# is it better to...



## minniemouse22 (Feb 4, 2013)

I have a mini studio in my home for children and newborns. I'm striving to be a natural light photographer and while I'm using the natural light from the window behind me, I was wondering if I should move my set up and place the window to me left and have a reflector on my right? I just purchased a Neewer 110CM 43" 5-in-1 Collapsible Multi-Disc Light Reflector and I am hoping this will be adequate for this type of shooting? Shadows can be a problem if I have a parent over my shoulder cheering on their toddler but it's not all the time either. I do have a speed light but, correct me if i'm worng, these are not good for continuous shooting? Thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## laynea24 (Feb 4, 2013)

Double post, or am I losing it?


----------



## Designer (Feb 4, 2013)

Minniemouse22; I can't imagine that having the window to one side over the other would make a significant difference.  Good luck on the window light.

Not sure what you mean by "continuous shooting".


----------



## Tee (Feb 4, 2013)

Why don't you arrange the room and try it out?  There's too many variables for us to make a choice for you.  I mean, you have a reflector and camera.  How hard can it be to take 10 minutes and try it another way?


----------



## KmH (Feb 4, 2013)

In the northern hemisphere, north facing windows provide the most consistent light.


----------



## Designer (Feb 5, 2013)

KmH said:


> In the northern hemisphere, north facing windows provide the most consistent light.



I thought there is only one window in her studio and that she is simply moving her camera.  Not sure I understand the question now.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 5, 2013)

Just give up on being a purely natural light thing and learn how to properly use flash. If you're doing it right, no one will know the difference.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 5, 2013)

Village Idiot said:


> Just give up on being a purely natural light thing and learn how to properly use flash. If you're doing it right, no one will know the difference.


^This.

The difference between natural light and artificial light is that with the latter you have total control all the time, every time.  That includes direction, amount, color temperature, softness - everything.  That gives you consistency and complete flexibility, day or night, sunny or overcast, no matter where the window is located in your studio space.

You owe it to yourself and you owe it to your clients to get a complete handle on your light, and you do that by getting away from "natural" light, and creating a "natural" look with light that you have complete control over at all times.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 5, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Just give up on being a purely natural light thing and learn how to properly use flash. If you're doing it right, no one will know the difference.
> ...



^^agree on all of the above. 
couple of speedlights, stands, and diffusers will get  you all the light you will ever need. AND it will get you that light WHERE you need it, and WHEN you need it, regardless of how cloudy it is outside.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 5, 2013)

There is only light, a photon doesn't care where it came from or where it's going.

There are however clouds, the amount of air and it's quality, and night to consider.  Things which can make you a part time photographer.  ;]


----------



## Tee (Feb 5, 2013)

I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".


----------



## KmH (Feb 5, 2013)

The main point for the OP to take away is that using strobed light with a variety of light modifiers allows substantially greater flexibility and control.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 5, 2013)

Tee said:


> I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".


Right.  When we use the terms "natural" and "artificial", we're using shorthand to refer to the way it's generated, not what light is made of.  Is that really not common knowledge?


----------



## gsgary (Feb 5, 2013)

Natural light is **** unless you are outside


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 5, 2013)

KmH said:


> The main point for the OP to take away is that using strobed light with a variety of light modifiers allows substantially greater flexibility and control.



^^^pretty much nails it.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 5, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The main point for the OP to take away is that using strobed light with a variety of light modifiers allows substantially greater flexibility and control.
> ...


I thought it was that the OP should move the window in the room to the North wall...?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 5, 2013)

Buckster said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



nothing to stop the OP from doing both is there?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 5, 2013)

Tee said:


> I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".



Expanding on what Buckster said: Natural light is generally considered light that naturally occurs in nature. Artificial light is generally considered light emitting from man made devices such as light bulbs and flashes. 

Saying that there is only one type of light means that the light that is emitted from the sun is the same particles that are emitted from a flash. Going out side and shooting a portrait during a cloudy day with nothing but the sun as illumination can get you the exact same look as going outside and shooting on a cloudless day with a giant sheet to diffuse the sun or a powerful enough light to overpower the sun slightly and with a giant diffuser like a soft box, sheet, umbrella, etc...

Electing to shoot only with sunlight coming through a window limits your photography to certain times of the day which are shorter certain times of the year which is totally dependent on mother nature to provide you with enough light for a proper exposure or clouds so that not all your lighting is hard. If I wanted to emulate a sunny day or a cloudy day with my lights and modifiers, I can. It's more expensive of course and it takes the commitment to learn what you're doing, but it allows you to deliver a much more consistent product to your clients and doesn't stop you from scheduling do to "inclement weather". Besides, a good photographer can make artificial lighting look so much like natural lighting that it's completely indistinguishable. The only benefit I could see as billing yourself as a natural light photographer is for marketing purposes to clients who generally don't know better.

Can anyone tell which of these three were shot with a flash?

1.






2.





3.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 7, 2013)

Village Idiot said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".
> ...



#3?


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 8, 2013)

Tee said:


> I knew someone was going to bring up the "only one kind of light" comment. C'mon, man. It's easier to distinguish daylight as "natural" versus light coming from an electric/ battery powered device as "artificial".



And it's easier to limit yourself by defining yourself as a "natural" light photographer than to fully embrace the discipline of being a photographer. 

Had you taken the actual point of my post rather than the first sentence we'd be talking about cautioning someone new to this forum against limiting themselves rather than discussing the origin of photons.


----------



## KmH (Feb 8, 2013)

I vote for #1 as having both flash and available used to make the photo. Look how the cup is lit relative to it's shadow.

I prefer the term available light over the term natural light.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 8, 2013)

Every time I hear someone say "I'm a natural light photographer" I bang my head on the desk.  I used to say it too.  Why?  Because I had no idea how to use a flash, didn't have the budget to buy any real lighting, and it (frankly) all scared the crap out of me.  So, like everyone else does I held my head aloft and said "I use only NATURAL light."

It's not a distinguishing point.  It's a crutch.  Trust me.

Having the skill to use natural light is valuable and important.  Having the sense to know how to use "unnatural" lighting properly (including combining it with natural light), is where the real work is done.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 9, 2013)

I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 11, 2013)

#2, au natural! It just happened to be the right time of day in a shed at an old round house the city has been renovating and the sun was falling just right.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 11, 2013)

Lmphotos said:
			
		

> I don't know there is a post now with Ethiopian portraits that used only natural light and it is beautiful! I understand what your saying some use it as a crutch but some really know light well and only use what they have available and they have mastered it wonderfully.



Going to Ethiopia? Going to pack some monolights that are strong enough to overpower African sunlight as well as external power sources? Probably not. 

Shooting outdoors in Africa is quite different than shooting in the states in a home studio. There is absolutely not a reason to limit yourself to available light coming in through a window. That kinda puts a poop blanket on any prospects of doing a shoot on a cloudy day. 

Without accessible, consistent lights indoors, you are at the mercy of the weather. It also will significantly cut down shooting time during the winter. Being a "natural light photographer" is kind of a joke. And by "kind of" I mean I laugh out loud every time I read "I am a natural light photographer."*

*Unless the natural light photographer has some kind of god tier portfolio.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 11, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Joey L shot portraits in Africa and if I'm not mistaken it was with profoto lights and batteries. Elinchrom Quadras are a light portable system that provides up to 400w/s to one light. There are options.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 13, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still disagree with you if you have mastered your craft you have mastered it whether it is strobes or available light. There are famous natural light photographers who given side by side with an advanced flash photographer I would choose the natural light 100% of the time. Maybe it is preference I do not know but I also think they get a bad wrap when in all actuality they are seriously talented.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...


Just looking at the end photos and not knowing who shot them or under what conditions, when advanced flash photographers want a natural light look, they achieve it.  So no, you wouldn't choose the natural light 100% of the time, because you wouldn't even know which is which.

Obtain and read all of Joe McNally's books, and you'll see plenty of examples of this.

This is not to say that photographers who use only natural light cannot get good results.  Obviously, they can, _*IF*_ the available light is available _*AND*_ will work to their advantage.  And that's the crux of the biscuit: They're limited by that available light, time of day, angle associated with their subject(s), atmospheric conditions, etc., etc., etc., whereas a photographer who can use either available light OR flash effectively is not constrained or limited.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 13, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Just looking at the end photos and not knowing who shot them or under what conditions, when advanced flash photographers want a natural light look, they achieve it.  So no, you wouldn't choose the natural light 100% of the time, because you wouldn't even know which is which.
> 
> Obtain and read all of Joe McNally's books, and you'll see plenty of examples of this.
> 
> This is not to say that photographers who use only natural light cannot get good results.  Obviously, they can, IF the available light is available AND will work to their advantage.  And that's the crux of the biscuit: They're limited by that available light, time of day, angle associated with their subject(s), atmospheric conditions, etc., etc., etc., whereas a photographer who can use either available light OR flash effectively is not constrained or limited.



Not to mention most of the great natural light photographers extensively use light modifiers for their work.

Light is light.

Understanding how to use/modify what is available and know when additional lighting is needed is what is most important.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2013)

The difference is... A good photographer knows how to make use of natural light when conditions are just right, AND knows how to use strobed light and modifiers for all other conditions. It isnt about whether or not you CAN get good photos with natural light,  but WHY you limit yourself by not having and learning how to properly use flashes. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 13, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



He said what I was going to.


----------



## gregtallica (Feb 13, 2013)

Sorry, but limiting yourself only to "natural" light sounds like limiting yourself with only the 18-55 kit lens "because it naturally came with the camera."

People have spent a lot of R&R making equipment better to produce better end results. If you have clientel, you would be selling them short by not having all the possibilities on hand.

Example - I would not take my band to record to a guy who only had one mediocre condenser microphone recording reel-to-reel tape. Nope, I'm going to the guy who has protools on his computer and a cabinet full of microphones. Sure they can both get a recording put down (when the gear is working), but one is obviously going to have much, much more control giving me greater end result. You'd be getting robbed going to the other guy.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Still disagree with you if you have mastered your craft you have mastered it whether it is strobes or available light. There are famous natural light photographers who given side by side with an advanced flash photographer I would choose the natural light 100% of the time. Maybe it is preference I do not know but I also think they get a bad wrap when in all actuality they are seriously talented.


How pray tell has someone *mastered* the craft if they ignore half of the craft?  Refusing to learn and use supplemental light is like a mechanic calling himself a master mechanic but using only open-ended wrenches and not sockets because it's somehow "more pure".  Photography is all about the control of light, whether controlled at the camera or controlling the light itself.  Of course a photographer has to know how to work with ambient light, and there are some stunning images created with only ambient light, but there are many, many more stunning images which couldn't have been created at all were it not for the addition of [so-called] artificial light.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Still disagree with you if you have mastered your craft you have mastered it whether it is strobes or available light. There are famous natural light photographers who given side by side with an advanced flash photographer I would choose the natural light 100% of the time. Maybe it is preference I do not know but I also think they get a bad wrap when in all actuality they are seriously talented.
> ...



Think of it as a speciality instead of ignoring. I am a pediatric nurse does that mean I don't know anything about nursing because I choose to do one type? No! I choose to specialize in one area of nursing this doesn't make me any less of a nurse than an ER, OB, NICU nurse but it is my area that interest and excites me. I really believe this can be used in every type of occupation including photography.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...


It's more like choosing to only do nursing during the day time when the sun is shining just right through the windows, because you refuse to turn on the lights, even when it would be much better for your patients.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...



that analogy doesnt work too well if you can do regular nursing as well as pediatric nursing. you have chosen to learn MORE aspects of nursing, not only a part of it.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...


So you do have a thorough understanding of how to use flash?  That's fine; knowing how to use a tool and choosing not to use it is entirely different from choosing not to learn how to use it and then disavowing it from ignorance.  This is somewhat akin to the child who states he does not like <vegetable> but has never actually tried it.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 13, 2013)

I do only choose to do nursing at a certain time.....nights


----------



## manaheim (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:
			
		

> I do only choose to do nursing at a certain time.....nights



You really need to bail out of this.  There are a number of very experienced folks here telling you that you're missing something and you're just digging in.

Natural light is great when it suits your purposes, but it doesn't always. Mastery of a tool includes understanding when NOT to use it.


----------



## Lmphotos (Feb 13, 2013)

I think you missed my previous post as well.....I said there are some people who use natural or available light in extraordinary ways. That's it the entire opinion I have (and stick too) but every time someone comes on here and says I want to use natural light they get sledgehammered by rude comments. There was just a person who came on here and said she uses only natural light and shoots wide open and people just tore into her. (Her work is very popular and profitable where she lives) I see so many people ran off from here bc they are naive but instead of educating them on photography there is a group that is just plain rude.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 13, 2013)

Meh.  It's the internet.  You gotta grow you a carapace.

Plus, frankly, I've not seen anyone on here who is REALLY successful except the occasional person who shows up because they're being bashed by someone here unjustly and they foolishly break rank to come get down and dirty in the clown pit.

If you have ANY idea what any of what I just wrote means, please let me know, because I... for one... am lost.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> I think you missed my previous post as well.....I said there are some people who use natural or available light in extraordinary ways. That's it the entire opinion I have (and stick too) but every time someone comes on here and says I want to use natural light they get sledgehammered by rude comments. There was just a person who came on here and said she uses only natural light and shoots wide open and people just tore into her. (Her work is very popular and profitable where she lives) I see so many people ran off from here bc they are naive but instead of educating them on photography there is a group that is just plain rude.



that is because MOST (meaning:not ALL) of the people that get on here and say they only use natural light, do so because they don't have any lighting equipment, or dont know how to use it effectively. (or at all) a photographer should know how to work under many lighting conditions. including using strobes. what are  you going to tell clients that want pictures taken on a cloudy day? sorry, I only use sunlight so...guess you have to check back with the weatherman for a reschedule. 

OR, you could say...hey, no problem. see all these strobes? they make light. lets get those pictures taken!
too many people use "natural light" as a cop out. NOT as an aesthetic choice. and I think i can safely say that those that do make that choice, ALSO have and properly use flashes when it is needed.  you can only educate people that are willing to learn. that are willing to make changes to improve. When you learn what DSLR stands for and start a photography business within a 6 month period...im sorry, but i really dont have much sympathy when those people dont get catered to here.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 14, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > I think you missed my previous post as well.....I said there are some people who use natural or available light in extraordinary ways. That's it the entire opinion I have (and stick too) but every time someone comes on here and says I want to use natural light they get sledgehammered by rude comments. There was just a person who came on here and said she uses only natural light and shoots wide open and people just tore into her. (Her work is very popular and profitable where she lives) I see so many people ran off from here bc they are naive but instead of educating them on photography there is a group that is just plain rude.
> ...



Another dynamic here is that we have a number of visitors here that for whatever reason have decided to charge for their photography while having little experience.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing but if they come here asking for help why would any here refrain from giving them their full measure of advise?

There seems to be some romantic notion that natural light photography has the purity of some bygone era.  The fact is that bygone era had bad sanitation, dangerous working conditions and practically nonexistent health care.  There was also massive amounts of Bad photography it's just that enough time has passed that most of the bad has been thrown away so that what is left is mostly fair to great.

So, unless someone just wants to feel the experience of historical photography -a fun thing if you've never tried it- pointing out that what they are trying to accomplish is fair to great work is the required response.

If there is anything that really connects today's photographer to yesteryear's it's that we use every bit of available technology that we can beg, borrow or steal to achieve the final results we want.


----------

