That's why YOU are the photographer and his is the model.
I understand why he said it though. Some people think that amateurs that only shoot outside in natural light are not experienced or can't afford any lighting equipment.
I'll even admit that when I see someone that ONLY shoots outside I think I guess the don't have any lighting gear.
But some of those people shoot AMAZING images outside in natural light. Some people that just their thing and they are
very good at it.
These below are all from natural light either outside or coming though the window and only the top one used a reflector.
I havnt treated him like an idiot, I have explained to him over several messages and pointed out the whys and reasons, but he dosnt believe you can get a good shot without artificial light. And wont accept what I am telling him.
Maybe you're misunderstanding him. Perhaps he is saying that you can't get a good shot in natural light.
This is what he said (from your OP);
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually"
I don't know, but maybe he doesn't like your work with natural light.
Danny Barson
Posts: 48
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Dean Johnson Photo wrote:
Maybe you're misunderstanding him. Perhaps he is saying that you can't get a good shot in natural light.
This is what he said (from your OP);
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually"
I don't know, but maybe he doesn't like your work with natural light.
I wouldn't say that from his first contact with me
"Hi there
I am interested for your casting.
i love your work !! they are stunning
I would like to collaborate with you for your this project."
Well, that person's a bid old derp if there ever was one! What do they think photographers did when the top of the line camera was a pinhole camera? I highly doubt the birth of photography included reflectors and flashes.
I understand that lighting rigs can give you a more consistent shoot, but what the hell is the fun of that. My best shots were going out and derping around with my camera and goings "holy shit the lighting is awesome on that one." then when I try to replicate it with arti light, it comes out flat and uninteresting. Your stuff is great and he is a derp.
I wouldn't say that from his first contact with me
"Hi there
I am interested for your casting.
i love your work !! they are stunning
I would like to collaborate with you for your this project."
Nadeshiko Yamato wrote: Well, that person's a bid old derp if there ever was one! What do they think photographers did when the top of the line camera was a pinhole camera? I highly doubt the birth of photography included reflectors and flashes.
To be fair, they weren't taking the kinds of photos we're capable of now back in those days.
I think he may be responding that on a few of your shots, you have exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor and it doesn't match his view as to what it should look like.
That's what HDR is for. It's not just to make things look surreal.
Dannyb66 wrote: I have been talking to a model about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.
somebody probably told her at some point that photographers who use natural light only do so because they don't understand lighting, which is sometimes true, but that is still pretty ridiculous. If the natural light is great why mess with it?
I know this is an old thread but, I just got back a shot taken in the Midnight sun here in Fairbanks. Natural light, shot about 12:30 at night. Its my current avitar.
Derek Meddings, one of the greatest of all Special FX men, said that he preferred to shoot outdoors whenever possible as there was no better lighting than what the man upstairs provided
Dannyb66 wrote: I have been talking to a model about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.
It is amazing how much amateures seem to think they know...
It amazes me how many of you have hung this model out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.
How many of you think this is an argument between sunlight and a steady burning light bulb in your house?
The model was probably thinking about strobe-assisted photography outdoors. You all go on and on about lighting. But are you thinking strobes or light bulbs? Strobes have nothing to do with light bulbs, and you absolutely cannot get shots like these outdoors without strobe augmentation:
You simply cannot get this kind of look outdoors without strobes no matter how many assistants are holding reflectors for you. And no reflector at all? Forget it.
See that pop? See how clearly the subjects are defined and separated from their backgrounds? You can't get this look with straight sunlight shots no matter who you are. And details come across a lot crisper with strobes.
The camera sensor just reacts differently to strobes, producing a vibrancy and richness of detail that cannot be had otherwise.
The model simply prefers this kind of produced outdoor look assisted by strobes.
And yes, if a photographer has no experience with strobes and "shoots strictly in natural light mostly outdoors," I would think he's an amateur, too.
The moral of this story? You shouldn't always sign off a model (FEMALE or MALE) as an airhead. Sometimes you can learn something from your models. I know I have.
"You're the photographer! And the model is just a mindless blob of flesh who should never question or offer suggestions!"
Are you people for real?
And lastly, what are all these 'natural light' photos some of you have posted? To prove the point that the model's suggestion was utterly stupid? Compare your examples to these shots and tell me if you notice any difference.
All you 'natural light photographers' who think this model should be lynched, compare your ports to his:
Dannyb66 wrote: I have been talking to a model about a outdoor shoot planned next week, and I said I only normally use natural lighting in my shots, and use of reflectors, and this was the reply I got...
"ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually"
So guess Im not working with him then.
Yeah, and who's the photographer here? (that isn't actually a question, it's more of a rhetorical statement~ with a hint of sarcasm)
Personally, I like the use of "natural ligt" in outdoor photoshoots.
Chicchowmein
Posts: 13,472
Palm Beach, Florida, US
Strobist DeLux wrote: It amazes me how many of you have hung this model out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.
How many of you think this is an argument between sunlight and a steady burning light bulb in your house?
The model was probably thinking about strobe-assisted photography outdoors. You all go on and on about lighting. But are you thinking strobes or light bulbs? Strobes have nothing to do with light bulbs, and you absolutely cannot get shots like these outdoors without strobe augmentation:
You simply cannot get this kind of look outdoors without strobes no matter how many assistants are holding reflectors for you. And no reflector at all? Forget it.
See that pop? See how clearly the subjects are defined and separated from their backgrounds? You can't get this look with straight sunlight shots no matter who you are. And details come across a lot crisper with strobes.
The camera sensor just reacts differently to strobes, producing a vibrancy and richness of detail that cannot be had otherwise.
The model simply prefers this kind of produced outdoor look assisted by strobes.
And yes, if a photographer has no experience with strobes and "shoots strictly in natural light mostly outdoors," I would think he's an amateur, too.
The moral of this story? You shouldn't always sign off a model (FEMALE or MALE) as an airhead. Sometimes you can learn something from your models. I know I have.
"You're the photographer! And the model is just a mindless blob of flesh who should never question or offer suggestions!"
Are you people for real?
And lastly, what are all these 'natural light' photos some of you have posted? To prove the point that the model's suggestion was utterly stupid? Compare your examples to these shots and tell me if you notice any difference.
All you 'natural light photographers' who think this model should be lynched, compare your ports to his:
you may be shocked to know that not everyone likes that look ( and I venture to say there is a considerable amount of post work done to those shots).
Without critiquing I will just say that those shots look artificial and shopped. Now I use strobes sometimes and I use natural light sometimes but there are plenty of fantastic images shot with natural light.
Yeah, and who's the photographer here? (that isn't actually a question, it's more of a rhetorical statement~ with a hint of sarcasm)
Personally, I like the use of "natural ligt" in outdoor photoshoots.
A model doesn't have a right to question the photographer? A model should just shoot with any photographer and trust that he/she knows what the hell they're doing? No.
And what other kind of 'ligt' would be used outdoors?
Strobist DeLux wrote: It amazes me how many of you have hung this llama out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.
That is NOT what the llama said. He said, "ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually" - copied and pasted from the OP.
Strobist DeLux wrote: The llama was probably thinking about strobe-assisted photography outdoors.
...etc...
The llama simply prefers this kind of produced outdoor look assisted by strobes.
you may be shocked to know that not everyone likes that look ( and I venture to say there is a considerable amount of post work done to those shots).
Without critiquing I will just say that those shots look artificial and shopped. Now I use strobes sometimes and I use natural light sometimes but there are plenty of fantastic images shot with natural light.
There's another one. Who ever said beautiful work couldn't be done with natural light alone? They look artificial and shopped to you, but they're not. So you're wrong.
Strobist DeLux wrote: It amazes me how many of you have hung this model out to dry in the unkindest of ways for daring to suggest that there's something more to photography than what the sun has to offer.
That is NOT what the model said. He said, "ok but you cannot get good photos with natural ligt its basic photo actually" - copied and pasted from the OP.
You have no way of knowing what the model was thinking other than what was indicated by his words. And all anybody knows of that is what the OP has stated.
Then either you are guilty of the same level of assumption you accuse others of, or you ignore or are unaware of the history of your profession. Or both.
This isn't about strobe vs. continuous light. What set this thread off was an apparently ignorant statement about what makes good photography.
Nice rant, though.
And everyone has right to their opinion. So why is the model such a criminal again? This whole thread is a wrong-headed rant.
And everything hinges on the quickly typed words of a model? Please.
I think the OP just got butt-hurt and needed his wounds licked by all of you.
Chicchowmein
Posts: 13,472
Palm Beach, Florida, US
Strobist DeLux wrote:
There's another one. Who ever said beautiful work couldn't be done with natural light alone? They look artificial and shopped to you, but they're not. So you're wrong.
There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.
Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that
This is an old thread but I wanted to chime in- strobes work their purpose in the studio and outdoors. Not everyone would like the particular look but there is a big following when it comes to filling in the shadows on a person's face and bringing back the color. At the same time the shadows can also be a different style for artistic expression. Tho I find myself using strobes more often today- I started using natural light and by all means it works if you know how to find even light or blow out the background. I can't always find someone to hold the reflector either. So if your happy with that style good for you.
There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.
Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that
What? So we're not allowed to post anymore? All of our stuff has to remain untouched as it came out of the camera? What are you saying?
Image Works Photography wrote: This is an old thread but I wanted to chime in- strobes work their purpose in the studio and outdoors. Not everyone would like the particular look but there is a big following when it comes to filling in the shadows on a person's face and bringing back the color. At the same time the shadows can also be a different style for artistic expression. Tho I find myself using strobes more often today- I started using natural light and by all means it works if you know how to find even light or blow out the background. I can't always find someone to hold the reflector either. So if your happy with that style good for you.
Why can't more people have an approach like yours? That's basically how I feel, but look at the ranting 'natural lighters' who got all offended by a quick sentence typed by a model..
Lumatic wrote: As I pointed out above, the model you're defending said so, apparently.
Let the model be wrong. Maybe I felt like being the only one to defend him because so many of you pooped on him. Life goes on without a thread like this.
Dan K Studio
Posts: 183
STATEN ISLAND, New York, US
chicchowmein wrote:
There is no way that third one down has not had some work done in photoshop at the very least the contrast has been tweaked considerably and the shots are super saturated. There is no way that shot in particular came out of camera like that.
Period. How about I take those shots over to someone at the Photographic Center and ask them if those photos came out of camera like that
what does that have to do with anything? All those natural light shots above have also undergone pp.
| 
| 
| edu