# What are your thoughts on natural light photographers



## blackrose89 (Feb 2, 2012)

Seems to be people feel strongly one way or the other. Your thoughts?


----------



## Overread (Feb 2, 2012)

In what context do you mean? I'm sure I can guess, but I'd prefer clarity over guesswork - esp since anyone workout outside of a studio controlled environment has to work either with or against natural light. 

Also are you considering natural light as sunlight only or as light from any ambient source not under the photographers direction?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Let me quote a pro locally here when I asked about folks bragging about being natural light photographers only: "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and off camera lighting allows us to better control it"

I wanted to argue but.....  I'm just a nooB student and I prefer real lighting too over reflectors and trying to catch the right time of day of window over controlling light plus the studio would be dark heh


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 2, 2012)

I am all about natural light, but I know I can only take it so far so I do use flash also.


----------



## Rephargotohp (Feb 2, 2012)

I use Super-Natural light


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and of camera lighting allows us to better control it"



^This. I'm certainly someone who doesn't understand it yet, but I'm working on that.


----------



## Rephargotohp (Feb 2, 2012)

The assumption that if you use Strobes/flash makes you superior is false. Greatness comes from doing great things and the fact is it is harder to be a great Natural light photographer than it is to be a great flash photographer because you have less control. After all, Walmart photographers are not natural light photographers are they?

Natural light is harder because.
a. Great Light is not always there
b.some(most) people just don't know how to see great light (of any variety)

If you have never driven down the road and said "Wow, look at that light" or awaken early in the morning and there is this beautiful light on your kitchen table..and you noticed it...it's all over. That's what it is all about

It's all about intent, Sometimes I shoot all natural, sometimes all strobe, sometimes a combination. I use what I need. If you don't do any of the above becauae you prefer not to, that's good. If you don't because you just don't know or don't want to learn, that's another. But also what do you need to do what you do


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 2, 2012)

Overread said:


> In what context do you mean? I'm sure I can guess, but I'd prefer clarity over guesswork - esp since anyone workout outside of a studio controlled environment has to work either with or against natural light. Also are you considering natural light as sunlight only or as light from any ambient source not under the photographers direction?


Just a general question. Are there any circumstances in your (or anyone's) opinion where using only natural/available light is acceptable?

I've seen a lot of negativity towards those who consider themselves natural light photographers. Wondered of anyone here wasn't opposed to it.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> ....... "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and off camera lighting allows us to better control it"
> .........



I wanna see this person photograph something like, oh, say....... the Grand Canyon.  Or the Andes.  Or..... the Moon.


----------



## Rephargotohp (Feb 2, 2012)

Even on the context of a portrait shooter, I would agree, it's a good thing to know how to use flash because your clients are not always avaialbe a t a time when light is beautiful or wether conditions great. But just because you read the strobist 12 times and have figured out how to get it fire but your ratios to ambient suck butt does not make you better than someone that shoots all natural light and truly undertsnads how to see and capture beautiful light. Great work done great is the key,not the methods


----------



## JG_Coleman (Feb 2, 2012)

Landscape photographers oftentimes have no choice but to use "natural light".  There are, of course, circumstances where reflectors and/or flashes could be used to illuminate foreground objects.  By and large though, landscape photographers are at the mercy of natural light and the way it affects large scenes.

I suppose that, in a sense, using filters like a polarizer or a Grad ND could be loosely characterized as "controlling light" rather than "using natural light"... but I think that's sort of stretch.  I use both of these filters routinely, but if asked, I would say that I "use natural light" in the vast majority of my shots.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 2, 2012)

On one side, I think that this is just another way for the 'old men' establishment of professional photographers to discredit new startups who, while perhaps do not have the experience or income to afford a studio, do still produce quality work and  choose to focus on what they see as a marketable benefit - a specialty in natural lighting whereas many of these established photographers rely heavily on at least some artificial light.

I think that the establishment needs to get with it and if this is a product customers want, specifically offering a natural light option should be offered.

On the other hand, I know enough about photography to realize that "natural light" may not always mean " good light" and obtaining a quality product goes beyond that which myself or the photographer will be able to control ... like clouds. I think any natural light only photographer would be self limited to either narrow DOF or high ISO, even in situations where it isn't appropriate.

Still, in a world that relies heavily on artificial light, I certainly understand why some startups might see their forced experience with natural light as a benefit, and if the marketing works then everyone ought to pay attention.


----------



## Overread (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I've seen a lot of negativity towards those who consider themselves natural light photographers. Wondered of anyone here wasn't opposed to it.



It's important to understand that a lot of the negativity toward "natural light photographers" isn't necessarily the method that they are using (ie working with natural light) but that many today who make that claim are very inexperienced and uneducated photographers. As a result they get heavy flack for their choice of method mostly because its seen that they use it as a marketing tool to try and cover up the fact that they don't understand lighting in itself.


In general a lot of this also depends upon what field of photography you are working in - a landscape photographer, for example, is most often only going to be working with the natural lighting present in the scene, since trying to directly or indirectly control that light over the whole of the scene is very hard to impossible for them. That said there are those who do use lighting, such as flash, to light up foreground elements within the range of their lighting gear. 
Meanwhile if you're a portrait shooter you've far more scope and capacity to affect and control the light you work with. This can be as simple as reflectors, excluder and diffusers (still only working with the ambient lighting) or you can jump for flash and add your own lighting to the scene).


My view is that firstly light is light - be it "natural" or flash based you've got to learn how to control and use it to the best of ability. If you're a working pro working on the clock you've got even more reason to be able to control that light so that you can, in any given situation, get the shots that your client is paying for.
Secondly one can't just be a natural light photographer without first learning how to control flash and control it properly. The choice must come from a background of understanding not ignorance - otherwise you're just fooling not only others but also yourself.



EDIT - PS - most of the time the "natural light photographer" comment comes up its only dealing with portrait and wedding photographers. Landscape, sports, nature, journalists etc... generally in those fields the specific topic never arises.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ....... "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and off camera lighting allows us to better control it"
> ...



Yeah I don't think he walk talking about "don't use natural light", but was talking about folks that don't know anything about it and claim to be photographers.  Such as the FB photographers that brag they are natural light photographers and have a bunch of bland pics for display that are bland.

These people say "natural light" like its orange juice, the "natural" label assumes its better.  FB and Bestbuy photogs FTW


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

The light that comes from a Zenon flash tube is made of exactly the same stuff that light from the Sun is made of - photons. All photographs are made using natural light.

Many use the term 'natural light' as a marketing term, not as a technical term. Many use the term in a marketing context to mask the fact they don't know how to do photographic lighting (fauxtographers?).

I used what ever light source(s), and light modifiers I had available to me that gave me the result I needed/wanted. But in all honesty that very, rarely included only what sunlight happened to be available.

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of light sources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Natural" light - Gag Me With A Spoon. :er:


----------



## Rephargotohp (Feb 2, 2012)

Sigh


----------



## Dao (Feb 2, 2012)

The main questions is, why limit ourselves?

But maybe the terms "Natural" sounds better than "Artifical". LOL  You know, 100% PURE NATURAL orange juice sounds better than 100% ARTIFICAL orange juice!


----------



## Tee (Feb 2, 2012)

It's about knowing when a particular lighting method is appropriate. I don't think there is anyone on here that will argue that. Natural light is awesome when conditions permit and strobes are awesome as well. Sometimes ya gotta mix the two. 

The snark and chuckles begin when the cliche Facebook photographer opens shop and rather than admit they don't know Jack Schitt about when to use an appropriate light source, they call themselves a natural light photographer. This somehow generates oohs and ahhs from their friends.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Marketing indeed, around Tampa these advertised "Natural Light Photographers" will show up with their bestbuy DSL all day, and if you get a good one they might even have one of those small round collapsible reflectors heh


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 2, 2012)

I admit that I know squat all about using artificially created light - and I don't care a super great deal only because I am prejudiced about the impact that having lights etc makes on the subject.

I try very hard to capture a picture where the person is somehow connected with me and I have the feeling that rolling in lights, etc, hurts that connection.   To me, most studio pictures, no matter how good, look like they're taken in a studio and are quasi-artificial.

Perhaps if I were better or had more experience, etc. I wouldn't feel that way but I don't want to invest time and money in trying to master a technique that gives me results I don't want.

All that being said, I do use reflectors on occasion.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 2, 2012)

A good photographer should be able to shoot natural light and flash, what if you get to a shoot and there is no natural light or they want the shoot inside


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I admit that I know squat all about using artificially created light - and I don't care a super great deal only because I am prejudiced about the impact that having lights etc makes on the subject.
> 
> I try very hard to capture a picture where the person is somehow connected with me and I have the feeling that rolling in lights, etc, hurts that connection.   To me, most studio pictures, no matter how good, look like they're taken in a studio and are quasi-artificial.
> 
> ...



Yeah but you don't fit the bill of the self-proclaimed "natural light photographers" around here I'm referring to, that has that marketing plastered on their FB page and business cards =)


----------



## gsgary (Feb 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I admit that I know squat all about using artificially created light - and I don't care a super great deal only because I am prejudiced about the impact that having lights etc makes on the subject.
> 
> I try very hard to capture a picture where the person is somehow connected with me and I have the feeling that rolling in lights, etc, hurts that connection.   To me, most studio pictures, no matter how good, look like they're taken in a studio and are quasi-artificial.
> 
> ...




One of the wife, flash or no flash ?


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I admit that I know squat all about using artificially created light - and I don't care a super great deal only because I am prejudiced about the impact that having lights etc makes on the subject.
> 
> I try very hard to capture a picture where the person is somehow connected with me and I have the feeling that rolling in lights, etc, hurts that connection.   To me, most studio pictures, no matter how good, look like they're taken in a studio and are quasi-artificial.
> 
> ...


For me photography was a business, not a religion. I was mostly interested in a connection to their wallet.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > In what context do you mean? I'm sure I can guess, but I'd prefer clarity over guesswork - esp since anyone workout outside of a studio controlled environment has to work either with or against natural light. Also are you considering natural light as sunlight only or as light from any ambient source not under the photographers direction?
> ...



Yes, natural light can work fantastically well if you understand the light you are seeing in front of you! You don't need flash or lighting as a necessity, but it is a fact that when lighting conditions are not so good then flash, reflectors and external lighting can become your best friend. As with most things in life, there is no strict rule to using flash or not using flash in my opinion. It is about using skill to judge the light you have at your disposal.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

A friend and I were riding down the road and I wanted a quick shot with some junk gear I keep in the car.

And see, I screwed up and didn't have a natural light photographer with me. d*mn trains =)


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ....... "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and off camera lighting allows us to better control it"
> ...



Uh, I think he's referring to natural light portraiture.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



I think you're right. And portraiture is exactly what the ones around here boast "natural light photographers" is all about


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 2, 2012)

Flash or no flash?  Which which?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

bump~


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 2, 2012)

Of course, this brings out everyone who wants to show how un-studio their flash images are.

OK for them.
I'd rather try to get something decent, knowing what I know now and not carry any more stuff, or pose people - just pressing the button.
I don't want to be the consummate pro, getting the shot because I know everything.
I want to putz along doing things they way I want to - like people who use film, do gelatin prints, etc.
I'm totally happy in my semi-Luddite-ism.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

Most of the "natural light" photographers I know.. don't know how to use flash worth a darn, so they prefer to shoot natural light. And since most them don't even know how to shoot natural light very well.. I would call them amateurs even though they call themselves PRO's. 

Natural light can be difficult to work with most of the day.. harsh light, harsh shadows, etc. There are only a couple hours per day when the light is friendly to a "natural light photographer".. the rest of the time, either one doesn't shoot, one modifies that "natural light" (is it still natural at this point?) or one adds to the light using flash / strobe.

I agree that many of those that use this as a marketing tool.. don't know any other way to shoot! God help these people if the light isn't perfect.. or if the light isn't there!

My definition of a PRO level photographer is one that can get good, well exposed, natural looking shots... no matter what the conditions (day, night, cloudy, bright, harsh, soft, etc... WHATEVER). Of course, some subject are only going to be shot with "natural light" by their very nature.. Landscapes for instance. Often the optimal choice for a lot of subjects, is a mixture of modified natural light combined with flash to fill.

If someone states they do portraiture "Only by natural light" I am going to be skeptical of their skills, until I see their work.. because they probably fall into that class of photographers we classify as "Craigslist or FB Photographers". And limiting oneself to only the few "nice" daylight hours to shoot in.. is BS.. and no way to make a living.

It is usually a Bullsh1t Amatuer term...... Natural light photographer.. WHATEVER!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Most of the "natural light" photographers I know.. don't know how to use flash worth a darn, so they prefer to shoot natural light. And since most them don't even know how to shoot natural light very well.. I would call them amateurs even though they call themselves PRO's.
> 
> Natural light can be difficult to work with most of the day.. harsh light, harsh shadows, etc. There are only a couple hours per day when the light is friendly to a "natural light photographer".. the rest of the time, either one doesn't shoot, one modifies that "natural light" (is it still natural at this point?) or one adds to the light using flash / strobe.
> 
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^^   Indeed  =)


----------



## jake337 (Feb 2, 2012)

There is absolutely no difference between natural light photographers and strobe photographers.



It is all light.



Either one understands photographic lighting or does not understand it, period.


----------



## MrsLittle (Feb 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Flash or no flash?  Which which?




Niiice! Were these all Natural? I love the parking garage photo, the light above is perfect.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 2, 2012)

Thank-you Keith!


----------



## LuckySe7en (Feb 2, 2012)

Well I only use natural light because I can't afford strobes yet.  But if I could, I would go flash all the way.  There are times when natural light looks good but it's not always available


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

jake337 said:


> There is absolutely no difference between natural light photographers and strobe photographers.
> 
> It is all light.
> 
> Either one understands photographic lighting or does not understand it, period.



I agree.. but would you agree that the majority of those who advertise themselves as "natural light photographers" don't appear to understand Photographic Lighting? And usually turn out questionable work, for supposed professionals?


----------



## vtf (Feb 2, 2012)

A truly gifted photographer will make any lighting appear natural.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 2, 2012)

Photographic lighting should be like a woman's make-up.  Hours of preparation go into a project which, in the end, will make it look like nothing at all was done.  It matters not a whit what your light source is:  Sun strobe, speedlight, or flashlight, you have to know how to control and shape it to acheive the desired result. 

I continue to be baffled by those think that "natural" [i.e. sunlight] is easier to use than strobes/speedlights.  Every one of my studio lights has controls which allow me to set the amount of light output.  They're fitted with movable stands which allow me to position them exactly where I want them, and modifiers to shape and "modify" the light as I need.  No matter how hard I look, I can't find an output control for the sun, nor the lightstand upon which it is mounted so I can move it to a new location.  Hmmm... which is easier to use?


----------



## jake337 (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely no difference between natural light photographers and strobe photographers.
> ...




I really don't pay too much attention to what people say they are or are not.


I pay attention to the results they produce.


I think most advanced professionals would not group themselves into a certain catagory unless it was for some sort of marketing reasoning.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Photographic lighting should be like a woman's make-up.  Hours of preparation go into a project which, in the end, will make it look like nothing at all was done.  It matters not a whit what your light source is:  Sun strobe, speedlight, or flashlight, you have to know how to control and shape it to acheive the desired result.
> 
> I continue to be baffled by those think that "natural" [i.e. sunlight] is easier to use than strobes/speedlights.  Every one of my studio lights has controls which allow me to set the amount of light output.  They're fitted with movable stands which allow me to position them exactly where I want them, and modifiers to shape and "modify" the light as I need.  No matter how hard I look, I can't find an output control for the sun, nor the lightstand upon which it is mounted so I can move it to a new location.  Hmmm... which is easier to use?



Good Points! But you don't constantly shoot on AUTO or "P" either (if ever).... so you don't qualify as a NLP! (Natural Light Photographer!)! LOL!


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Thank-you Keith!


Sorry!

It will only let me do _one_ 'Like' for that comment.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Thank-you Keith!
> ...


:er:


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I've seen a lot of negativity towards those who consider themselves natural light photographers. Wondered of anyone here wasn't opposed to it.



And how many of these people had work that was worth looking at? Did any of them demonstrate any knowledge or ability to shoot with any other kind of light?  Please post some links to the people you are referring to.. let us check them out!


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 2, 2012)

Natural light is challenging to work with, because it is largely out of our control. The only thing we can do to control it is wait or try to time it. But we're also at the mercy of the weather.

Natural light pictures tend to look more natural, as they should. 

I have a lot of respect for folks who successfully use natural light for portraits. Outdoor natural light pix, like football, get less respect. 

I'm an especially big fan of B&W natural light portraits and city street scenes.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Let me quote a pro locally here when I asked about folks bragging about being natural light photographers only: "Steve, natural light photographers either can't afford lighting, don't understand lighting or both. Lighting is critical and off camera lighting allows us to better control it"
> 
> I wanted to argue but.....  I'm just a nooB student and I prefer real lighting too over reflectors and trying to catch the right time of day of window over controlling light plus the studio would be dark heh



I would be in the both category. I understand some flash techniques but dont have proper equipment to practice and hone these skills. There is nothing wrong with using natural light though. Many beautiful things come from when you work with what you got. But I have wished I had a good flash on many occasions and have not. So I would say it is good to know how to use both properly.


----------



## enzodm (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Are there any circumstances in your (or anyone's) opinion where using only natural/available light is acceptable?



for me, the answer is recursive: it is acceptable every time is acceptable (in the time frame you have for shooting). By the way, since the material is the same as Keith says, even modifiers cannot be considered "natural" - including tents on windows, blinds, etc.
For us amateurs is not really a problem. Sometimes I believe to have seen the light (ops *), take a shot, comes out bad, amen. Or I try and retry until the light lasts. The real pro sees the light, and is able to reproduce it if no more available.
A nice reading on this is _The hotshoe diaries_. Worth for knowledge and style.



*


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 2, 2012)

The photos I posted some used flash.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

Angel is stirring up the drama again! lol!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

This thread delivers...although quite dimly


----------



## Postman158 (Feb 2, 2012)

I always try and use natural light first, just to keep a natural picture. Yes, I know you can use artificial light to make a natural picture, but I'm not generally on that level yet. I'm learning though!


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 2, 2012)

I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere.  I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.  

I have vowed to use, not just  run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.

So I will be a filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer from now on.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 2, 2012)

Learn to use both.


----------



## MReid (Feb 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere. I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.
> 
> I have vowed to use, not just run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.
> 
> So I will be a filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer from now on.



I prescribe to this ^


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 2, 2012)

...............And, I will be marketing a brand of _specially_ _treated_ cheesecloth that, if draped over a suitable frame (also available separately) will filter out both harmful pollutants from natural light but also deadly starlight.  _prices available on request_.

If you purchase the cloth and frame, I will certify you also as a  filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer (FOGPNLP) and you can put a logo to that effect on your stationery and website (yearly license applies, first year free)

CL photogs look out! Only 10 FOGPNLPs will be licensed in any state, so get yours now.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Learn to use both.



Yeah I bet even Ansel Adams rocked an old tungsten flash bulb now and then =)


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Angel is stirring up the drama again! lol!



Hahaha!!!! Actually looking for some insight! I've been really enjoying doing pet portraits! For most photography jobs the lighting and eqiupment costs so much money, takes time to get said equipment for any type of job. I've been doing a lot of reading and it seems the most recommended lighting for pet portraits is natural light (hence my pet portrait thread a fewdays ago). I am not looking to start charging for my photography or calling myself a professional anytime soon, just thinking of the future. I thought that maybe pet portraits would be a cheaper and a more practical avenue to start with if using natural light. And that would give me a chance to save some money for equipment, build up some clients, get myself out there. It just seems like a more practical way to start. I don't want to just be starting on my first job and have a $20,000 wedding on my shoulders.

But again, I don't plan on calling myself a professional or charging anytime soon. Just trying to weigh out my options and deciding what direction I want to go in so I can specifically practice and focus in that area. I'm taking a business/marketing course along with my photography program.

thankfully my husband makes enough to support me, so I can really take my time with school, learning and not rush it. He makes enough that I don't need a full time income. Some extra cash a month would suffice!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 2, 2012)

Did you get your DLSR yet?


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Did you get your DLSR yet?



No grrrr!!!! The beloved income tax return comes in Tuesday! 

So I know what I'm doing Tuesday night!!!!!!


----------



## Demers18 (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> No grrrr!!!! The beloved income tax return comes in Tuesday!
> 
> So I know what I'm doing Tuesday night!!!!!!



You must be excited!


----------



## greybeard (Feb 2, 2012)

If it looks good, it is good, and that is all I have to say about it


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere.  I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.
> 
> I have vowed to use, not just  run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.
> 
> So I will be a filtered, totally organic, pasteurized natural light photographer from now on.



Plus sunlight is really, really old light. They think it takes 250,000 years or so for the light made by the nuclear fusion going on at the core of the Sun (people call that natural light?) to get up to the surface, plus the  8.3 minutes to get the 93,000,000 miles from there to the Earth at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second).

Light made by a flash unit is only a few nanoseconds old by comparison. Nice and fresh.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> ...........Plus sunlight is really, really old light. They think it takes 250,000 years or so for the light made by the nuclear fusion going on at the core of the Sun (people call that natural light?) to get up to the surface, plus the  8.3 minutes to get the 93,000,000 miles from there to the Earth at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second)........



Well, it's not 'light' until it gets near the surface.  It starts out as gamma & x-rays.  Because of the "Drunkard's Walk" they must do in order to reach the surface, a lot of it's energy is lost....... so it becomes part of the spectrum known as visible light that we all know and love.

However, estimates range from 4,000 years to millions of years, depending on certain unknown variables involved in the equation.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 2, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Seems to be people feel strongly one way or the other. Your thoughts?



So what you are really asking is ... should you, as a potential professional photographer, concentrate on using only natural light imagery ... or immediately start learning/investing in artificial lighting hoping that it pays off ?


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 2, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to be people feel strongly one way or the other. Your thoughts?
> ...



Yeah pretty much. I've been trying to collect information here and there without flat out saying my considerations of becomming a professional photographer one day. I got into photography school so I could be a professional one day. But when I started taking classes and learning it as "career possibility" it turned into some much more then a possible job. But I didn't want to say this because I know how crazy the "I'm thinking about opening my business" threads can get, but oh well  . But I do want to make money one day as a photographer. Not tomorrow. Not soon. But I would like to do this as a job one day. Even if not full time, just some extra cash here and there. But I think I'd rather test the waters rather then jumping the gun. Business/marketing is part of my photography program. 

So I thought pet portraits in the future might be a good place to start, especially seeing as you might be able to get away with natural light in this particular field. If this is going to be my focus I need to get to work on practicing my pet portait work. I was just trying to feel out some answers from some questions I had. But there it is, my plan out and about. 

Here is what I have so far. Pet portaits - a set on Flickr I know I have a ways to go before I start charging.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 2, 2012)

As many have already stated ... you will encounter situations, as a portrait (human or animal) photographer, when you will need control over illumination ... so I will say that learning to use artificial lighting and/or reflectors (and other light manipulators) will be an assist that will pay off.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 2, 2012)

I like photos where the light looks natural, which often requires a less then natural approach. "Natural" light often looks way too harsh and unnatural when captured within the limited dynamic range of a photograph.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 2, 2012)

I think anyone who turns up their nose at either natural or artificial light is just showing either their ignorance, or, much worse, their snobbery.  All the full time pros I know do whatever it takes to properly expose their subject, regardless of what mother nature throws at you.  I shoot plenty of outdoor portraits, and I definitely prefer the natural glow of the "golden hour", but I also have no problem at all pulling out a strobe and umbrella for some fill light if there are weird shadows.  It's art, not science.

I think a lot of the posts on here about how natural light photographers only shoot that way because they don't understand photographic lighting are both inaccurate and offensive.  Broad generalizations that like are really easy to disprove.  I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the exposure triangle, and I'd almost always choose to use natural light if it's good light.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I think anyone who turns up their nose at either natural or artificial light is just showing either their ignorance, or, much worse, their snobbery.  All the full time pros I know do whatever it takes to properly expose their subject, regardless of what mother nature throws at you.  I shoot plenty of outdoor portraits, and I definitely prefer the natural glow of the "golden hour", but I also have no problem at all pulling out a strobe and umbrella for some fill light if there are weird shadows.  It's art, not science.
> 
> I think a lot of the posts on here about how natural light photographers only shoot that way because they don't understand photographic lighting are both inaccurate and offensive.  Broad generalizations that like are really easy to disprove.  I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the exposure triangle, and I'd almost always choose to use natural light if it's good light.



I don't suspect anyone is turning their nose at any type of lighting.  Its not serious anyway, its an internet forum.  I laugh at the "clique" on FB that boasts "Natural Light Photographers" implying its better than home grown OJ, as  I peek at their pics and see even their pop-flash could've improved the shot


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 2, 2012)

You should always know various lighting styles, then decide which one is appropriate for the situation.  There's no reason to limit yourself.


----------



## cpeay (Feb 3, 2012)

Ever since my flash stopped flashing I am loving natural light.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 3, 2012)

cpeay said:


> Ever since my flash stopped flashing I am loving natural light.



You plan to replace it?


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 3, 2012)

KmH said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I have decided that, since the kind of light seems so very important, I will not use light from just anywhere.  I have it on good authority that sunlight may be tainted from bouncing off of pollution-laden clouds or the moon's surface, not too mention the faintest amount of starlight - an unseen but possibly lethal contaminant.
> ...




I have vowed to use, not just run of the mill natural light, but light that is certified organic and has been pasteurized *AND CURED IN THE VASTNESS OF SPACE* to free it from bacteria and filtered to get out all those ugly rays that make people look less attractive than they really are.

So I will be a filtered, totally organic, *SPACE-CURED* natural light photographer from now on. None of that ugly, new stuff, only light that has been aged like fine wine.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

a Photographer uses LIGHT... Period! 

Pigeonholing yourself.. but claiming to be a NLP or a Strobist.. just means that you are either into labels, joining faddish movements / groups, or don't have a clue!

It is the quality of the shots that count... That is it!  The reason so many people are down on the TERM "Natural Light Photographer" is that many of the "photographers" who label themselves that way... don't produce quality work, mostly because they don't know and understand light. Not all.. but a large majority. 

As mentioned: 

a Photographer uses Light

a Good Photographer uses Light anytime, anyplace, anyhow.. to enhance the image they are trying to achieve.

A Professional Level Photographer uses Light anytime, anyplace, anyhow.. to enhance the image they are trying to achieve, and achieves that image consistently and repeatably.

A "PRO" maight get paid.. and yes, that makes them a "Pro" in that sense.. but if they are turning out crap images.... they are not a "PRO".....  in my book, anyway!


----------



## Tee (Feb 3, 2012)

We're all ignoring the giant pink elephant in this thread.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

Tee said:


> We're all ignoring the giant pink elephant in this thread.



You seeing pink elephants? Better lay off the sauce, bro!


----------



## Tee (Feb 3, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > We're all ignoring the giant pink elephant in this thread.
> ...



The sauce comes in about 5 hours after work.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

Tee said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Tee said:
> ...



Hokay! All TPF'ers invited, right?_* 

PARTY at Tee's place!!! *_

Lol!


----------



## Tee (Feb 3, 2012)

Even better. I'm at a hotel with a great bar good social company.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

I will provide the STUFF!!!   (and YES.. it is UNNATURAL LIGHT!)  lol!






Booze by CGipson Photography


----------



## Kolander (Feb 3, 2012)

Natural light photographers (full time) are for me like hotdogs cooks  I once had an experience... It was a fashion report in a manor house, and the photographer simply had no flash! "He plays with the light", the assistant whispered to us, moved and proud -best not describe the fruits of his play. Of course the customer did not like it one little bit.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 3, 2012)

Kolander said:


> Natural light photographers (full time) are for me like hotdogs cooks  I once had an experience... It was a fashion report in a manor house, and the photographer simply had no flash! "He plays with the light", the assistant whispered to us, moved and proud -best not describe the fruits of his play. Of course the customer did not like it one little bit.



^^^  yeah


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 3, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I will provide the STUFF!!!   (and YES.. it is UNNATURAL LIGHT!)  lol!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will find the light that's there


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 3, 2012)

If there are no preservatives, then it must be natural lighting?  

Such is the case with my lights, especially setting up shots in the dark that don't count anyway =)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 3, 2012)

Bounced flash, indoors.
Good luck with natural light pet portraiture. LOL


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2012)

BITTER why have we not seen more photos of kitty? 
Kitty needs a new thread and stuffs!


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 3, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I will provide the STUFF!!!   (and YES.. it is UNNATURAL LIGHT!)  lol!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This WAS Gipsons personal stock which has been replaced 3 or 4 times since this picture was taken.

Christmas list 2012 - A bottle of home made white lightening for Gipson. That should hold him for .........a few hours.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 3, 2012)

Overread said:


> BITTER why have we not seen more photos of kitty?
> Kitty needs a new thread and stuffs!



Because I am too busy learning to be a CNC machinist.


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > BITTER why have we not seen more photos of kitty?
> ...



This is not a suitable excuse - your feline overlord needs attention and adoration of the masses


----------



## tirediron (Feb 3, 2012)

Overread said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...


Kitty looks sad!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 3, 2012)

He WAS sad. He was starving! And he is missing 3 inches of his tail! Wouldn't you be sad?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I will provide the STUFF!!!   (and YES.. it is UNNATURAL LIGHT!)  lol!
> ...



Hahahaha.... Yea.. that's me.. drink like a fish!  pppphhhhttttt!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 3, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> He WAS sad. He was starving! And he is missing 3 inches of his tail! Wouldn't you be sad?



Any noticeable neuro issues with the tail amputation? He is a cute little bugger!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 3, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > He WAS sad. He was starving! And he is missing 3 inches of his tail! Wouldn't you be sad?
> ...



No. Not that I've noticed.

But I think the starvation thing has effected him. He gobbles up his wet food, always looking to see how much Valentino has left, then goes and pushes Valentino outta the way and eats his food. Bastard. Valentino doesn't eat in a hurry, so he only ends up eating half of his portion. We've tried seperating them, but Valention will go to see where Pooper is, instead of eating. We've tried holding Pooper to keep him from Valentino, but thats a struggle. The best we have done is mix kibble into Poopers food, to give him more to eat. But fear he may wind up being a fat cat.

*sigh* I dunno.

They have kibble available to them all the time, but they don't prefer it. We give them wet, twice a day. Our old cat wouldn't touch wet food. He'd lick all the wet off of it and leave the chunks. *headsmack*


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 3, 2012)

You have so much going for you Angel. You've got passion, a good eye, and a good start in school, it sounds like.

In addition to the business course, I hope they have a course or two on web development? I think business and web development will be at least as important as your photography skills.

Some of the folks here have some work that is really high grade. You should aspire to that, of course, but you should not wait to charge until you're up at the highest level. It just isn't realistic or profitable.

When I worked at the camera store, there was one guy who shot weddings. I saw his shots and thought: "Those are no better than mine." I talked to him about it, and he said that people aren't that picky. For the most part, they just want to see good pictures of themselves. Sharp, well-exposed, etc. He shot most of the wedding with a Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 and a nice bounce flash. I think he also had a 70-210 f/2.8, but with a good flash, f/2.8 (and all the money that goes with with) All you have to do is avoid the bride-zillas who want that silly artsy crap.

As for pets, yes, you should go for it. Natural light for now. As soon as you get your SLR, get a bounce flash, and that is a great start toward being able to shoot in artificial light.

Your cat pix on your Flickr stream are great. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Any cat owner would love to have pix like that of her cat. The only thing they might ask for differently is color. (B&W isn't for everyone)

Keep your passion, and spend your money and time in the right places. Soon enough, you will be one of the people here posting your wonderful pet shots as a pro. Just remember where you came from, and don't talk down to people who are just starting out and who are full of passion.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Bounced flash, indoors.
> Good luck with natural light pet portraiture. LOL



I'm* not about natural light *when I can control light, but I'm playing with some natural light stuff.  This is light coming through a cracked door cam left. I got to remember focus on eye and not an ear at f*2.8* with the 70-200


----------



## timputtick (Feb 11, 2012)

I think flashes etc.. are a lot more flexible, however natural light can produce really good portraits if done correctly.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 11, 2012)

_Don't open the thread, Emily.  Don't do it... don't open it...

_::click::
_
GAH!  I TOLD YOU NOT TO OPEN IT!

_::reads OP::

::shakes head::

::reads a handful of responses::

::feels brain beginning to explode::

::exits thread::

::finds something productive to do involving natural light, or OCF, whatever the f**k is being felt a the time::


----------



## Bossy (Feb 11, 2012)

Saw these and thought of you Angel-
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150776873218018.502767.393450018017&type=3


----------



## Overread (Feb 11, 2012)

e.rose said:


> _Don't open the thread, Emily.  Don't do it... don't open it...
> 
> _::click::
> _
> ...



You totally missed out on the kitty pics!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 11, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Saw these and thought of you Angel-https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150776873218018.502767.393450018017&type=3


Wow these are awesome!! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## e.rose (Feb 11, 2012)

Overread said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > _Don't open the thread, Emily.  Don't do it... don't open it...
> ...



That's because I was too busy taking kitty pics of my own.  With natural light.  And then again with OCF.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 11, 2012)

Actually.  I was taking a nap.  But I STILL find that to be more productive than going through this mess... especially seeing how little I actually sleep now-a-days.


----------



## slackercruster (Feb 11, 2012)

OP...don't care. If the photo speaks to me I like it!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 12, 2012)

I enjoy people photography, and prefer natural outdoor light.  I see you live in South FL, which you are lucky to have warm weather year round.  I live in KY, mild 4 season climate, but difficult to do outdoor photos in the winter here. Come on SPRING!!!


----------

