# would this be classed as natural light



## leala (Apr 18, 2013)

it was taken inside with light coming in window and i also used flash


----------



## Sweetneers (Apr 18, 2013)

leala said:


> it was taken inside with light coming in window and i also used flash



No. Flash is artificial light.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes... Oh wait, no.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 18, 2013)

Leala, what do you find confusing about the term 'natural'? Sunlight, firelight, moonlight, light given off by other mechanical forms NOT triggered by the photographer such as city lights, glow of a nearby steel mill although some might argue that is ambient lighting, not natural.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

Some would say that all light is natural.

Light is light.  What is "artificial light"?  

This would be a mix of ambient and strobe.  "Available" (I would use 'ambient') light would be a more appropriate description than "natural" light.

edit
It may seem petty, but I believe that the meaning of words actually matters...


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 18, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> firelight



That depends. Was the fire started naturally or is it a naturally or ruling forest fire started by lightning.


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 18, 2013)

ridiculous.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

Lightning is a natural phenomenon too, lol.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 18, 2013)

and a flash of lightning is also a natural source....so a flash is natural lighting!


----------



## leala (Apr 18, 2013)

sorry i put up wrong question i meant where on the Vanity Index would this photo be seems its only flash that's used?????


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

leala said:


> sorry i put up wrong question i meant where on the Vanity Index would this photo be seems its only flash that's used?????



I think you probably misunderstood literally every post in this thread.

Nobody is saying that they only use flash.

The "Vanity Index"?  LOL.  We're vain for saying that flash is not supernatural or something?


edit
I am not entirely sure that I am interpreting your post the way you intended, due to the lack of punctuation...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Leala, what do you find confusing about the term 'natural'? Sunlight, firelight, moonlight, light given off by other mechanical forms NOT triggered by the photographer such as city lights, glow of a nearby steel mill although some might argue that is ambient lighting, not natural.



Yes, this is the way the term "natural light" has been understood for literally decades. Artificial light is light that is created by mankind, and includes things like electronic flash, incandescent light, fluorescent lighting, LED panel lighting, carbon-arc lighting, and so on. The asinine among us love semantic games filled with ridiculous statements like, "all photos are natural". Ummm...sorry, but no...there is natural light, and there is artificial light.

As for the baby photo; a good way to classify that is flash + daylight. In fact, that's a pretty old term: "flash plus daylight", or "daylight plus flash" both having become common by the 1930's, after the roughly 1928 invention of the flashbulb. The flashbulb was, by the way, the first easily-used and relatively safe form of portable artificial light, but by no means the first type of artificial light ever used. (Electric arc had been used in the mid-19th century for stop-motion imaging). The flashbulb did away with the earlier magnesium powder and flash pans, and it was only about another decade before Speedotron in the USA introduced the first "modern" type of electronic flash for studio lighting, using capacitors to hold an electric charge, and then quickly passing that stored electric current through a sealed glass tube filled with gas, producing a bunch of excited electrons which made a nifty, controlled, repeatable flash.

One of the things that differentiates (most) artificial lighting from natural lighting is the use of* ELECTRIC CURRENT* to create artificial light. Artificial light is, for the most part, created using stored electricity, or electricity that is generated...by human-made machines or devices.


----------



## leala (Apr 18, 2013)

The "Vanity Index"?  LOL.  We're vain for saying that flash is not supernatural or something?  are you always so rude 
*O|||||||O* 
  The vanity Index is something we are covering in the course i am doing its a table based on the lighting that is used


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

If you thought that was rude, then yes, I am always that rude.

I am not taking the course you are taking, so you'll have to forgive me for not automatically knowing what the vanity index was...  (I still don't know what it is...)


----------



## Rick50 (Apr 18, 2013)

Oh, WTF, Light is light! Vanity is vanity!  I'm lost!


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 18, 2013)

I haven't heard that term used in photography either...I musta missed school that day? .


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2013)

"If a bolt of lightning hits the ground in the forest, but nobody is there using that lighting as light to take a picture, then is that lightning "light"? "


----------



## Qveon (Apr 19, 2013)

Hey guys what's going on in this thread?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 19, 2013)

"Vanity Index" is a new one for me, at least as applied to photography.  So I went to the customized-ad-spewing tool called Google, and found two references (http://www.flickr.com/groups/1050811@N22/discuss/72157617602592581/), and (The Photography Institute - Course Outline. 12 Modules and 12 corresponding interactive assignments to complete.), both of which have "vanity index" for module 6.  The first is a discussion by course members, and latter is a course outline.  I haven't yet found any reference outside of the "Photographic Institute" that mentions this term, so perhaps this is something that the course instructor came up with.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 19, 2013)

The hell is the vanity index?


----------



## sm4him (Apr 19, 2013)

:raisedbrow:

:scratch:

:shock:

Thank you. This thread has provided a very useful service for me. It has reminded me that I really shouldn't get on TPF before I've had an adequate amount of coffee in this morning.  

Though to be fair, I doubt there is enough caffeine in the world to help me make sense of this.

OP: What in the name of Hec the Pup is the "Vanity Index?" Because I seriously assumed it was some kind of sliding scale to indicate how egotistical a person is, and I couldn't figure out what that had to do with lighting...

As an aside: Might be fun, and incredibly insulting, to start giving TPFers a score on the Vanity Index based on their comments in threads. :lmao:


----------



## snowbear (Apr 19, 2013)

I have a bathroom vanity.  It has a naturally artificial light.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 19, 2013)

Ah.  Mine has artificial "natural" light.  Supposed to match the solar spectrum.  Need to get hold of a spectrometer to verify.  

As for "natural light", I'm also kinda confused.  Direct mid-day sun is natural light?  How about the setting sun?  How about mid-day sun filtered by heavy overcast?  How about the light source being the open blue sky?  How about on the floor of a leafy forest?  How about the window light which allows reflected light from nearby highrise buildings?  How about light filtering through dusty windows in an abandoned warehouse?  How about moon-light?  Gakkk!  That's a lotta variation on the theme.


----------



## runnah (Apr 19, 2013)

I only shoot using supernatural light.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> I only shoot using supernatural light.



booo...

That was well below your usual standards, my friend.  You're slipping.


----------



## YvetteC (Apr 19, 2013)

What if the electricity is generated by a natural resource such as solar or hydro power?


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2013)

leala said:


> The vanity Index is something we are covering in the course i am doing its a table based on the lighting that is used



Please explain what "the vanity index" is.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> I only shoot using supernatural light.



Naturally.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2013)

leala said:


> it was taken inside with light coming in window and i also used flash



I can see the effects of an on-camera flash being used here, but I don't see much effect from the window light.


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 19, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Leala, what do you find confusing about the term 'natural'? Sunlight, firelight, moonlight, light given off by other mechanical forms NOT triggered by the photographer such as city lights, glow of a nearby steel mill although some might argue that is ambient lighting, not natural.



Just because I think this needs to be repeated.


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 19, 2013)

Wonder if this is related to OP's class: Flickr: Discussing Module 6 in Photography Institute Course

I still can't figure out what the VI is, even after google.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2013)

jowensphoto said:


> Wonder if this is related to OP's class: Flickr: Discussing Module 6 in Photography Institute Course
> 
> I still can't figure out what the VI is, even after google.



I found the same results, which did not seem to lead to any definition.  

I think we read something similar a couple of months ago where a teacher said to go out and make some "creatives", leaving the definition in class, and for us to wonder about.


----------



## runnah (Apr 19, 2013)

manaheim said:


> booo...



Shush you face!


----------



## MitchStrp (Apr 19, 2013)

Well that is one new member who wont be returning.. :lmao: and to think, I thought we greeted her with such open arms ;-)


----------



## Overread (Apr 19, 2013)

1) Stop with the silly remarks and in-jokes. If you want to joke around in a thread with friends then please head down to Off Topic and make a thread for it. New member threads shouldn't be used for humour value (indeed jokes at new members can often come off as insulting to those new members who've yet to get into the swing of the forum)

2) Please leave people a chance to reply before deciding that they are "not coming back" for them. Not everyone sits on the forum all day and many people only have a few time slots to get in to reply. Do show them proper respect and a chance to reply to clarify their position or answer questions that are raised in the discussion. 


As for the Vanity Index I must admit that this is also my first time of hearing it as well, I'm afraid that the OP (original poster) will have to clarify further on this index. A reference to it such as a book or photographer who advocates it or even source material links to it would help a lot as it appears to be something that could be unique to a specific course and used as a teaching aid that the instructor has come up with (and is not a common index used in the industry at large).


----------



## runnah (Apr 19, 2013)

Overread said:


> 1) Stop with the silly remarks and in-jokes.



I might as well close my account.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Stop with the silly remarks and in-jokes.
> ...



Nah. Fortunately, he doesn't MEAN we can't continue our silly remarks and in-jokes (and, I presume, snarkiness and incredibly clever sarcasm fall under the same indictment...)...just that we need to be on our BEST behavior (granted, runnah, for you that might mean just keeping quiet... :lmao: ) when commenting in new member's threads. You know, we should welcome them with open arms and gracious attitudes...lull them into a false sense of security and delude them into thinking they've found a wonderful, safe photography refuge...THEN we can pounce on them, like a hawk on a rat. :lmao:

I'm sorry Overread, I couldn't resist. I'm not making fun of the call to quit with the remarks in this thread, I'm just making fun of...well, of US, I guess. 

OP: In case you come back and read through all the muck and mire, I hope you see a sense of humor in what most of us have said, and not a personal attack. We're just an odd lot, and when one of us posts a humorous or sarcastic response to a thread, we do all tend to "pile on" a bit from time to time. The point here is--we don't know what you mean by Vanity Index, so if you could be so kind as to give us a bit more information, perhaps we could be a lot more helpful, and even possibly a teeny bit less sarcastic.


----------



## Rick50 (Apr 19, 2013)

I think I found the missing reference for this thread.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 19, 2013)

60 seconds of skimming through this thread


http://images.cryhavok.org/d/13825-2/Wat.jpg


----------



## skieur (Apr 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Stop with the silly remarks and in-jokes.
> ...



Perish the thought!  I would miss your humour.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

Rick50 said:


> Oh, WTF, Light is light! Vanity is vanity!  I'm lost!



Rick, you are saucy tonight.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 20, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> The hell is the vanity index?


I have never heard of it either.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 20, 2013)

Well, it's either the number of pictures of themselves that someone has (the politician vanity index), or it's the number of times the person refers to themselves in the third person (the sports jock vanity index)...  But that doesn't work as a photographic principle.


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

Well all I know is that I am used as a unit of measure on the vanity scale.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 20, 2013)

I'm still trying to figure it out too.  Judging by the context the OP used it in, I think it must have something to do with lighting.

So, which kind of lighting is the most vain?  And which would be the most humble?  And how do you rank everything in between?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 20, 2013)

Perhaps we're overthinking this.  Perhaps this is a measure of how much the light looks like that of a "Vanity Light" which usually surrounds a mirror and lets people have a very even light for applying their makeup...


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 20, 2013)

So, a ringlight would be like a 10 on the Vanity Index?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 20, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> So, a ringlight would be like a 10 on the Vanity Index?



Yes, IF that is what the original reference was refering to.  Might be a new way to sell photographic gear.  "Oh, megapixels are SO last year.  This lens has a vanity index of 10.5 and beats out all the other pretenders who can only muster up a VI of 8.2."  Hmmm.  Has possibilities.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Perhaps we're overthinking this.  Perhaps this is a measure of how much the light looks like that of a "Vanity Light" which usually surrounds a mirror and lets people have a very even light for applying their makeup...



You know, I think this is the only thing that would actually make any sense...

I hope the OP comes back to clarify this whole thing.  I really didn't think I was being rude, but I guess it may have seemed that way.  Anyway, it seems clear that pretty much nobody is familiar with this term, so at this point I really want to know what it is all about, lol.

Whatever it is, it seems like it has something to do with the lighting, and if that is the case - what you laid out makes the most sense.


----------



## sleist (Apr 21, 2013)

I found this quote from someone who was taking the course 2 years ago.  It appears to be a completely made up term.



> I have to agree with what a lot of people have been saying about the  'Vanity Index' here, and after really enjoying the course so far,  assignments 5 & 6 are leaving me with a feeling some of these  modules were rushed.
> To quote from the text in the Vanity Index section, 'Don't take this too  seriously as I only just this minute made it up. There is, as far as I  know, no such index...'
> So basically, it isn't a tried and tested photographic practice, but  something he cobbled together for the module? There is getting to be a  real feel of laziness about this course.
> And as a primarily portrait photographer, I have to question some parts  of the 'index'. Have any of you portrait photographers out there ever  used 4 flash heads directly on the sitter, and had to add a plethora of  reflectors?  We haven't even started to light the background! And all  this because the sitter is self-concious to level 5? And we have to work  out the sitters level based on the course guidelines of, and pardon the  paraphrasing,  'confident' to 'neurotic'? In 6 easy steps? I'm sorry,  but it is utter nonsense, and our assignment seems to be based not on  tried and trusted practices when photographing people, but something the  author 'just made up'.


----------



## leala (Apr 23, 2013)

i don't scare easy. and i now get that you's are all just taking the mickey out of me. Anyway after talking to people doing the same course its made up to act as a guide for you to decide on the type of lighting to use if the sitter is calling the shots.


The index runs from zero to five, with zero representing someone who has complete confidence with their looks and will accept any lighting treatment, to level five where they are on tablets to calm their nerves because they thought that they saw a wrinkle the other day.
Below is a lighting guide to help you to determine the appropriate lighting on the subject for each level. This assumes that you are trying to please them and not yourself, or others. We are talking about flattery here!

VANITY INDEX
LIGHTING CRITERIA

5
* Use softboxes or umbrellas, one on either side of the lens and one above it (at equal power) as close to the lens as possible.
* Place large reflectors on either side of sitter, just out of the shot.
* Place a medium size reflector beneath sitter, just out of shot to fill shadows from beneath.
* Bounce light off the ceiling to light the hair or use an additional softbox on a boom over the sitter.
* Keep your lights above the sitter&#8217;s eye level to avoid up-lighting (causes strange and unnatural facial shadows particularly below the eyes and above the nose).
* Possible backlight as well to give the hair a glowing look (not really recommended).

4
* Same as in Vanity Index 5 but exclude the box or umbrella above the lens as well as the large reflectors on the side. Definitely remove the backlight.


3
* Same as in Vanity Index 4 but allow one of the front lights to be one stop greater than the other. This will give the face a slight amount of modelling with quite good filling of shadows.
* Lights can be moved away from the lens a bit, but not more than one meter. They can also be raised slightly.
* Retain the ceiling bounce only to light the hair.


2
* Light the face with one umbrella only, a bit to the side and above the lens, or bounce a light off one of the near sidewalls or a large flat at a height that is slightly higher than the sitters face.
* Remove the polyboard from beneath the sitter.
* Fill the unlit side of the sitter with a medium sized reflector just out of shot.
* The ceiling light is now optional.


1
* Light with one soft light or bounced light only at an angle of up to 45&#61616; without filling the opposite side.
* The ceiling light is optional and if used should only give shape of the head against the background if needed.

0
* Light with bare spotlight or small softbox at an angle to the sitter and at a further distance away.
* Experiment with your own methods. I suggest avoiding theatrics, but to each his own.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 23, 2013)

Interesting, thanks for explaining.  I think it really is pretty much what pgriz said.  The more similar to the lighting on a vanity, the higher the score.


----------



## Overread (Apr 23, 2013)

It seems like an odd index to use though. 

On the one hand it means that you'll have a wide variety in the finished product that out output, and no matter how "confident" your client is they'll generally expect a product that is in-line with what they saw in your portfolio (and if they were more serious a client than a simple sit and shoot affair then chances are they've already had a discussion with you on the look of the photo).

If this is just for sit and shoot affairs it seems complex to be changing your lighting arrangement so heavily inbetween shoots where the clients are just after a faster shot or just a "standard" from your advertised (again we are back to the variety in product).

The other factor is that it relies on you to work out what kind of client you have, now whilst this is always going to be a part of serving a clients needs it seems odd that you'd define the type of photo you take based upon an estimated degree of self confidence on the part of the client. 



In the end it just seems odd, something that in the wider scope of things that doesn't seem to be much in practice nor much use. Experienced shooters with years on the clock might be able to use a similar method to classify how they work with certain clients, but I'd wager they'd avoid the extremes (esp the lower end lighting wise). They'd also have experience to help them, which is something you can't teach; and I'd suspect that they'd never formally or strictly use a guide like this (it would be more going with their "gut" or experienced feeling rather than following strict rules - which would likely be very complex to put onto paper)


----------



## pgriz (Apr 23, 2013)

Leala, thanks for the information.  It is definitely something that is not the usual practice among portrait photographers, so perhaps the author had an idea in mind and needed some kind of label for it.  The idea of varying the lighting according to the degree of comfort of the sitter, is as Overread noted, somewhat strange.  I would have expected the lighting to be independent of the sitter's mood or comfort level, and related to the photographic objective.  I am sure that there are techniques for reducing a sitter's stress level, but I don't think they involve moving lighting equipment around.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 23, 2013)

I think the idea is that 'confident, sure' people won't be so preoccupied with how flattering the light is, where more self-conscience people will want the most flattering light possible.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2013)

Good post leala!!! You came back with guns blazing!!! "Loaded for bear," as we say here in the American west. Thumb up!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 24, 2013)

Thanks for explaining what the term means, but I'd think instead of the photographer trying to determine how much lighting the subject might want/need to have used to hide imperfections etc., wouldn't it make more sense for a photographer to determine what looks best and what's needed to create that look? (Unless I misread the explanation which is possible, it seems rather complicated for what it is.) 

What I'd be thinking about more in the photo is the strip of lighter background that's behind the subject's head as it seems distracting; it might have worked better to change your vantage point so that was out of the picture. I think it's a nice photo of the little guy himself smiling at you, it just could use a more even background. The vanity index being apparently something the instructor developed is hard to gauge; maybe with having used minimal light beyond the existing light, would it put it at 0-1?? This subject obviously wouldn't be worrying yet about his wrinkles!


----------



## Pallycow (Apr 24, 2013)

I wanted to read it all, but I ultimately had to skim. 

wether this is relevant or not, I don't really care. 

however, I am tired of people trying to "classify" what kind of light they are using.  as if it makes them better or something.  It's F'ing stupid.

Image A was "natural light" tell me now, what dost though thinkest?

I think you're a moron.

I especially think it's dumb to title a thread or photo "x or z in natural light"  when you obviously used flash.  I don't even wanna get into what is natural and not.  Headache.  but for sake of argument, that is like saying "how do you like my INK drawing" when you used pencil.

You make yourself look stupid.  Very stupid.

If your goal is to learn, start by learning to preface your questions with what you are undertaking and why you want to know.  That way if you ask and it sounds silly, someone will try to clarify to help you.  Instead of trying to cover a dumb ass post with something later after the fact.

If anyone cares...my opinion....you have ambient light (any light that is not strobed triggered by you or your assistant), and you have strobe.  That's it.  Stop trying to label chit.  It's annoying.  Labeling something does not make you instantly accepted...in my book...it makes you instantly ignored.

/rant


This was not directed at OP, just felt the need to rant.  It is directed at anyone who fits the description.  If it offends...then you are most likely the ones needing a lesson or two.  Oh well...free will and all.......


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 24, 2013)

I'm so vain, I think I thought this thread was about me.





sorry...and now I'm gonna have that damn song stuck in my head, all for the price of some silly net humor.


----------

