Natural light

MidgePhoto said

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.

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

If you hire a model advertising that her images are all as-shot without editing, and she turned up looking nothing like her images, would you be upset?

Saying an image is "natural light" implies that the lighting has not been altered or enhanced. It suggests a level of skill by the photographer in capturing natural light images without editing or manipulation. To claim it’s natural light after using studio lights, flash, or Photoshop to add, enhance, or change the lighting is dishonest.

What's obsurd is arguing that a flash or phontoshop is natural light...... 

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

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

Photoshop does not add light. It allows you to alter the exposure of areas. Can you replicate the effect that lighting would have? Yes. Is it creating light? No. Is it something that has only come to pass since the invention of digital editing? Nope. The light source simply refers to the light used to capture the initial photo. Most competitions that do not allow degrees of editing will be very clear that they do not allow composite work of editing, for example. If a natural light photo competition doesn't restrict the use of photoshop to refine an image then that's on them. 

Yea right ok lets play then!

Here is my natural light shot :-) 

Well, originally it was a natural light shot sitting at the table in the model’s dining room, so by your ideology, it’s still a "natural light" shot.

Personally, I think that seriously dilutes the power and meaning behind the term "natural light shot," but you do you—I’ll stick to the honest way.

I mean, what’s the point in saying, "Look at my awesome natural light image I created!" and then, "Shhh... I used flash units, ran it through Photoshop, used apps to even out the light, removed glare and haze, darkened highlights on skin, removed glare on glasses and clothing, cut out hazing, added shadows I wanted, and removed the ones I didn’t... just to start. But hey, it’s all NATURAL LIGHT."

From what I’ve seen some say here on this subject, I’m probably not going to be in awe of the "natural light shots" posted, as I’m going to instantly think, "It’s probably not." And that’s really a shame, because there are some photographers (far better than me) who create real natural light landscapes and portraits that deserve recognition. But this philosophy, in my opinion, lessens the power of their work.

There's absalutely nothing wrong with using lighting or photoshop or any tools for that matter, i mean clearly i do, but i dont scream my works all natural while im doing it :-) but thats just me....

If the term "natural light" is to carry any weight, it needs to represent a unique style. To me, it’s clear that the term has now merged with general photography. People take images using flash—natural light. City lights—natural light. Photoshopped—natural light. It’s become a pointless term on PP, in my opinion. Such a shame.

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

Continuing the discussion: if you title an image "natural light," I’m being told you can still use lighting or Photoshop to correct, change, and manipulate its coverage and direction, and still call it a natural light shot. My question is, if studio flash, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc., can all fall under the "natural light" umbrella, what meaning does the term actually have? Can I just call all studio shoots natural light becasue theres a door and a window? This honestly confuses me. Yes, I get that SOOC means unaltered, as shot, but natural light would be sunlight, wouldn’t it? Not something created in Photoshop or with a 1000-lumen bulb. And now will leave you all to it :-)

how would you classify the use of a reflector? Natural light or not?

Allesandro B said

ANDY00 said

I created this to save the other members post

Continuing the discussion: if you title an image "natural light," I’m being told you can still use lighting or Photoshop to correct, change, and manipulate its coverage and direction, and still call it a natural light shot. My question is, if studio flash, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc., can all fall under the "natural light" umbrella, what meaning does the term actually have? Can I just call all studio shoots natural light becasue theres a door and a window? This honestly confuses me. Yes, I get that SOOC means unaltered, as shot, but natural light would be sunlight, wouldn’t it? Not something created in Photoshop or with a 1000-lumen bulb. And now will leave you all to it :-)

how would you classify the use of a reflector? Natural light or not?

Personally, I think a reflector is just redirected light, which can also happen naturally, so it’s still natural light, in my opinion, provided the reflector is redirecting sunlight or moonlight and not an artificial light source. But I’ve already said that several times.

natural light - anything directly / indirectly from sunlight.

anything with requires a power source is not natural light 

What about pictures of angels? Natural light? Or supernatural light?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence

Stanmore said

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence

"I worked with this great model... she just, sort of, had a glow about her somehow"

I go with Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

This means that there is no argument to be made by anyone in this discussion.

ANDY00 said

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

The light that existed at the moment the photograph was taken cannot be altered.

What in effect can be altered is the adjustment of the cameras response to that light in Photoshop or whatever..

Even shooting raw files you have something contrived by the camera designer and it is his "editing" that is used for so called SOOC.

Your eyes adjust to a scene that you are photographing in a way that a camera cannot.

It is therefore, entirely sensible for you to create your interpretation of the scene.

If you make an image SOOC then that is also your interpretation. It will not be what you saw.

If you are shooting colour, then there will be reflected colour in your image from whatever is around you...even you the photographer...and it may be sensible to do adjustments for this.

This doesn't alter the light source  It alters the reflected light sources.

JPea said

ANDY00 said

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

The light that existed at the moment the photograph was taken cannot be altered.

What in effect can be altered is the adjustment of the cameras response to that light in Photoshop or whatever..

Even shooting raw files you have something contrived by the camera designer and it is his "editing" that is used for so called SOOC.

Your eyes adjust to a scene that you are photographing in a way that a camera cannot.

It is therefore, entirely sensible for you to create your interpretation of the scene.

If you make an image SOOC then that is also your interpretation. It will not be what you saw.

If you are shooting colour, then there will be reflected colour in your image from whatever is around you...even you the photographer...and it may be sensible to do adjustments for this.

This doesn't alter the light source  It alters the reflected light sources.

It is a nonesense to say "The light that existed at the moment the photograph was taken cannot be altered" it's simply untrue, for a start in modernt digital images the data is just that 1's and 0's which is exactly what you alter in photoshop. you can alter anything in photoshop, i can add sun flares, glares, change day for night and night for day, i can change the direction of light or create light where once there was none.

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.....

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00

I am trying to make the point that you cannot have a set standard reaction to any given light.

Everything in a digital and for that matter, emulsion image is manipulated before you even take an image.

Personally I have few if any limits to manipulating images.

When I painted and drew images I was completely free and made the image the way I wanted it to be, but I have never needed to take photographs of record except for images I made at my work.

I've played with AI on some images on PS and enjoyed doing so.

They've put the dampers on that now though.

JPea said

ANDY00

I am trying to make the point that you cannot have a set standard reaction to any given light.

Everything in a digital and for that matter, emulsion image is manipulated before you even take an image.

Personally I have few if any limits to manipulating images.

When I painted and drew images I was completely free and made the image the way I wanted it to be, but I have never needed to take photographs of record except for images I made at my work.

I've played with AI on some images on PS and enjoyed doing so.

They've put the dampers on that now though.

I have nothing against lighting or Photoshop, as I said. I just find it dishonest to say an image is "natural light" if the light has been altered in Photoshop or if artificial lighting was used.

TOP TIP - To use AI in Photoshop, go to your creative cloud, then to Photoshop, and click the little tab that says "Versions." Add version 25.12.0 alongside your current version— it allows you to have more than one version. It does everything the newest version does but that version is nowhere near as strict about skin. :-)

Edited by ANDY00