Natural light
This post has been locked.
ANDY00 said, 1733515020
EdT said
No. As the name says, SOOc is straight out of camera. Very simple.
Lit by natural light is exactly that. A bit of dodging and burning is not a big deal. Changing it so that the light is now purple would obviously not be "natural light". In spite of what you say, no one has suggested that using flash or other lights would still be natural light.
There is a bit of leeway, you seem to want to drag it off to extremes just to support your own point of view.
Oh, so a little artificial light is fine—that’s still natural light? And dodging, burning, and Photoshop are all perfectly okay as long as the light doesn’t turn purple? Great, I’m glad we’ve clarified the very scientific rules of "natural."
Here’s a thought: when you sell a car that’s three years old, you don’t advertise it as new just because it was new when you bought it. Same logic applies here. If a picture was shot in natural light, it was a natural light image. But the moment you add artificial light—whether physically or through Photoshop—it’s about as natural as instant ramen.
How can an image where the lighting has been adjusted, redirected, corrected, or recolored artificially still qualify as "natural"? It’s artificial. But hey, if we’re calling it "natural light" just because that’s how it started, then let’s call everything SOOC—because every image starts out that way, right? :-D
EdT said, 1733515894
Where did I say a little artificial light was still natural light?
If you really want just pure natural light, there will be very few photos in the history of photography, analogue or digital which will fit your definition.
Your habit of throwing in examples stretched to the limits is just tedious.
When you are just about the only person seeing things your way, do you not think that there is a possibility that your viewpoint might be the one that is invalid.
ANDY00 said, 1733517289
EdT said
Where did I say a little artificial light was still natural light?
If you really want just pure natural light, there will be very few photos in the history of photography, analogue or digital which will fit your definition.
Your habit of throwing in examples stretched to the limits is just tedious.
When you are just about the only person seeing things your way, do you not think that there is a possibility that your viewpoint might be the one that is invalid.
Dodging and burning is literally adding light and shadows—it’s not me exaggerating; that’s how the tool is defined. Natural light should—wait, let me emphasize that—SHOULD be exactly what it says on the tin: "NATURAL LIGHT."
If you alter it—guess what?—it’s NOT NATURAL, IS IT? It’s like calling a powdered wig "natural hair" because someone’s wearing it. If you artificially alter light in an image, it’s artificial light.
I love lighting, and I love Photoshop, but I don’t call images "natural" if I’ve changed them in Photoshop. I don’t call an image a film image just because I can make it look like one. I don’t call an image SOOC unless it’s actually SOOC. And if I were to say an image is natural light, for me, it would need to be, surprise surprise, "NATURAL LIGHT"—nothing else.
These titles or badges mean something to those who create under their heading. Capturing a natural light dawn shot for instance can take weeks or months of trial and error to find the perfect day with the perfect light and sky. To lessen their effort by allowing anyone who can Photoshop an image to look like a dawn landscape to use the same badge feels a bit unfair... just saying.
And I don’t even shoot natural light as a practice. I tend to use lighting, reflectors, and Photoshop, but I would never label those images as "natural light." People who go to all that effort deserve for that badge to mean something for them, people who shoot in film deserve for that badge to mean something for them and people proud to showcase a SOOC image deserve for that badge to mean something for them... just my opinion.
Stanmore said, 1733522689
ANDY00 said
Dodging and burning is literally adding light and shadows—it’s not me exaggerating; that’s how the tool is defined. Natural light should—wait, let me emphasize that—SHOULD be exactly what it says on the tin: "NATURAL LIGHT."
If you alter it—guess what?—it’s NOT NATURAL, IS IT? It’s like calling a powdered wig "natural hair" because someone’s wearing it. If you artificially alter light in an image, it’s artificial light.
I love lighting, and I love Photoshop, but I don’t call images "natural" if I’ve changed them in Photoshop. I don’t call an image a film image just because I can make it look like one. I don’t call an image SOOC unless it’s actually SOOC. And if I were to say an image is natural light, for me, it would need to be, surprise surprise, "NATURAL LIGHT"—nothing else.
These titles or badges mean something to those who create under their heading. Capturing a natural light dawn shot for instance can take weeks or months of trial and error to find the perfect day with the perfect light and sky. To lessen their effort by allowing anyone who can Photoshop an image to look like a dawn landscape to use the same badge feels a bit unfair... just saying.
And I don’t even shoot natural light as a practice. I tend to use lighting, reflectors, and Photoshop, but I would never label those images as "natural light." People who go to all that effort deserve for that badge to mean something for them, people who shoot in film deserve for that badge to mean something for them and people proud to showcase a SOOC image deserve for that badge to mean something for them... just my opinion.
Andy, you're mistaken... Dodging & burning is not adding - literally or otherwise - light and shadows. Dodging and burning is adding more, or less (localised) exposure. Said exposure already reveals the (high)light and shadows.
Natural light is inherently altered by each and every photographic process ever created since and including the venerable Dag'y & Fox'y.
You can call whatever you want whatever you like, but it doesn't result in one small iota of wider agreement or consensus... Take some time out fella???
ANDY00 said, 1733523926
Stanmore said
ANDY00 said
Dodging and burning is literally adding light and shadows—it’s not me exaggerating; that’s how the tool is defined. Natural light should—wait, let me emphasize that—SHOULD be exactly what it says on the tin: "NATURAL LIGHT."
If you alter it—guess what?—it’s NOT NATURAL, IS IT? It’s like calling a powdered wig "natural hair" because someone’s wearing it. If you artificially alter light in an image, it’s artificial light.
I love lighting, and I love Photoshop, but I don’t call images "natural" if I’ve changed them in Photoshop. I don’t call an image a film image just because I can make it look like one. I don’t call an image SOOC unless it’s actually SOOC. And if I were to say an image is natural light, for me, it would need to be, surprise surprise, "NATURAL LIGHT"—nothing else.
These titles or badges mean something to those who create under their heading. Capturing a natural light dawn shot for instance can take weeks or months of trial and error to find the perfect day with the perfect light and sky. To lessen their effort by allowing anyone who can Photoshop an image to look like a dawn landscape to use the same badge feels a bit unfair... just saying.
And I don’t even shoot natural light as a practice. I tend to use lighting, reflectors, and Photoshop, but I would never label those images as "natural light." People who go to all that effort deserve for that badge to mean something for them, people who shoot in film deserve for that badge to mean something for them and people proud to showcase a SOOC image deserve for that badge to mean something for them... just my opinion.
Andy, you're mistaken... Dodging & burning is not adding - literally or otherwise - light and shadows. Dodging and burning is adding more, or less (localised) exposure. Said exposure already reveals the (high)light and shadows.
Natural light is inherently altered by each and every photographic process ever created since and including the venerable Dag'y & Fox'y.
You can call whatever you want whatever you like, but it doesn't result in one small iota of wider agreement or consensus... Take some time out fella???
millions of professional photography sites will say different heres one from the top of google search but there are millions this one by photographylife.com
It sais and i quote -
What Are Dodging and Burning?
Dodging and burning are two of the oldest creative post-processing techniques in photography. They originated early in the darkroom days, and they’re quite simple to understand:
- Dodging: Brightening part of a photograph
- Burning: Darkening part of a photograph
link - Mastering Dodge and Burn in Photography
Not good enough ? how about wikipedia
Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of select areas on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker.
Dodging and burning - Wikipedia
In essence, if you dodge and burn an image, you are altering the characteristics of the light and shadows. This means you have changed how the light behaves in the image compared to how it was originally captured, essentially making it unnatural. If it were truly natural light, the light aspects would remain unaltered, leaving it natural. But if you’ve used light bulbs or Photoshop to alter them, then it’s not natural. Last I checked, PCs and Photoshop don’t grow on trees or roam freely in the fields.
Edited by ANDY00
EdT said, 1733524553
Just believe what you want to believe, and accept that other people can believe what they want to believe.
No point getting so worked up over it, you're not changing anyone else's opinion
Stanmore said, 1733524654
ANDY00 said
millions of professional photography sites will say different heres one from the top of google search but there are millions this one by photographylife.com
It sais and i quote -
What Are Dodging and Burning?
Dodging and burning are two of the oldest creative post-processing techniques in photography. They originated early in the darkroom days, and they’re quite simple to understand:
- Dodging: Brightening part of a photograph
- Burning: Darkening part of a photograph
link - Mastering Dodge and Burn in Photography
Not good enough ? how about wikipedia
Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of select areas on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker.
Dodging and burning - Wikipedia
In essence, if you dodge and burn an image, you are altering the characteristics of the light and shadows. This means you have changed how the light behaves in the image compared to how it was originally captured, essentially making it unnatural. If it were truly natural light, the light aspects would remain unaltered, leaving it natural. But if you’ve used light bulbs or Photoshop to alter them, then it’s not natural. Last I checked, PCs and Photoshop don’t grow on trees or roam freely in the fields.
Edited by ANDY00
Yeah I know... and I also know that "millions" (really???) of photography sites are written by people who have about as much understanding or less of photography than the average camera club committee member.
It is actually possible to dodge and burn to enhance - not create - 'lighting', but in practice and within the ability-remit of the broad majority, dodging and burning accentuates or inhibits the topical or textural reveals of exposure, not lighting.
ANDY00 said, 1733525805
Oh, you mean what I—and Wikipedia, Photographylife.com, and about a million other accredited sources—already believe? Yep, I’ll just go ahead and do that. Glad we’re all on the same page..Not :-D will be watching all the "natural light" photoshoped images going up :-)
As I said, it’s a shame for those who actually create genuine natural light shots. But hey, you’re right—you can call it whatever you want. It’s still artificial, though, by any definition. You can’t get natural light from an unnatural source—that’s just common sense.
Admin you can close this, thanks :-)
Stanmore said, 1733526253
ANDY00 said
Oh, you mean what I—and Wikipedia, Photographylife.com, and about a million other accredited sources—already believe? Yep, I’ll just go ahead and do that. Glad we’re all on the same page..Not :-D will be watching all the "natural light" photoshoped images going up :-)
As I said, it’s a shame for those who actually create genuine natural light shots. But hey, you’re right—you can call it whatever you want. It’s still artificial, though, by any definition. You can’t get natural light from an unnatural source—that’s just common sense.
Admin you can close this, thanks :-)
OK Andy - Take a photograph with acute left-side lighting. Use any and every digital / AI / analogue-darkroom manipulation you desire to make that left-side lighting look -convincingly- like right-side.
Horizontal mirror-flips don't count - maintain the original composition.
Like a photograph, not CGI, naturally.
Do that - convince me.
Edited by Stanmore
ANDY00 said, 1733526182
Stanmore said
ANDY00 said
millions of professional photography sites will say different heres one from the top of google search but there are millions this one by photographylife.com
It sais and i quote -
What Are Dodging and Burning?
Dodging and burning are two of the oldest creative post-processing techniques in photography. They originated early in the darkroom days, and they’re quite simple to understand:
- Dodging: Brightening part of a photograph
- Burning: Darkening part of a photograph
link - Mastering Dodge and Burn in Photography
Not good enough ? how about wikipedia
Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of select areas on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker.
Dodging and burning - Wikipedia
In essence, if you dodge and burn an image, you are altering the characteristics of the light and shadows. This means you have changed how the light behaves in the image compared to how it was originally captured, essentially making it unnatural. If it were truly natural light, the light aspects would remain unaltered, leaving it natural. But if you’ve used light bulbs or Photoshop to alter them, then it’s not natural. Last I checked, PCs and Photoshop don’t grow on trees or roam freely in the fields.
Edited by ANDY00
Yeah I know... and I also know that "millions" (really???) of photography sites are written by people who have about as much understanding or less of photography than the average camera club committee member.
It is actually possible to dodge and burn to enhance - not create - 'lighting', but in practice and within the ability-remit of the broad majority, dodging and burning accentuates or inhibits the topical or textural reveals of exposure, not lighting.
Yeah, of course, all the photography sites and Wikipedia are wrong. :-P Sure.
Newsflash: if you enhance light, it’s not "natural light." You’ve enhanced it artificially. You can’t get natural light from an artificial source—that’s just common sense. Or, as I like to call it, "Light Logic 101"—brought to you by Captain Obvious . :-)
ANDY00 said, 1733526868
Stanmore said
ANDY00 said
Oh, you mean what I—and Wikipedia, Photographylife.com, and about a million other accredited sources—already believe? Yep, I’ll just go ahead and do that. Glad we’re all on the same page..Not :-D will be watching all the "natural light" photoshoped images going up :-)
As I said, it’s a shame for those who actually create genuine natural light shots. But hey, you’re right—you can call it whatever you want. It’s still artificial, though, by any definition. You can’t get natural light from an unnatural source—that’s just common sense.
Admin you can close this, thanks :-)
OK Andy - Take a photograph with acute left-side lighting. Use any and every digital / AI / analogue-darkroom manipulation you desire to make that left-side lighting look -convincingly- like right-side.
Like a photograph, not CGI, naturally.
Do that - convince me.
I dont need to i already did few pages back
quote Andy00 said -
"Again, the image above was shot in natural light at a dining table—does that look like daylight to you? But wait, you can’t change the light in a picture, right? Of course, you can. Once an image is on your computer, you can do anything you like—it’s just code.
In Photoshop or similar programs, you can absolutely add light and manipulate the way it interacts with elements in a photograph. For instance but not limited to - Dodging and Burning, This technique allows you to brighten (add light) or darken specific areas of an image to create highlights or shadows that weren't there before. - Light Effects, Tools like the "Render Lighting Effects" in Photoshop let you add entirely new light sources, such as spotlights or directional light, and even control their intensity, color, and angle.
You can use custom brushes to paint highlights or mimic lens flares, sunlight, or artificial light sources directly onto the image,Glow and Overlay Layers, By adding glow effects, you can simulate the appearance of ambient light or illuminated objects that weren't in the original photo.
In essence, once an image is digital, it becomes a canvas where you can not only adjust but also create and manipulate light in ways that go far beyond the original scene. It’s not just about "adjusting the camera’s response"—it’s about creating entirely new lighting scenarios.
Modern tools like Adobe’s Neural Filters now include AI-powered relighting options. These allow users to virtually reposition the light source in an image, change its intensity, and even alter the direction of shadows.
Now how exactly is it "The light that existed at the moment the photograph was taken cannot be altered". It most certainly can and can and does....."
So if you want to test your theory go to photoshop neuro filters it lets you select the light source and move it anywhere in the image and it automatiocally change shadows and highlights to suit, even reflections. but again.... still not natural is it :-) Artifitial the minute you change it from the original
Edited by ANDY00
