Natural light

Unfocussed Mike said

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 am dying here :)))

In my opinion, who uses natural light most of the time, all organic light without a power source is natural light. The problematic part is when enhancing that light in post production. I still see it as natural light, since that's the data captured by the sensor. But adding light on Post might be stretching the natural light description. Still, when I read artificial light, I think of LEDs, street lights, strobes and flashes, not Photoshopped light.

This all sounds very, very complicated. I'm just a simple-minded country bumpkin and I'm bewildered by most of this. Damn. I was actually enjoying myself before realising how much I should know but don't know. 

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 :-)

Looking at the other thread, nobody suggested that there was any additional lighting, just that it had been modified in Photoshop. I don't see anyone suggesting that it would still be considered natural light if any additional lighting was used.

A larger model takes a picture of themselves and decides that nobody will want to shoot them, so they think, "I’ll Photoshop it." They go into Photoshop and, using AI, cut a clear 4 inches off either side of their body in the picture, turning an almost obese model into the picture of fitness. You shouldn’t have an argument, right? It’s still them in the picture—that’s a very good likeness of the model’s "natural self" because Photoshop is still natural, isn’t it? :-D-  yea remember if photoshop doesnt count for some things it tends to leak across to other areas and thats where you get upset. photoshop is not natural, if you alter light in photoshop, add light with photoshop, add shadows by defininition that is artifitial light.

Edited by ANDY00

ANDY00

Thanks. I'll have a look at that.

EdT 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 :-)

Looking at the other thread, nobody suggested that there was any additional lighting, just that it had been modified in Photoshop. I don't see anyone suggesting that it would still be considered natural light if any additional lighting was used.

i suggest you look again, focus on the replies to me from other members, i quoted one in this thread. 

JPea said

ANDY00

Thanks. I'll have a look at that.

No worries, it works a lot better the new version is cazy accurate at spotting any nudity.

EdT 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 :-)

Looking at the other thread, nobody suggested that there was any additional lighting, just that it had been modified in Photoshop. I don't see anyone suggesting that it would still be considered natural light if any additional lighting was used.

I presume you're referring to MidgePhoto's post "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 ..."

The way that I parsed that is:

"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" i.e. we don't stop saying that a photo was taken using flash, just because that photo has been altered in photoshop. So, a hypothetical photo taken with flash remains a photo taken with flash, even if it has been altered with photoshop. 

In a new sentence, talking about the image from the thread in question, he goes on to say "The light was natural. It may have been the last natural thing that touched any part of the final image". I.e. in this particular case the light was natural.

I thought he made that clear higher up in this thread.

"this was taken in a shaded area, natural light"

Could the OP of the other thread gone into more detail about the entirety of the image creation process? Sure.

Does anyone go into the minutiae of their process when asking for critique? If any do I doubt it's many.

Is the OP of the other thread actively trying to pass off their image as an unedited straight out of camera shot? Doesn't seem like it.

I'll be honest, I don't understand how that ended up with us where we are, with you wielding a torch and pitchfork accusing a fellow member of some egregious dishonesty (you may actually be talking in generalisations, but the connection between this thread and the other thread certainly make it seem like all your dishonesty comments are directed at him).

Edited by Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper

Edited by Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper

Theta Aeterna said

Unfocussed Mike said

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 am dying here :)))

In my opinion, who uses natural light most of the time, all organic light without a power source is natural light. The problematic part is when enhancing that light in post production. I still see it as natural light, since that's the data captured by the sensor. But adding light on Post might be stretching the natural light description. Still, when I read artificial light, I think of LEDs, street lights, strobes and flashes, not Photoshopped light.

Before generative AI we still had contrast control in post, so natural light was always tuneable rather than fixed.

It does get a bit murky with AI now able to unlight and relight scenes.

Natural light is such a vague term though - harsh midday sun to full overcast is all technically natural light but very different looks. It's also totally academic, with sufficient skill and equipment there are very few situations where natural light cannot be emulated - ironically one of which is the Apollo 11 footage.

The Ghost said

Theta Aeterna said

Unfocussed Mike said

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 am dying here :)))

In my opinion, who uses natural light most of the time, all organic light without a power source is natural light. The problematic part is when enhancing that light in post production. I still see it as natural light, since that's the data captured by the sensor. But adding light on Post might be stretching the natural light description. Still, when I read artificial light, I think of LEDs, street lights, strobes and flashes, not Photoshopped light.

Before generative AI we still had contrast control in post, so natural light was always tuneable rather than fixed.

It does get a bit murky with AI now able to unlight and relight scenes.

Natural light is such a vague term though - harsh midday sun to full overcast is all technically natural light but very different looks. It's also totally academic, with sufficient skill and equipment there are very few situations where natural light cannot be emulated - ironically one of which is the Apollo 11 footage.

I agree!

I'll try my best in future to give full details and disclosure...pressed the shutter and f***ed about with it.

Edited by indemnity

indemnity said

I'll try my best in future to give full details and disclosure...pressed the shutter and f***ed about with it.

Edited by indemnity

Seems the safest way doesn't it

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

"this was taken in a shaded area, natural light"

Could the OP of the other thread gone into more detail about the entirety of the image creation process? Sure.

Does anyone go into the minutiae of their process when asking for critique? If any do I doubt it's many.

Is the OP of the other thread actively trying to pass off their image as an unedited straight out of camera shot? Doesn't seem like it.

I'll be honest, I don't understand how that ended up with us where we are, with you wielding a torch and pitchfork accusing a fellow member of some egregious dishonesty (you may actually be talking in generalisations, but the connection between this thread and the other thread certainly make it seem like all your dishonesty comments are directed at him).

Edited by Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper

Edited by Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper

Ok, so if a photo taken in a "natural light" situation then goes through Photoshop, they can still call it a "natural light shot" (according to this philosophy you believe) because it started as a natural light shot, regardless of how it looks on the day it’s published is that right ? . By that philosophy, all images, regardless of how they were shot, could be considered SOOC shots because that’s how they started—regardless of how they ended up. So again, you’ve made those definitions meaningless and without any value whatsoever.....

If an image is shot in "natural light," it is a natural light image until you alter that light. If you alter it, it’s no longer a natural light shot because the light in the image is no longer natural. 

Orson Carter said

This all sounds very, very complicated. I'm just a simple-minded country bumpkin and I'm bewildered by most of this. Damn. I was actually enjoying myself before realising how much I should know but don't know. 

I am not sure how it got this complicated to be honest, and I say that as someone sitting in a coffee shop reading a geometry textbook for fun. Generally I do complicated!

Edited by Unfocussed Mike