Natural light

Gothic Image said

Any suggestions for "unnatural light", then?  :-)

In the colour science rabbit hole I'm currently down, the vast majority of LEDs and fluorescent fixtures!

Flash is a bit odd because it is a rapidly heated then cooling plasma (hence why cheap IGBT lights go blue) but does produce proper 'black body' radiation.

Tungsten & HMI are superheated metals, so again black body radiators.

Plasma (and the sun) are black body radiators (though due to atmospheric effects the sun is a bit greener than plasma.)

LED and fluorescent aren't unless you chuck in loads of emitters - I recently found out about BLAIR which adds a near-UV channel (helps with fluorescent dies in clothes.)

ANDY00 said

Kirk Schwarz said

ANDY00 so, if you knew, why did you ask?

Because, as the post says on another thread, I was told I was wrong and that any light source (available light), fill flash, etc., and even images with light altered in Photoshop are still considered natural light—hence the post.

I honestly think that if the source of light is not natural, then it’s not a natural light image. Photoshop can be used, but if it changes the characteristics or enhances the light, then it’s no longer natural. And yes, if someone can shoot under the moon without additional lights, that’s a natural light shot. Shooting in an urban town or city environment under city lights is not natural light—that would be available light and very unnatural.

It ultimately comes down to this: if you were entering an international competition for a natural light image, would you submit one that you’ve used Photoshop to enhance and change lighting and a fill flash on? I would hope not, but the judges would likely spot it very quickly anyway.

Sorry if im not explaining this clear enough 

Edited by ANDY00

Yes, and I refer you to my take on what natural light is: 

"Natural light is light that is not created artificially. It can be modified and altered through reflectors (which are essentially walls where you control the angle and colours) or scrim (where you soften it) or even natural gobos, like trees (where you get dappled light) for example."

Using flash is neither natural or ambient light, both of which are pre-existing (in the case of ambient, that can be artificial 'found' light that's repurposed). Flash lighting is flash lighting. If you use fill-in flash, it's not a natural light image, it's shot using mixed lighting. Using photoshop (or, in fact, the darkroom if you go back a bit) to change the quality and illumination of certain elements does not alter the lighting used to create the shot. 

But, let's confuse this a bit more. If you shoot at night and use a long exposure, taking in all incidental ambient light and exposing for long enough to boost the power of the natural light, where does that fall?

The Ghost said

Gothic Image said

Any suggestions for "unnatural light", then?  :-)

In the colour science rabbit hole I'm currently down, the vast majority of LEDs and fluorescent fixtures!

ANDY00

‘ It ultimately comes down to this: if you were entering an international competition for a natural light image, would you submit one that you’ve used Photoshop to enhance and change lighting and a fill flash on? I would hope not, but the judges would likely spot it very quickly anyway.’

What a perverse premise for a competition. Is there really such a thing?

Simon Carter most likely somewhere I don’t really do the competition things but they do them for everything 🙂

ANDY00 hardly worth getting pedantic over then?

Holly Alexander said

ANDY00 odd as I think natural light is way easier than using any artificial light at all

Only if you don't care about light. Or your style is 'northlight' and nothing else.

Herb Ritts used to rent stupidly powerful movie fresnel lights on overcast days to get his signature clean and crisp look. In summer, getting good natural light can be a thankless task, involving early morning starts and no guarantee of success. Far easier to have an insurance policy (like Herb) for those days when nature doesn't cooperate.

The Ghost it's just what I prefer as a photographer (probably should be posting on my photography account but if you take a look I mostly shoot natural light, it's how I taught myself photography so personally I enjoy it more and can work with it more)

The Ghost I also enjoy the challenge of natural light way more than controlling artificial light , just me

Pure sunlight and a lace material. Does using the lace material make it no longer natural light?

Natural light and the neon lights in the window. So what do you call it if using both?

Just a couple examples of how I don't think we should be hung up on what people label their images. The final image should just speak for itself, why does it matter how many light sources were used etc

Holly Alexander said

Natural light and the neon lights in the window. So what do you call it if using both?

Available light

I find the term "available light" useful,  by which I mean an image made where no light has been added by me.  In other words, the image was captured using only the light sources you'd expect to find in the given enviroment, such as the sun in a daylight shot, or street lights in an urban scene at night.  Creatively reflect those light sources, and it's still an "available light" shot.  Add extra light sources such as fill-flash or LED panels and it's not.

Somersetman said

I find the term "available light" useful,  by which I mean an image made where no light has been added by me.  In other words, the image was captured using only the light sources you'd expect to find in the given enviroment, such as the sun in a daylight shot, or street lights in an urban scene at night.  Creatively reflect those light sources, and it's still an "available light" shot.  Add extra light sources such as fill-flash or LED panels and it's not.

That's usually regarded as controlled light.