Rebel Photo wrote:

Just who are you implying as "these photographers"?

I am refering to photographers that don't know anything about lighting...the ones that aren't knowledgable enough to know the difference between natural light and artificial light (flash, strobes, etc). I truly believe they aren't savvy enough to replicate catchlights if they don't have the basic understanding of lighting in the first place.

Boyd Photo Portland wrote:
This shot was done with natural light. The sun was low and I had her pose against a stainless steel building as a reflector. Absolutely no flash was used in this one and it has a catch light in her eyes and a shodow under the chin as you described as being fake.

If an on camera flash was used in that image the shadows would be totally different under her chin as would the catchlight in her eyes. I might guess that an extrnal flash was used for this pic, but your description does make me realize that modifying natural light with a very reflective surface can mimic flash.

mw image wrote:

Several of the shots in my port were done with natural light, excpet for the shots in the alley, they were done in virtual darkness.

AHHH HA!! Caught you!!! Liar Liar, You were useing FULL MOON light here for this shot!!


Hahaha! great shot no matter what light!!
Ron.

Marc Grant wrote:
Catch lights here.  Where are they coming from?  This model is standing in shade and I'm using no reflectors.

I don't really see a distinct catchlight. There are lots of things reflecting in her eye.

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
Don't be fooled by catchlights.

I do a lot of available light shoots and still get catchlights from the foamcore reflectors or octagonal white umbrellas.

Only thing that bugs me is when you use available light all the "real" pros seem to pooh pooh the idea as if it's only for amatures.

Can't be a "pro" unless you hit them with a gizillion watts of power!!!!

I agree. I think getting great results with natural light can be a real challenge and the more knowledge of lighting you have, the better results you get. Nothing can beat the softness of indirect, available light.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
I don't really see a distinct catchlight. There are lots of reflections in her eyes.

EDIT

If you can't see the catch lights then I can't help you.  They are there.  Maybe you don't understand what a catch light is.  A catch light is a reflection of the light source.  The "lots of reflections" you're seeing is the catch light from a very large light source, the outdoors.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
Nothing can beat the softness of indirect, available light.

But I like fluid direct light

Bill Mason Images wrote:
This seems to be another example of photographers that don't really understand their craft.

Note to myself - do not use "natural light" to descibe my images.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
I'm not wrong...your description of using reflectors and gobos is still using natural light. I wasn't talking about modifying light. I'm talking about using flash or other artificial lighting and calling it natural lighting.

A reflector that was deliberately introduced into a scene by a photographer isn't 'artificial'?

Me, I only use available light--any light that's available to do the job. I don't worry about artificial distinctions between "natural" and "artificial".

ELAN IMAGE STUDIO wrote:



au naturale... dam i miss this studio!

Inspiring!

By the way, most of my pics here are done using natural lights and at times with reflectors.

http://www.josesantiagotan.com/photos/

Trisha Bowyer wrote:

OMG! Fabulous!

Seconded

Bill Mason Images wrote:

I don't really see a distinct catchlight. There are lots of things reflecting in her eye.

the size of the image cannot give a good detail of the catch light. It looks as though you could see the room reflected in her eyes. It appears to be a large window to the models right. light is coming in and hitting a few objects in the room in front of the model.  If the reflection is clear enough I am able to see my self in the models eyes. 

Natural or available light as it is called is not better or worse than artificial light. Many pros use both at the same time. It is stupid to say "My portfolio is all natural light!" like that makes a difference than if it was all not natural light.  To be honest I don't think only using natural light is harder. Using more lights is harder then using one light source. It depends on your style and look you are trying to achieve.

Artificial lights in a room could also be called available light if no flash is used.
Being a wedding photographer I switch constantly from not using flash to a mix of both. It gives different looks, because it is light that makes the photo as well as no light that makes a photo.

I can usually guess the lighting set up people use with out looking at catch lights.
You have look at the shadows. the directions they face, angle they are at. Is is soft light or hard light? that will tell you if modifiers are used.  some lights are brighter, for fill or main. some lights have different color temperatures, that indicates different type of light. some have very subtle, almost hard to see differences but a pro can see it.

My 2 cents.

Bill Mason Images wrote:
Natrual light...means just that. No artificial light source on the model. I see "professional" photographers with captions under headshots claiming they are natural light when there is clearly a sharply defined shadow under their chin and a catchlight in the center of their pupils. Those can only be created from an on camera flash since the model is obviously not in direct sunlight. This seems to be another example of photographers that don't really understand their craft.

I'm confused.

Their technique (or lack thereof) effects you how exactly?

Bladman wrote:
Light is light.  It doesn't matter whether it's natural or artificial, strobe or tungsten, flashlight or flashbulb..  You have to know what you're doing with it.  And if you know that you can use any source. 

Lots of my photos here are lit with strobes, a number with natural light.  It's all about making an image that stands out and works.

I like the way you think.  I was trying to think of how I would word a response, but you did it for me.

Bladman wrote:
Light is light.  It doesn't matter whether it's natural or artificial, strobe or tungsten, flashlight or flashbulb..  You have to know what you're doing with it.  And if you know that you can use any source. 

Lots of my photos here are lit with strobes, a number with natural light.  It's all about making an image that stands out and works.

Right on!

Eduardo Garcia  wrote:
100% natural light, no reflectors......nothing!

Ah......and the nudes in my port as well!

bellisimo