Every time I hear a photographer state, “I’m a natural light photographer”, it can carry a suggestion that they are a more honest type of photographer, better attuned to reality, and purer in motive. What I hear is, “I haven’t learned to use my flash.” This may sound harsh but I can’t help it; right or wrong, I want to call them out on it. It is time to question why natural light shooting has, in many circles, become the more virtuous form of photography.
Often I read these descriptions about wedding or family photographers on their websites. After introducing themselves as an easy going individuals, they promise that their shoots are natural and free of flash use, preferring daylight only. It is a positive message, almost like a healthier choice for you and your loved ones. It sells the idea of authenticity but I suspect it also allows some photographers to work within their comfort zone.
I actually understand the appeal of being a natural light photographer. What could be better than just using what is there? There is less set up time, less gear to carry and the resulting images can be absolutely stunning. They don’t need a studio and the photographer can focus on their subject rather than work out why a light trigger isn’t working. People are also more relaxed without a flash popping in their faces. Often, I do entire shoots without pulling out my flash. However, it is not the selling point of my work. My aim is to make the best image I can, for myself or my client, and this may be achieved with just daylight, with flash or a combination of both.
Shooting in natural light may not be as romantic as it sounds. Searching for that elusive golden hour is not a guaranteed outcome and depending on the time of year, a very hurried process. Sometimes the rain comes and you have to relocate the shoot indoors. I've seen situations like these send many photographers into a panic, and suddenly the label of being a natural light photographer becomes more of a curse than a blessing. Having a few lights on hand can save the shoot; I often joke with my clients that with my lighting gear, I can make it whatever weather they like.
Natural spot of light filtering through some street signs gives this image a cinematic feel.
Sadly, flash has become a dirty word, especially in the field of portraiture, weddings and street photography. It has become the unwanted flavour enhancer in the minds of some photographers and their clients because of the perceived artificiality, conjuring memories of bad 80s family portraits. Being able to shoot well without it is almost a form of deliverance from evil.
Often these feelings are formed when a photographer has had a bad experience with using their flash gear. The poor results are blamed on the troublesome technology and this naturally leads many to claim that natural light photography is superior. Unfortunately this conclusion denies the photographer a broader range of skills that could help them work better in a wider range of situations and styles.
The Problem with Flash
The greatest misconception about using flash is that it is used solely to illuminate something. For anyone new to using flash, the set up mostly consists of pointing the light directly at the subject and hoping for the best. What results is normally a photograph that looks like it was taken in a dentist waiting room. The light is flat, unflattering and will send you screaming into the reassuring arms of an afternoon sunset. One of the main reasons many photographers avoid shooting with flash is because they panic after the first bad shot and abandon this technique soon after.
Photograph lit with a speedlight and Photek Softlighter from above right.
For any photographer looking to use flash or other forms of lighting, it is vital to remember that this light is used to shape the subject, direct attention, create mood, and simulate lighting that otherwise doesn’t exist. You could create a sunset where there was none. Good lighting techniques often end up looking like beautiful natural light, helping you take control of a scene rather than be overwhelmed by it. Developing experience in flash techniques along with having a reasonable understanding of light modifiers should be par for anyone wanting to offer their services as photographers.
One of my favorite examples of how flash lighting can completely transform a subject is the sublime work of Philip-Lorca diCorcia depicting Hollywood hustlers, shot on location in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His careful placement of light and the use of colored gels create a beautiful depth in his images, leading the viewer’s eyes through his composition while drawing out his main subject. His use of flash lighting may not be the dominant quality of his work but it would not be as powerful without it.
What We Can Learn from Each Other
Lighting, in any form, is a visual language that should be learnt. It takes skill to be a natural light shooter, to examine a scene and know where the best place to shoot from is and how to make the most of what you see. I have learnt from these photographers to chase that magical beam of light streaming through a gap in the window, or to move my subjects to a more favorable location, instead of trying to overcome bad light with a truck full of gear.
I also value the hours I’ve spent experimenting and learning what my lighting gear can achieve. It allows me to say yes to work where other people might decline because it’s not something they shoot. Watching countless YouTube tutorials and working with other photographers, I’ve learnt that lighting is not as scary as it seems and eventually it feels quite natural.
It is not my intention to value one type over another, but I do want to highlight this tendency for photographers to define themselves by something that is not necessarily a quality. It is worth examining the reasons why some photographers label themselves, “natural light photographers.” Is it an excuse to avoid tackling more difficult lighting techniques or a clear philosophical decision that directs their artistic vision? Whatever the reasons, we shouldn’t let such labels cripple our own creative development. It is enough to call yourself a photographer – whatever that means.
Sometimes i wonder if people like Cliff Mautner read this stuff. He's not keen on using flash, he doesn't like them. So what, is he less of a photographer?!
True natural light photogs also do not use any type of reflector. It is strictly against code.
I myself have dabbled in another rare sect: natural darkness photography, where a model must appear in absolute darkness. It is a very tricky practice to perfect, and the resulting images are very interpretive.
Jason, I think you too much stuck on your 'photography for clients'. You have to think as an artist first of all! I know many people that just use natural light and don't know how to use artificial light, you right!... and I know people than just wanted studio and artificial light and after all they don't know how to work with natural scene and natural light. I'm not a natural lighter photographer, I even doesn't know what it means, I think it's a false question. But, I consider myself a naturalistic photographer, using my main light (natural) and my artificial light to shape and help me with my naturalistic ideas. If you study art history, I hope you studied... you'll realize the difference between naturalism and realism, and in our days, the contemporany 'artificialism', I hope I can call that. Let's put the eyes on Gregory Crewdson's work... he wants too create natural scenes, but his dependence of artificial light is huge to create that. In the end, I think that the most important thing is concept and essence. It's just my opinion! Thanks for the opportunity.
I love Gregory Crewdson's work. Such an inspiration. Yes, I originally came from an art background but I'm also addressing anyone interested in working in a commercial capacity.
We know, you needed a catchy headline. It needs to polarize, create diverse opinion. Create comments and views.
By titling this article "My Problem With Natural Light Photographers" you did exactly what you criticize later on. Using labels to define people. "What We Can Learn from Each Other". There is a binary choice, either you are this or that?
If you don't want people to use labels to define themselves, stop using the same exact label on who you think 'they' are.
Great talking points Jason, and well articulated, i enjoyed this.
On the topic of Philip-Lorca diCorcia, if anyone is interested in checking out his work (and it's brilliant, he is a master) try to check out his hard-to-find but excellent "Street Work" book to see a totally unique stance on flash-lit candid street photography, as well as "Heads", his flash work of candid street portraiture done in a completely different way. Really brilliant stuff.
There is a time and place for both flash and natural light. But one rarely sees highly contrived and unnatural photos that are lit naturally, while the unworldly seems to be the domain of those who eschew natural light, to wit, a woman in a perfectly lit set indoors with her hair blowing in the wind. Scantily-clad woman dressed in a bikini astride a Harley with smoke billowing and a boa constrictor around her neck, anyone?
I'm primarily a strobist. So much so that it's become a bit of a handicap for me. I HAVE to bring my flash/strobes on location for every shoot. The problem is that it can become a hindrance when trying to connect with your subject and having to lug around, setup, teardown lighting for each look. I've started doing less strobe and learning to use what's available.
I think natural light can be more convenient which is what makes it more appealing to some. With flash work, you have a lot more variables you have to take into account compared to natural light. The problem with using natural light only is, you end up making yourself so picky when to shoot. because you wait for that dynamic light instead of just adjusting your exposure and using flash to create unique lighting.
I don't use flash a great deal as I don't do many portraits, but I certainly own several speedlights and use it any chance I get.
I don't think this is true. As a self proclaimed natural light photographer, I know how to create beautiful images any time of day if there is available light, even at high noon. It's not about one type of light or the other, it's about mastering a style that you prefer. Even so, if mine or someone else's preference is to shoot in early morning light because we like it, what's the problem?
The style has not much to do whit source of light. It is like saying I am "Canon 50mm lens photographer". You can be successful using limited gear however "advertising" it, is more like an excuse or just being hipster ;)
I think advertising ourselves in certain ways is a way of defining ourselves, and to me defining myself as a natural light photographer because I prefer it that way makes sense. My issue with this whole topic is the crowd who refuse to acknowledge that they're making huge generalizations and judgements based on what they think is right. If someone wants to define themselves as a natural light photographer, a 50mm lens user, a strobist, or whatever, let them. I just don't see the big issue.
Of course it is generalization. Judgmental? I think in funny way, yes. I don't see here controversy though. It is, however what my judgmental mind think when I read or hear that someone title him/her self as natural light photographer. No issue, just subjective opinion.
Judge away then. :)
The problem with this article is the headline. It's misleading and until you read the article (which is very well written and I'm in total agreement) it looks like you're about to hate upon anyone who uses natural light. Hence the angry Facebook posts from folks that probably haven't read the piece. A bit Click-Bait-y?
So true. I always hear the same translation in my own head, i.e. "I'm a natural light photographer" = " I have no idea how to use flash & am scared to try."
I like how one of the related articles is about gorgeous natural light portraits :D
All light is natural.
Taking a step back, there is another point to consider. What is the motivation behind using a flash in a lot of photographs? Was there another light source that was being mimicked by that strobe? A lot of what we base our artificial lighting decisions on is the look of naturally occurring or practical light. Whether you are able to achieve that look comes down to more of a matter of budget, time of day, weather, and the problem solving ability of the photographer over labeling a style according to some photographer's polarizing creed.
Certainly there are styles of light that are not based off a naturally occurring phenomenon. I agree that the term "natural light photographer" is more for marketing and less about a style. I also think that a lot of good flash photography draws its inspiration from a natural light source. Why else do companies sell the infinite number of shapes and sizes of modifiers?
The popularity of the Strobist (and others like him) have made off-camera flash lighting superfluous. It's starting to look like just another gimmick.
That's just a neutral cultural observation. My personal view is that there's nothing wrong with using gimmicks when it comes to making money, impressing friends/relatives, or just plain having fun with a camera .
The problem with this debate is it focuses on where the light comes from rather than looking at where the light falls. Some photographers know how to use light and some people who don't. Unfortunately, there are a group of people who mistakenly believe that using natural light means you don't need to learn about using light, just like there are people who believe that a good camera will make them a better photographer.
The blame lies with the lack of understanding and all photographers should be trying to educate the people who don't understand what it's all about.
I love seeing wedding photographers that say they are natural light photographers, it makes me wonder how they shoot weddings; even the best location have marginal light at dusk and forget about it at night.
99 out of 100 times when someone calls themself a natural light photographer it means they are new and don't understand how to control light. Sure you can control natural light but that's not what most people (That I have spoken to) mean when they say they are a natural light photographer, what they normally mean (whether or not they admit or realize it) is that they don't know how to use flash.
True enough, "Natural Light Photography" is, for many, serving as a glamorous-sounding cover for not possessing photographic lighting skills.
However, there is no shortage of photographers who are just so enamored with "strobism," the process of setting up and triggering lights, that they never pay much attention to the way the lighting actually looks on their subjects: Flat, non-directional lighting? No problem. Hard-edged shadows cutting into a portrait subject's face? No problem. Dark eyes? No problem. They simply follow some lighting formula and have faith that it will produce good-looking photographs.
Furthermore, since many people start their pursuit of "serious" photography by using artificial lighting, some of these people never actually learn to "read" light in a scene. As a result, they have absolutely no ability to shoot in uncontrolled conditions; outside of a studio they resort to novice-like snapshottery.
I'm just waiting for Michael Jackson to appear with the popcorn :P ;)
These are the kinds of articles that make photographers sound stupid, badly educated, petty and incredibly off the grid of reality.
Shoot whatever the hell you want to shoot.
Wanna light it up - light it up.
Wanna shoot in the shade - enjoy.
There are legions of wonderful shooters on both sides of the aiele, and amazingly many (gasp) shoot both considering the type of image they are after.
This is the silliness that drives the web.
Shameful, Fstoppers.
This. I would thumbs up this 1000 times if I could.
hmmm, interesting. I guess i consider myself a natural light photographer for the most part but i use an external flash when needed and I have most of my practice in a strobe lighten studio....I find natural light the most challenging as a portrait photographer. Its not constant, it changes shades, colors, directions...etc throughout the day and season. Natural light is a great practice and I find it makes you much more in touch with your camera as a tool rather than with studio lighting where you get what you set it to, rather predictable if you ask me.
It is not as predictable if you are balancing strobe with ambient on partially-cloudy day ;)
I guess it is not about tools you are choosing to use as much as about the final image you create.
My problem with people telling other people what or how they should be doing something. See article above. And what Daniel Ostergren said.
"natural light only photographer" - meaning - "I don't know how to use strobe and I don't want to bother to learn."
Not always. I think that's the problem here; way too many generalizations are being made on this topic.
I don't know how to use strobes and I really don't want to learn. It just isn't for me. And now? Should I stop taking photos because I'm not practicing what YOU call "photography"?
You should practice more reading because no one talks about technique or type of light you are using.
It all boils down to this: If a photographer claims to be one or the other, and condemns the other, then they are not a complete photographer.
Always an entertaining topic. While there are exceptions I do think the flood of natural light photographers does come from the fact that it's (mostly) what's available and lack of experience. I do know some though that are more than capable of both but choose to be a natural light photographer as a matter of style or even convenience; wedding photographers tend to employ more natural light than not.
I am always confused by those that puff up their chests though and go 'oh yeah what about me I'm a natural light photographer and I know studio'. Great. You're probably not the majority. Also, your puffing of the chest might be a little disingenuous if your OOC shots are mostly pretty flat and you are putting in highlights and fill in most of your images in Photoshop where the OCF should have been to get the same shot more closely in camera.
To each their own though. As long as the client is happy, even if that client is you.
After reading this piece, I went to Jason's site fully expecting to see superficial photos of insufficiently dressed women, and stuff, things, possessions, whatever--that category that some people think makes you a winner if you die with more of it. I was not disappointed.
I don;t mind the term natural light (sounds like a beer) photographer.
Why do people have problems with those who do things differently? I thought this was a creative industry...my mistake
When I first started taking photos, I'd use upwards of 7 light to light a scene (think Dave Hill...). I eventually got really bored of that look and bought a medium format film camera. Now I pretty much shoot exclusively on film (Although I still have a full lighting setup which is gathering dust) as I think that natural light looks so much better on film, and also because using flash with film is a bit of a nightmare with all the polaroids etc... Knowing how to master natural light is as much of a skill as learning how to light with 7 flashes. Anyone can stick a flash on the hot shoe, same as anyone can walk outside and take a photo without artificial light. Doesn't mean you will do it well!
True. You have to learn how to take beautiful photos in whatever lighting condition available, just like you have to learn how to use flashes and light former.
This is so simple minded. People prefer different things for different reaons. What do I love about shooting in natural light? I love that I can't create or control light, I love to use what nature provides me and make the best out of it. I just do. Have I to apologize for it?
Of course I respect and even admire people who mastered the art of arteficial lighting. I think it's an art form itself. It is just not what I want to do. And when I have to choose, I almost always prefer the "natural light look".
Look at the work of Lisa Holloway or Jessica Drossin or Kevin Cook. Are you basically saying they are just "too lazy to learn using flashes"? What an attitude...
Given your position as stated above, and in every one of your posts in response to the article, and given that we are largely in agreement, the reason for your down-vote of my post eludes me. Did you, like, click the wrong thumb icon or something?
Fantastic article! When I first started in photography, I looked to a lot other female photographers, and found that a lot of them were self-confessed 'natural light photographers.' Your initial assessment was quite correct for most of them. Flash just didn't fit into the equation, either out of confusion when it came to its use, or a lack of budget in order to get started experimenting.
Looking at my work in the present, I couldn't fathom not knowing how to work with flash. The funny thing is, I've gotten so used to using strobes, that I have to do little 'review sessions' to remind myself about harnessing natural light.
In the end, it's all about one's style and their favored techniques. I'm just glad that I personally left my 'natural light photographer only' days behind me.
Great article! I too have come across many "natural light " photographers in my time. I almost always think "Never learned to use a flash eh?" I think that many photographers think that they have found a way to dodge learning an important part of their craft while still sounding elitist and cool.
I was chided by someone recently when I said that I made a photograph using Natural light.....I used a diffuser and a reflector. They did not seem to like the statement of natural light.
Jason Lau,
interesting article,
If one defines a "natural light photographer" as an individual who has made a conscious decision not to use artificial lighting (be it for a specific job or otherwise) as opposed to the photographer not having a clue, then things look a little different.
Becoming proficient with natural light is an art perfected over many years of practice.
I'm always in ore of those who can pull off great shots under conditions most people would have pulled out a flash and potentially ruined the moment. i.e. failing to see the light.
British Cinematographers Roger Deakins and Sean Bobbit are particularly effective with natural light.
One could spend a life time studying and still have a lot to learn.
While a useful tool, a flash has many drawbacks, in the UK for instance, it is frowned upon by many establishments. (Churches, Theatres, Conferences, Antie Cynth's living room. etc.
There is also the issue of the technology, which is rather antiquated by todays standards.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason a lot of the artificial lighting came into existence was because without it we couldn't get proper exposure (i.e. slow film).
Now we have much better technology, Im not entirely convinced we need so much lighting gear, unless of course, one is using artificial lights for artistic expression.
In that case, you can should consider the "Natural Lighting gang" as simply doing the same. i.e. artistic expression.
Like the great artists of old and the new age cinematographers I would suggest a lot of beginning and experienced Photographers spend much more time studying natural light. Of course learning how to use a flash is also a worth while endeavor, but not always applicable. Even Hollywood has caught on to using the ability of the new generation of sensors to shoot with less or no artificial light, where appropriate.
Thanks for the points you've raised Ade. As stated in my first few paragraphs, if we could just rely on natural light, that would not necessarily be a bad thing at all. But I also mentioned that thinking about using flash only as a form of illumination for dark scenes is limited and we could extend our understanding of flash lighting as a tool for shaping, describing, balancing and creating different moods. The whole slow film thing was solved in the film days with better quality fast film and bright lenses. There are many examples of National Geographic photographers using available light with film to great effect.
I am more than happy to shoot with available light when I can and I maintain that working with natural light takes a lot of skill. Citing situations where a person can't use a flash does not help a photographer learn how to use flash to improve a scene, when the situation allows.
Mostly, my article is addressing the misconception that using a flash is some sort of evil where it would "ruin the moment". Studying natural light does not have to be done in exclusion of other forms of lighting and learning to use other forms of lighting does not have to diminish a photographer's ability to use available light. It may even help them understand how to work with available light better, which it has for me (that's a topic for a future article).
Having worked on various film sets, I can guarantee you there are whole lighting teams working with many forms of lighting to create "natural" looking scenes, even shooting at 4000 ISO. Once again, it's not about illumination, but using light to communicate mood, space, atmosphere... etc.
I think we can both agree, using flash is neither good nor bad. It really depends on how it's used and the skill level of the user. (for best results, flash requires a reasonable amount of time to master)
I appreciate the point your article is addressing, the misconception that flash is evil and would "ruin the moment". It makes a lot of sense you should point this out. It's a good article.
However, in publishing the article it would be great not to inadvertently create new misconceptions, i.e. so called "natural light photographers" are clueless. (I'm sure that wasn't your intention) . As you pointed out, many aren't. Others are. Depends on skill level and preferences.
I would like to point out many (not all) "flash users" are incorrectly using flash and are actually ruining the moment. This includes amateurs as well as very experienced pros. Thats where the initial misconception your article is trying to battle came from.
The practice is particularly prevalent among wedding photographers.(not all, just some, who have come to the conclusion, to be a "real photographer" one must be well versed in the use of flash, and use it everywhere....)
Like many endeavors in life, the use of flash is a skill that stands alone, as is the use of natural light. The combination can be exquisite.
Given the amount of time needed to master several parts of photography, it isn't that ridiculous to choose to master some parts not others. (due to time constraints). I think a lot of so called "natural light photographers" fall into this group. (I wish they wouldn't belittle flash photography)
Personally, I rarely use flash, why... I shoot a lot of video as well, given we tend to shoot around the same time, it is much more efficient to use continuous light. Do I consider myself a natural light photographer? no, not really, I'm a pragmatic photographer. I try to use what works, within my budget.
(good flash systems aren't that cheap, the opportunity cost has to be weighed against other equipment, another lens, filters etc)
Unless you can tell the difference in the end product, would be difficult to justify doing otherwise.
My overall point is, deciding to not master one part of an art, while unfortunate is not necessarily bad. It leaves time to master other parts much more thoroughly. Too many photographers are stretched too thin in the race to be a "real photographer".
Of course if you run reasonably priced courses in flash photography you may end up getting a lot of converts from the "clueless". :) Everyone wins.
I'm a low-light photographer. I believe that "flash photographers" wear their handicap as a crown, and they have never learned to navigate through unpredictable elements in their atmosphere like National Geographic photographers do. Yes, I said handicap. "Flash Photographers" are slaves to the technical and "plastic" nature of photography, it takes real skill to abandon the false sense of control, and learn to run parallel with the elements that surround you. A great example of flash photography handicaps are the photos you are showing in this article - notice how the model must remain in a specific area, destroying her ability to share an authentic expression of life and emotion. That's what flash photography forces you to do. Sure you can blow a little artificial wind to create motion, or ask her to look aimlessly at nothing, but no "high quality" photo can compete with an image capturing authentic interaction with ones atmosphere, emotions, and model (muse).
Technology allows us interact with our subjects and environment more freely, and technology is only getting better. Better learn how to shoot low-light or natural-light OUTSIDE of a artificial setup, or you will be left behind.
That being said, if I had to work on a commercial project I of course would use lighting. It's not that I NEVER learned how to use lighting - I would rock the world of any local photographer with lighting - it's that I don't want my subject and my vision to be another high quality photo of lifeless "deer in headlights".
See examples of my work here: https://www.facebook.com/GentleAssassinArt
Gentle Assasin,
I have looked at your work, very nice.
I agree with the substance of your text, however I think you are making the same mistake as Jason Lau. Labelling....
I do agree there are some of "flash photographers" who use flash as a reason not to learn to use/harness natural light, and there are "natural light photographers" who choose not to learn flash.
Without getting tribal about it, this is perfectly normal.
The amount of work to become an expert in either is substantial. To become conversant in both can seem an herculian task.
If one's intention is to start to produce quality work rather quickly (paid or otherwise), it makes sense to specialize.
I maintain this is nothing to be ashamed of.
Athletes, academics, business people and martial artists all specialize, some quite early on, to allow high skill levels in chosen areas. The issue with far too many photographers is, they try to be everything to every one and end up being.... well... mediocre in all.
Such people want to be considered "real photographers". So shoot Nikon or Canon, must have all the right lenses and must be able to shoot both natural light and studio.
On either side of the debate "flash" or "natural" (not a real divide in reality). The real issue is improving skill level, in what ever one chooses to specialize.
On average, I'm not sure which side is the most skilled, my guess would be about the same. A small percentage of elites, 10% quite good and most people sort of average and spending too much money on gear.
Natural light, artificial light…both require to be mastered to create unique, memorable images. If you find your way in one or another, or both, good for you. I know photographers who wouldn't know what to do without their flash..that's being in the comfort zone pretty much. Other have a ton of gear and still all the do is crap. My point is…if you produce successful images why should it be a problem how you get them? I think this article reveals a certain level of insecurity, with all due respect.