click to expand...

+1


----------



## inTempus

Simulating shadows cast by a single light source through various mediums (what natural light is) is relatively easy.  It's rather limiting creatively if you do every shot simulating this single light source.  But the funny thing is, even when using real natural light, most pro photogs bring along strobes, diffusion panels, and reflectors to modify the natural light to give that truly "professional" look to their images.


----------



## trevorcroft

jcolman said:


> Without being rude I would say your girlfriend could use a lesson or two in "how to light" instead of a studio.



Requiring a studio is a business decision.

I know pros use man made light when shooting outside, but that's not the question.

I don't want this thread to change topics, I am looking for hard evidence here, meaning a picture that was known to be taken with only man made light but looks like natural light (or a mixture) was used.

Can anyone help me out?


----------



## JerryPH

Sincerely, that is a very beginner-ish question.  Why limit yourself to *just* making flashes look like natural light (which is ridiculously easy)?  I mean, you are a flash and softbox away from having perpetual "sunlight through a window" effects 24 hours a day!

At this point, I think it is better that your girlfriend post here... there is a definite lack of the basic lighting knowledge to be able to understand what is happening and I am *sure* something is getting lost in the translation at this point.  

To give you an idea... your question is equivalent in difficulty to asking "are you sure if I put the car into D, it will drive forward and not backward?".  Seriously!

There are some things that are extremely obvious to anyone who has picked up a camera and used an off camera flash for even a single day... and searching to make a flash merely look like sunlight... wow, why?  Thats all I will say about that.

I'll tell you what... go to THIS link, and start looking (better yet, have your girlfriend start looking!!), as there are THOUSANDS of pictures there that all look as if in enhanced natural light... and 100% of them are taken using off camera flash... NO exceptions.


----------



## trevorcroft

JerryPH said:


> Sincerely, that is a very beginner-ish question. Why limit yourself to *just* making flashes look like natural light (which is ridiculously easy)? I mean, you are a flash and softbox away from having perpetual "sunlight through a window" effects 24 hours a day!



This would be awesome if it were possible... but the more I research this the harder I find it to believe.  But all of your guys' extreme confidence is reassuring at least.



JerryPH said:


> To give you an idea... your question is equivalent in difficulty to asking "are you sure if I put the car into D, it will drive forward and not backward?". Seriously!



I don't think you understand my question... can man made light be used to replace natural light?  In otherwords, is it possible to get identical looking pictures during the day (during ideal shooting conditions) as it is at night?



JerryPH said:


> I'll tell you what... go to THIS link, and start looking (better yet, have your girlfriend start looking!!), as there are THOUSANDS of pictures there that all look as if in enhanced natural light... and 100% of them are taken using off camera flash... NO exceptions.



This is a great start, but I went through a lot of those pictures and only saw a few that I thought were nice looking pictures, and they used a combination of natural light and man made light.

My search is not going well... at first I was arguing the same points as you guys, but thinking about it rationally how can humans recreate the effects of something as awesome as the sun?  I'm starting to believe that the reason why natural light photographers pictures look different than studio pictures is because they cannot be reproduced identically in the studio.  Or perhaps they can be, but its not worth the cost??


----------



## musicaleCA

If you want to reproduce the sun at noon, piece of cake. Put a speedlite over them at full power.  (If you want harsh, ugly shadows, that is.)

If you want to look like the sun in the evening, put the speedlite on a stand with an umbrella, move it back a fair bit, above the subject, angling down a bit. Again, piece of cake. Toss in a reflector to lift shadows and better simulate other things that bounce light that you'd find outside the studio.

Frankly, I see "using only natural light" as a crutch in leiu of not learning how to light with all the tools at your disposal. A reflector alone would open up tons of possabilities.


----------



## JerryPH

trevorcroft said:


> This would be awesome if it were possible... but the more I research this the harder I find it to believe.  But all of your guys' extreme confidence is reassuring at least.



WTF?  What research??  Anyone who has *ever* used a softbox *knows* that this is it's main reason for existence, to give a large swath of soft diffused light, just like the effects of a window streaming into a room!  On top of that, it is controllable, where as one cannot normally change the position of a window or the sun's angle, one can EASILY change the position of a softbox!



trevorcroft said:


> I don't think you understand my question... can man made light be used to replace natural light?



No, *you* are not getting it.  In how many ways do you want us to answer "YES!"... and in how many ways do you want us to say "... AND MORE!"?



trevorcroft said:


> This is a great start, but I went through a lot of those pictures and only saw a few that I thought were nice looking pictures, and they used a combination of natural light and man made light.



It's called photography, not "let's make every picture look the same".   BTW, interesting that you got through over 288,000 pictures in a single evening.  I am sure there are more than a couple there that do it... for some reason, you are just being stubborn about it... and I know why, yet you refuse to address the situation... get your GIRLFRIEND on here and let her ask herself!



trevorcroft said:


> but thinking about it rationally how can humans recreate the effects of something as awesome as the sun?  I'm starting to believe that the reason why natural light photographers pictures look different than studio pictures is because they cannot be reproduced identically in the studio.  Or perhaps they can be, but its not worth the cost??



You are really stuck on a treadmill on the fast track to nowhere.  You do not use a studio to do landscape shots.  One does not use a garbage truck to win NASCAR races.  You need to sit down and define your goals, friend.  Do you want to shoot landscapes or do you want to shoot portraiture?

Are you talking studio lighting or not?  If you are talking studio lighting, don't be introducing garbage trucks into NASCAR races.  

Really... get your GF here, if she is a photographer, and understands lighting, she will have a MUCH stronger comprehension of the basics (we at least presume that someone that wants to open a studio *does* have that minimum skill set!).

At this point, I feel like I am banging my head into a wall trying to talk A-B-Cs of lighting to someone that is clueless, and it is frustrating.

On to the next thread.


----------



## jcolman

You want pics?  Fine.  See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.


----------



## epatsellis

Jcolman, you could have made it harder, the catchlights give it away.


----------



## musicaleCA

Indeed. But I did find the third a little tricksy.


----------



## Dao

OP, first, I am still a beginner in terms of photography.  But I can tell you if I am going to build a studio, I will not want to have the Natural Light.


Instead, using artificial light to simulate the Natural light.  In that case, your gf will  have total control.  Night or Day, rainy day or sunny day, it will not affect her work.  And every photos are going to be consistent.

Once you read/learn more about lightning, you will know what other people here talking about.


----------



## Derrel

I went to the Nichole Van web site,and I noticed that the first outdoor wedding portrait, the one where the bride is on the hood of an old FOrd pickup truck out in the desert of Utah--in the chrome hubcab, I can see a photo assistant holding an electronic flash,elevated on a long pole.

I'm with those who would tell you that window light is easy to simulate using large softboxes, as well as scrims,and sunlight can easily be created using umbrellas or large parabolic reflectors in the 16 to 20 inch range, as well as bare-tube flash.

No offense to NV's work, but I see her skill set as being very minimalist on lighting,and very heavily based upon extreme Photoshop effects and extensive post work. Her use of lighting does not come through in her web site's images.

I would seriously suggest your GF look into what's possible with a full and complete line of studio flash and modifiers, like those made by Speedotron for example.


----------



## JerryPH

For professional studio work, Alien Bee, Lightrein, White Lightning, Elinchrom, Photogenic, Profoto, Bronfcolor... in that order from lowest (budget) to highest (meaning 5-6 digits of ca$h for lighting alone!) are the brands that I would suggest.  There are others, but these are the ones best known for being the most used by "the pros".

I'm not discounting speedlights under any circumstance, but if we are talking a pro studio here, let's talk the big guns and market segment leaders.


----------



## Derrel

Yes, definitely go with one of the market leaders in studio flash, like Speedotron, where there are lots of light modifiers available, as well as affordable flash tubes,and a good,solid mounting system for softbox attachments,as well as professional-grade grids, reflectors, barn doors, diffusers, and all the ancillary things you might ever want.

Some very significant amounts of money will be spent on light modifiers,and that's an area where Speedotron gives you a lot of value for the money,since the system has been around for so long (since 1939),and has so many professional shooters who have depended upon it long before most of the Euroflash makers even began manufacturing their lighting lines.

Speedotron mounting collars are available for around $17,and can be screwed or pop-riveted or bolted or epoxied to almost anything you might want to DIY.

A single six-outlet Speedotron generator and four 102 heads would be an excellent start. And definitely, look at used equipment,since so,so many new studios go broke and end up selling off their lights hardly used. While natural light is fine, it's just not very dependable in many locations.


----------



## JerryPH

A fun question... who do you think has been around the longest in the photography industry as a provider of lighting equipment AND exists today?

It may surprise you all, but Photogenic, which was founded in 1903 has been around for over 105 years!  

Photogenic Professional Lighting Equipment - Photographic Lighting Equipment and Accessories


----------



## trevorcroft

jcolman said:


> You want pics?  Fine.  See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.



All I go by is what I like, its my personal taste, but I'm not crazy about any of those 4 portraits, the 2nd one isn't bad, but its not finished (needs some post processing). I'm not talking about anything technical here, just saying what I like, just my personal preference.  Thanks for posting these, this is what I'm looking for, all I need is 1 picture that makes me go "wow, thats amazing", and if its all artificial light I am sold!

As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light.  1st and 3rd use no natural light.  I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!

Just because I am able to pick out if a picture was taken with natural light or not doesn't mean its good or not, there are a ton of bad natural light pics.

But I do see where you're going with this, and you have kind of made your point, but the answer to this question: "Is it possible to post a group of pictures where one uses some or all natural light and the rest use purely studio light where it is very difficult or impossible reliably determine which of the group used natural light?"  Isn't really what I was going for, although I can see how my initial question would come off that way.

Oh, and when I say natural light all I mean is that the picture has some natural light, I don't mean purely natural light.  Some people keep posting that you need to use artificial light WITH natural light, this isn't the discussion, the discussion is to be able to replicate the beauty of a picture with some (or all) natural light with using purely artificial light.

Obviously Nichole Van uses artificial light outdoors sometimes, again, not the discussion.  And you can say whatever you like about her skills, doesn't matter to me, but the bottom line is her pictures invoke emotion, they make people go "wow", this is why her business is so successful, people don't book photographers based on technical skills, they book based on the end result, they give you money for the end product, its by far the most important part of a photography business, unless you are absolutely terrible at the other things like customer service, presentation, etc.


----------



## camz

trevorcroft said:


> jcolman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want pics? Fine. See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I go by is what I like, its my personal taste, but I'm not crazy about any of those 4 portraits, the 2nd one isn't bad, but its not finished (needs some post processing). I'm not talking about anything technical here, just saying what I like, just my personal preference. Thanks for posting these, this is what I'm looking for, all I need is 1 picture that makes me go "wow, thats amazing", and if its all artificial light I am sold!
> 
> As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light. 1st and 3rd use no natural light. I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!
> 
> Just because I am able to pick out if a picture was taken with natural light or not doesn't mean its good or not, there are a ton of bad natural light pics.
> 
> But I do see where you're going with this, and you have kind of made your point, but the answer to this question: "Is it possible to post a group of pictures where one uses some or all natural light and the rest use purely studio light where it is very difficult or impossible reliably determine which of the group used natural light?" Isn't really what I was going for, although I can see how my initial question would come off that way.
> 
> Oh, and when I say natural light all I mean is that the picture has some natural light, I don't mean purely natural light. Some people keep posting that you need to use artificial light WITH natural light, this isn't the discussion, the discussion is to be able to replicate the beauty of a picture with some (or all) natural light with using purely artificial light.
> 
> Obviously Nichole Van uses artificial light outdoors sometimes, again, not the discussion. And you can say whatever you like about her skills, doesn't matter to me, but the bottom line is her pictures invoke emotion, they make people go "wow", this is why her business is so successful, people don't book photographers based on technical skills, they book based on the end result, they give you money for the end product, its by far the most important part of a photography business, unless you are absolutely terrible at the other things like customer service, presentation, etc.
Click to expand...

 
I think it's absolutely impossible to fully reproduce natural light with just artificial lighting...impossible. Maybe in a controlled environment like a studio it is...but if you're shooting outdoors in order to produce as much light as the sun using artificial lighting...well man I don't think anyone can realistically do that. You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. So I think the answer to you're question is NO.

My opinion for shooting mostly in natural light is to capture naturally at that time what the story was. It is not to limit myself...I think weather or not the lighting is poor or great it tells the character of what really happened then and there. This is just my preference for shooting this way. 

I think whatever your GF choses it has to be her style of expressing the art since she's the photographer and no one elses. Artifical or natural light or a combination for that matter.


----------



## musicaleCA

Oh man, now I feel like we're all just being trolled. *headdesks*

Light, is light, is light, is light, is light, is, well, light. Yeesh. Every source of light is a tool at one's disposal. This thread is really getting the the point where we're just splitting hairs over semantics.


----------



## KD5NRH

trevorcroft said:


> Is it possible to mimic natural light with man made light?



It depends on how much you're willing to spend: an 864,000 mile wide diffuser is pretty pricey, before you even get the 175x10^15W strobe or the 94.5 million mile high light stand to put them on.  (Don't forget you'll need tilt and height controls from the ground to emulate different seasons and times of day.)

If she has a studio big enough to handle the above, I'd like to borrow it for a couple of model rocket launches.  :greenpbl:


----------



## trevorcroft

camz said:


> trevorcroft said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's absolutely impossible to fully reproduce natural light with just artificial lighting...impossible. Maybe in a controlled environment like a studio it is...but if you're shooting outdoors in order to produce as much light as the sun using artificial lighting...well man I don't think anyone can realistically do that. You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. So I think the answer to you're question is NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most logical answer yet, everyone else was so quick to say it can be reproduced identically, but to be fair I initially did mention a studio.
> 
> camz, so everyone must agree its impossible to reproduce natural light outdoors.
> 
> How about reproducing natural light coming in through a 10'x'15' window into a studio?  If it is possible, how expensive would this be to reproduce identically?  Not only the initial cost of the lighting equipment, but it seems like it would take quite a bit of power to do so??
> 
> 
> 
> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Light, is light, is light, is light, is light, is, well, light. Yeesh. Every source of light is a tool at one's disposal. This thread is really getting the the point where we're just splitting hairs over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as light being light being light, this simply is not true, all light has different properties, look at incandescent vs florescence vs LEDs.  Obviously these lights are all different.
> 
> At first I thought a studio without a window would be more cost effective and not affect the quality of work, now I'm thinking it will affect the quality of work and might not even be cost effective!  This is definitely not semantics.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

I went back an re-read the original post,asking it it was possible to mimic natural light with artificial light,and asking for links to photos to support the idea that artificial light can mimic natural light. All asked by a person who says he's not a photographer, but his girfriend is, and she wishes to be able to create photographs by a certain moderately-talented photographer who relies heavily upon little more than heavy,heavy post-processing and border effects, but who uses electronic flash outdoors...

There is no inherent "beauty" in natural light; much of the time, natural,unmodified light is dull, shadowless, dim, OR it is harsh,highly directional,and quite difficult for subjects to look into. Natural light runs the gamut in color temperature, being almost unusable for human subjects both early and late in the day, except for cliche-like sunrise and sunset photos. Natural light is too dim to work by for many hours of the day; after work photo sessions relying on a northlight studio would be out of the question for six months out of the year in many North American citites.

I've worked in a number of photo studios. Not one has had a window in the camera room area. Not one. They were built ranging from around 1940 to around 1990. With all due respect, among many photography enthusiasts and professional photographers, there's a feeling that those who loudly proclaim themselves "natural light only" photographers are afraid of learning how to use supplementary lighting. I myself would never, ever even consider hiring a 'photographer' that had no studio lighting equipment; being able to light things is a hallmark of a true professional photographer. Today, it has never been easier to locate and buy professional studio flash and light modifiers,and there's plenty of information on how to learn how to light.

In reply to the quote that: "You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. " That apparent strawman scenario omits the obvious answer--if you were relying upon the SUN, from midnight you'd have to wait somewhere between eight and 10 hours before you could make ANY kind of a decent picture to illuminate subject/foreground/background. However, if one had one 2,400 watt-second Speedotron power pack with six flash heads,six light stands, and a few extension cables and a portable sine wave inverter or generator, you could shoot through the night, photographing dozens of poses...the sun is an extremely un-reliable source of illumination...power packs and heads are very dependable and consistent. If you wish to see what studio flash looks like, simply open a high-end furniture catalog,and look at the typical sunlight simulation photographs,complete with warm-toned shafts of "sunlight" entering the room sets,created by studio flash in almost all cases. Overpowering the sun with flash....uh....that's no big thing these days--I can do it with only 400 watt-seconds and a parabolic reflector. Setting up strawmen must be done carefully!

I'm not sure it's fair to ask if artificial light can mimic natural light, since studio lighting is more powerful than natural light, more easily modified, and more versatile. Natural light is actually not all that versatile compared with professional studio lighting and modifiers, and natural light is not available 24/7. So, don't worry about the window in the studio; it could be easily created with a large scrim and two light heads fired through it. Only, with higher power, actual motion-stopping ability ,and more reliable color temperature than skylight/windowlight.


----------



## jcolman

trevorcroft said:


> jcolman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want pics?  Fine.  See if you can tell me which one was created with artificial light and which wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as picking out which uses natural light I'd say the 2nd and 4th use at least some natural light.  1st and 3rd use no natural light.  I'm not overly confident about this but I like this game!
Click to expand...


You're close but you fail.  The first pic uses a combination of natural and strobe light.  There was a small softbox used to accentuate the light.

The second pic is all window light.  (and for the record, the delivered product was finished and retouched)

The third is a combination.  The hair light is strobe.  The key (main) light is natural.

The fourth is all strobe.  No natural light whatsoever.

So the point is, you don't need a studio with "natural light".  While I would love to have a studio with a big north facing window, the first thing I'd do is install some blinds so that I could cut off all natural light.


----------



## jcolman

epatsellis said:


> Jcolman, you could have made it harder, the catchlights give it away.



I should have PS'd the catchlights out but the OP didn't get all of them correct anyway.


----------



## trevorcroft

Derrel said:


> ... she wishes to be able to create photographs by a certain moderately-talented photographer who relies heavily upon little more than heavy,heavy post-processing and border effects, but who uses electronic flash outdoors...



You guys keep saying this stuff, it really doesn't matter to me, bottom line is customers fly to her from around the world for her to take pictures of them, her business is VERY successful.



Derrel said:


> Natural light runs the gamut in color temperature, being almost unusable for human subjects both early and late in the day, except for cliche-like sunrise and sunset photos.



You must not have natural light experience, early and late in the day is the best time for human subjects.



Derrel said:


> I've worked in a number of photo studios. Not one has had a window in the camera room area. Not one.



Were these studios used for taking pictures of people to create works of art?



Derrel said:


> In reply to the quote that: "You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. " That apparent strawman scenario



This isn't a strawman, this is simply a fact, anyway, getting off topic again.

I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.

http://www.martalocklear.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/img_2865web.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3184617481_6bf6e4ca3d.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3747048109_d87c99ac14.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2204088156_26025a9f62.jpg?v=0


----------



## camz

trevorcroft said:


> How about reproducing natural light coming in through a 10'x'15' window into a studio? If it is possible, how expensive would this be to reproduce identically? Not only the initial cost of the lighting equipment, but it seems like it would take quite a bit of power to do so??


 
Producing artificial light equivalent to 10x15 window wouldn't be to hard.  I think you've gotten enough suggestions here to do so to give your GF the idea.



Derrel said:


> there's a feeling that those who loudly proclaim themselves "natural light only" photographers are afraid of learning how to use supplementary lighting


 
hmmmmm funny how all along I thought using natural light was just my style...didn't know I was "afraid" to use supplementary lighting...interesting..


----------



## musicaleCA

trevorcroft said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's absolutely impossible to fully reproduce natural light with just artificial lighting...impossible. Maybe in a controlled environment like a studio it is...but if you're shooting outdoors in order to produce as much light as the sun using artificial lighting...well man I don't think anyone can realistically do that. You can't go outside at midnight and strike a pose in the middle of a empty field and expect to illuminate the subject, the background, foreground with just "purely" man made light completely equivalent to the sun. So I think the answer to you're question is NO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most logical answer yet, everyone else was so quick to say it can be reproduced identically, but to be fair I initially did mention a studio.
> 
> camz, so everyone must agree its impossible to reproduce natural light outdoors.
> 
> How about reproducing natural light coming in through a 10'x'15' window into a studio?  If it is possible, how expensive would this be to reproduce identically?  Not only the initial cost of the lighting equipment, but it seems like it would take quite a bit of power to do so??
Click to expand...


It takes as much power as the flash tube of the strobe you're using on the power setting it's at. As has been said before, set-up a softbox, some tape, and you're golden. You can do it with a simple Speedlite, though for stationary lighting you will get more bang for your buck by dumping the portability.



trevorcroft said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Light, is light, is light, is light, is light, is, well, light. Yeesh. Every source of light is a tool at one's disposal. This thread is really getting the the point where we're just splitting hairs over semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as light being light being light, this simply is not true, all light has different properties, look at incandescent vs florescence vs LEDs.  Obviously these lights are all different.
Click to expand...


Sigh. *headdesks, and I do mean it quite literally* Of course they're different. Duh. If you want to mimick the colour casts of various light sources, you gel your light source. Every photog who uses off-camera lighting and lighting tech knows this. If you want to repoduce the colour of a sunset, you could gel your flash with a CTO and a red. Puke green fluorescent? Gel window green. Sodium vapour? Green and, was it 1/2 CTO? Can't remember that combo as I haven't used it myself. Tungsten? CTO. Dimmed tunsten? Slap on a red, perhaps a 1/2 CTO instead.



trevorcroft said:


> At first I thought a studio without a window would be more cost effective and not affect the quality of work, now I'm thinking it will affect the quality of work and might not even be cost effective!  This is definitely not semantics.



Yes. Yes we are now into the world of splitting hairs and arguing semantics.



trevorcroft said:


> I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.



I'll take that challenge.

#1 Softbox from upper camera left, pointing down, and possibly some fill light from the ceiling. In total, two off-camera lights.

#2 Change the background, ditching the window (unless you want to build a window and frame, put a white background behind it and light that too, but we're just talking about the subject and not splitting hairs, right?). Then light from above, pointing down, through a softbox/umbrella. Looks like there might be some gold fill from the bottom too. Meh, play around and try things out, but that's where I'd start. One, _maybe_ two lights but I highly doubt that's necessary.

#3 Softbox, or an umbrella would do in this case easily. Coming from camera right. This effect can also be achieved with bounce flash if the subject is placed close to a wall. Total of one light.

#4 Snoot aimed at the feet. Probably black to give quick fall-off around the edges. Total of one light.


----------



## Kcc

trevorcroft said:


> I am going to go about this in a different way... I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all.



Arts, what is the definition of arts?  Knowing the subject or not knowing the subject?  Photo capturing it clearly or not clearly reflect to "knowing it or not for the subject".  Different personality will like different aspect of viewing which reflect to the color of light (this thread topic).  Natural light light source is approx. 6500K and as my personal loving, I like the color of 8500K (blueish white).  In a photo, 8000K of light source looks better to me as if it is 6500K...

Expensive to reproduce using artificial light?  Different cost different gears, depending what cost you are looking at and how many hours of photo taking you are looking at per day.  This whole thread is about natural light and flashes, but to conclude it a little, why would you want your GF to use flashes instead of natural light?  Or why would you want to know if flash could do the same as natural light?  Is it because your GF could only take nice photo or in your word "artistic" photo in a certain time of the day which the "certain" time of the day does not give you enough time?  It very depending on what you are looking for to goes with what kind of equipments or "windows"...

Anyways, I am new to strobe; still saving for more flash.  Just a beginner thought to share with, no offence...cheers.

edit: oh, technically...#2 photo are totally over exposed.  To me, I can't see the baby but only the natural window super bright light.  (maybe my screen is too bright?)


----------



## Derrel

Quote:"I will post works of art taken using some or all natural light and I'd like you guys to tell me how difficult / expensive it would be to reproduce the results purely with artificial light, if its even possible at all."

The key here is that I've actually worked as a professional portrait shooter,and as a small-product shooter,and have worked with studio lighting since 1987. NONE of the "art" you show has sophisticated lighting, and all four of those photos could have easily been made with the following equipment. Photo #2 is absolutely amateurishly lighted BTW.

ONE 600 to 800 watt-second power pack and three flash heads, plus a large (48 x72 inch) scrim fitted with a transparent white fabric. Three light stands. The window itself could easily be "faked/re-created" with one light shot through a layer of diffusion material,and the window frames would be purchased at Home Depot for the cost of, well, some window moulding. I used to work at a studio where we had a complete double-door window set that took about three hours to build,and which had been used for 20 years, with new curtains fitted every few years.

The comment "if its even possible at all" to re-create the type of lighting you show in those four shots is telling us that you really do not have the understanding to fathom that the samples you picked are dead-easy,simple natural light photos that could be EASILY re-created with one power pack and a few light heads and some simple tools like a PVC scrim and some light stands,a handful of clamps, fabric, wood paneling. Buying a well-known professional pack-and-head system like Speedotron Brown Line, the _entire_ range of samples you link to could be easily purchased on the used market for about $800,including all light stands.softboxes, umbrellas, reflectors, and loads of ancillary stuff. Seriously. Not one of the four photos you link us to would be difficult to shoot--or to shoot and light significantly better,using studio flash. And, every one of those photos could be shot on-location, or at night, using just one scrim and one softbox and either two or three light units. Adding a fourth light head would improve each of the photos and elevate them to the level of true professional portrait lighting.

The first photo could be done with one light and a softbox or umbrella. The second photo is a terribly lighted, backlighted photo that is very amateurishly executed; bringing in some fill light from the front would have prevented the horrible blown out skin tones. The window has distracting elements in it; it would have looked significantly better if a "fake" window would have been backlighted by two light heads with 100 watt-second each firing toward the camera, and one main light camera left firing at 400 watt-seconds. A cheap Speedotron 604 pack and three cheap M90 light heads, a $400 used outfit, would have lighted all four shots, and done it better with the addition of a 48x72 inch PVC frame (Home Depot, $16) and $12 worth of ripstop nylon from JoeAnne Fabrics.

The girl with the braided hair?  One light head a shot through a 36x48 inch gridded softbox would have lighted that very much identically, but would not have blown out the details on the bustline area of her gown. One light shot through a $28 homemade scrim could have lighted the girl with braided hair.

The man's hand's and the baby's feet? One used 400 watt-second power pack and one $65 light head plus the $28 frame+ fabric scrim--total used cost, today, from eBay $100 for a D400 pack and a $65 light head, plus the $28.


----------



## musicaleCA

Hey cool! I came close to how a pro would do it. Sweet.  :greenpbl:


----------

