Natural light

I guess if the viewer can't tell whether its lit with natural light or other means, then what odds is it?

Very few images are posted straight out of the camera and most will have had a certain amount of enhancing done - this undoubtedly includes changes to light.

Only the photographer and model really knows what light there was at the time.

Personally I'd list an image with whatever the main lighting source was at the time.

I.e if shot outdoors with no other lights... then its natural light... that's not to say I haven't enhanced this during editing.

ANDY00 said

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. 

I haven't actually shared my feelings on the whole natural light/available light/manipulated etc side of this thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I believe. I simply pointed out that the OP of the other thread didn't try to pass their final image off as a natural light SOOC image, they simply stated that when they took the image they only used the natural light where they were. If you had waited for a response from them they may have been forthcoming with information about the post processing they performed.

Edited by Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper

Unfocussed Mike said

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

Don't forget to test the temperature of the coffee to work out the solubility of the sugar to accurately calculate the required amount....and try not to chuckle aloud reading the book.

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

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. 

I haven't actually shared my feelings on the whole natural light/available light/manipulated etc side of this thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I believe. I simply pointed out that the OP of the other thread didn't try to pass their final image off as a natural light SOOC image, they simply stated that when they took the image they only used the natural light where they were. If you had waited for a response to them they may have been forthcoming with information about the post processing they performed.

It wasn’t that I hadn’t waited—it was that others began critiquing my question for the reasons already stated. There’s really no need to bring the OP of another thread into this.

The reason I created this as a separate thread was specifically to avoid affecting the OP of that one.

I must go back and mark all my darkroom prints "Un-natural Light" now because of that dodging and burning I used to do   :(

ANDY00 said

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

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. 

I haven't actually shared my feelings on the whole natural light/available light/manipulated etc side of this thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I believe. I simply pointed out that the OP of the other thread didn't try to pass their final image off as a natural light SOOC image, they simply stated that when they took the image they only used the natural light where they were. If you had waited for a response to them they may have been forthcoming with information about the post processing they performed.

It wasn’t that I hadn’t waited—it was that others began critiquing my question for the reasons already stated. There’s really no need to bring the OP of another thread into this.

The reason I created this as a separate thread was specifically to avoid affecting the OP of that one.

Which is fair enough. Even though you intended to avoid affecting the OP of the other thread, and even though to you the dishonesty comments are merely a generalisation towards the topic as a whole, it can appear to others as though they are directed towards the OP of the other thread because the link between the two is fairly obvious. It's good to know that wasn't your intent though.

And for what it's worth, it's an interesting debate, and one I haven't got the foggiest idea what the "correct" answer is.

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

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. 

I haven't actually shared my feelings on the whole natural light/available light/manipulated etc side of this thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I believe. I simply pointed out that the OP of the other thread didn't try to pass their final image off as a natural light SOOC image, they simply stated that when they took the image they only used the natural light where they were. If you had waited for a response to them they may have been forthcoming with information about the post processing they performed.

It wasn’t that I hadn’t waited—it was that others began critiquing my question for the reasons already stated. There’s really no need to bring the OP of another thread into this.

The reason I created this as a separate thread was specifically to avoid affecting the OP of that one.

Which is fair enough. Even though you intended to avoid affecting the OP of the other thread, and even though to you the dishonesty comments are merely a generalisation towards the topic as a whole, it can appear to others as though they are directed towards the OP of the other thread because the link between the two is fairly obvious. It's good to know that wasn't your intent though.

And for what it's worth, it's an interesting debate, and one I haven't got the foggiest idea what the "correct" answer is.

Oh no absalutely not direct at anyone inparticuar at all just discussing what was brought up :-)

ANDY00 said

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

Ian Guffogg | The Geeky Snapper said

ANDY00 said

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. 

I haven't actually shared my feelings on the whole natural light/available light/manipulated etc side of this thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim to know what I believe. I simply pointed out that the OP of the other thread didn't try to pass their final image off as a natural light SOOC image, they simply stated that when they took the image they only used the natural light where they were. If you had waited for a response to them they may have been forthcoming with information about the post processing they performed.

It wasn’t that I hadn’t waited—it was that others began critiquing my question for the reasons already stated. There’s really no need to bring the OP of another thread into this.

The reason I created this as a separate thread was specifically to avoid affecting the OP of that one.

Which is fair enough. Even though you intended to avoid affecting the OP of the other thread, and even though to you the dishonesty comments are merely a generalisation towards the topic as a whole, it can appear to others as though they are directed towards the OP of the other thread because the link between the two is fairly obvious. It's good to know that wasn't your intent though.

And for what it's worth, it's an interesting debate, and one I haven't got the foggiest idea what the "correct" answer is.

Oh no absalutely not direct at anyone inparticuar at all just discussing what was brought up :-)

I'll keep checking back, see if a consensus is reached :-)

Huw said

I must go back and mark all my darkroom prints "Un-natural Light" now because of that dodging and burning I used to do   :(

I can see you running outside with your enlarger and paper covered in a thick black sheet and pulling the cover off to expose a print. ;) :) 

Edited by indemnity

indemnity said

Huw said

I must go back and mark all my darkroom prints "Un-natural Light" now because of that dodging and burning I used to do   :(

I can see you running outside with your enlarger and paper covered in a thick black sheet and pulling the cover off to expose a print. ;) :) 

Edited by indemnity

Oh shit!

Can’t be natural light if I used an electric lightbulb in my enlarger.

Better get a contact printing frame.

;)

Obviously excluding non-digital photographs, if we’re now saying that where and how the image was created determines whether it’s a "natural light" shot—regardless of any artificial inputs or Photoshop wizardry—then, hey, let’s just call everything a "natural light shot." Heck, let’s throw in "straight out of camera" while we’re at it because apparently, as long as it started natural, anything goes. Add a spotlight, tweak the lighting in Photoshop, slap on some sunbeams, and voilà! Totally natural, right?

By this logic, every single image is SOOC because, well, it started that way before being given a digital face-lift. Seriously, if we’re rewriting definitions this way, why bother having them at all? Next, we’ll be calling selfies with dog filters "wildlife photography :-P

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.

I missed this post when it began, only just found it. Would anyone care to help me by summarising what conclusion has been reached? I’m mildly interested as I’d describe the bulk of my images as ‘largely natural light’, but don’t think twice about filling in with reflectors, flash, or more often the modelling light of a portable flash (eg AD400)

It’s never really occurred to me to be concerned about differentiating between what’s coming through my windows (is that natural light?) and what I assemble to try to take a pic. I guess mainly as I’ve never realised why it’s important.

Unfocussed Mike said

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

I'm glad it's not just me (the confusion, not the geometry textbook.) I can't figure out whether the OP has a genuine point, a misguided grievance or a genuine mental health problem.