Natural light

indemnity said

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.

i would personally say studio lights or flash is controlled light, available light like city neon or street lighting you cant really control

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

ANDY00 the reference I made was to the bottom line I highlighted in bold...Add extra light sources such as fill-flash or LED panels and it's not.

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

ANDY00 said

Kirk Schwarz said

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

... 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 ...

Could you manage a reference for that, I might have missed it?

indemnity said

ANDY00 the reference I made was to the bottom line I highlighted in bold...Add extra light sources such as fill-flash or LED panels and it's not.

Oh im really sorry i did not see that, I just read it as an open statement, i did not see you had highlighted that im really sorry thats my fault

ANDY00 said

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

I have to disagree with this. To put it simply and for the avoidance of doubt natural light is the light source used at capture, editing has nothing to do with it. Likewise when shot on film, a natural light captured image is exposed in developing and printing the level of exposure of the natural light image is changed.

ANDY00 said

indemnity said

ANDY00 the reference I made was to the bottom line I highlighted in bold...Add extra light sources such as fill-flash or LED panels and it's not.

Oh im really sorry i did not see that, I just read it as an open statement, i did not see you had highlighted that im really sorry thats my fault

I should have referred to highlighted bit....my error too.

ANDY00 said

MidgePhoto said

....

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

A felt pen can add dark.

But that's drawing.

What sort of replacement bulb do Photoshop users need to keep on hand?

(I'm not a PS user, but I think it alters numbers)

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

Kirk Schwarz said

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

... 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 ...

Could you manage a reference for that, I might have missed it?

You clearly know where the post is you replied on it.....

Midgephoto sais "

I like it, she looks slightly hesitant which I suppose goes perfectly with the first frame.  As Huw says, brightness.

If an image were taken with flash, we don't say it wasn't, or stop saying it was, because we retouched it, do we.  The light was natural. It may have been the last natural thing that touched any part of the final image ..."

indemnity said

ANDY00 said

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

I have to disagree with this. To put it simply and for the avoidance of doubt natural light is the light source used at capture, editing has nothing to do with it. Likewise when shot on film, a natural light captured image is exposed in developing and printing the level of exposure of the natural light image is changed.

We can agree to dissagree but i can tell you i have shot images in night time and dusk and changed them to day, Ive took pictures on dull days and changed it to sunshine, if thats not altering and adding light what is it ? Natural light :-D

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

indemnity said

ANDY00 said

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

I have to disagree with this. To put it simply and for the avoidance of doubt natural light is the light source used at capture, editing has nothing to do with it. Likewise when shot on film, a natural light captured image is exposed in developing and printing the level of exposure of the natural light image is changed.

We can agree to dissagree but i can tell you i have shot images in night time and dusk and changed them to day, Ive took pictures on dull days and changed it to sunshine, if thats not altering and adding light what is it ? Natural light :-D

Edited by ANDY00

It's called editing. 

indemnity said

ANDY00 said

indemnity said

ANDY00 said

MidgePhoto said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

... My question is, if studio flash, ...

I do not see where you got this from, in that original stem or indeed anywhere.

So it seems to me to be a straw man argument, if not a red herring.

Photoshop doesn't add light does it? The light was captured in the milliseconds, or seconds, or minutes, for which the shutter was open, the sensor sampling, or whatever - the exposure.

That you then hold a card with a hole in it and jiggle it over the paper, and pour a Uranium salt into the developer, does not retroactively change the light which fell on what in those cases had better be film.

Photoshop and lightroom "DO" add light :-D photoshop can make light, change light, redirect light, uplift shadows, remove shadows, add haze, remove haze, add reflections, remove reflection,

I have to disagree with this. To put it simply and for the avoidance of doubt natural light is the light source used at capture, editing has nothing to do with it. Likewise when shot on film, a natural light captured image is exposed in developing and printing the level of exposure of the natural light image is changed.

We can agree to dissagree but i can tell you i have shot images in night time and dusk and changed them to day, Ive took pictures on dull days and changed it to sunshine, if thats not altering and adding light what is it ? Natural light :-D

Edited by ANDY00

It's called editing. 

Is it still a natural light shot ?. NO. is it available light ? NO. has photoshop added light ? YES. has photoshop altered the light ? YES 

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

...

... 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—...

You clearly know where the post is you replied on it.....

Midgephoto sais "

I like it, she looks slightly hesitant which I suppose goes perfectly with the first frame.  As Huw says, brightness.

If an image were taken with flash, we don't say it wasn't, or stop saying it was, because we retouched it, do we.  The light was natural. It may have been the last natural thing that touched any part of the final image ..."

I don't think I took it to heart as much as you.

Also in the limited quote, I do not see the assertion to which this thread is in larger part an objection.

You might be wildly misreading it??

Try: 

Proposition: an image taken using only natural light for illumination ceases to be a natural light image if it is retouched.

Proposition, in dissent: an image taken using flash for illumination ceases to be a flash image if it is retouched.

Now, I offered the second as a reduction which if not absurd I hold to not be something we would accept.

Since or provided we don't accept that, then we don't accept the first proposition, since the only difference is the source of the illumination.

I'd accept that with an effort one could avoid seeing that, in the context of a discussion of the light on a photo, "the light" refers to the photo, and not a hypothetical flash, which we all seemed to agree was not actually present, but I'd also suggest re-reading it or asking would be more effective than this thread.

Bored now.

So if that quote is that you interpret as having been told something ridiculous, no, you were not.

Edited by MidgePhoto

ANDY00 look at it this way. The light source is all that matters. After capture it's then processing for film/plates etc and editing for digital.

Daylight is natural light, other situations may be ambient (moon light for example) general surroundings even indoors, available (uncontrolled mixed sources), controlled light (additional light added at point of capture) or the only source of artificial light. The type of light is the light used at capture and has nothing to do with subsequent alteration/adjustments in processing/edit.