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.
I often see photographers taking photos that are washed out and seriously devoid of color saturation. They use the term 'natural light' as an excuse for their lack of understanding of lighting, color and saturation. This drives me out of my mind.
Jason - I'm always puzzled why there always seems to be several groups photographers who have issues with the other groups of photographers in a disproportionate way.
When the digital sensor became pretty good, maybe around 2006, 2007, the digital vs. film debate heated up, mostly fueled by the digital converts. And usually followed up by "film is a dead media walking" and will be almost gone by 2010. Well that didn't exactly happen, though, of course digital is probably 99% of the market. It was always the digital guys that were and still bent out of shape from film and it's users.
Then the debates about JPG vs. RAW were the next big argument. I really don't care where anyone stands on this. However, there isn't a soul alive who can discern 16x20 print and tell me or anyone if it started life out as a RAW file or JPG Fine image. There are too many professionals who shoot JPG and make 6 figure livings, not to mention pretty amazing work to objectively neuter the argument based on practicality. True RAW has the potential, not the guarantee of a technically better image, but not necessarily. But it's always the RAW diehards with the loudest and most passionate voice on the matter. Why? Insecurity?
Then there's the Strobist crowd. You know, the guys who can "light". Yup the ones who have skillfully wielded 2-3 speedlights, or 2-3 strobes and accompanying modifiers to create their masterpieces. Yea, these are the guys who have elevated to the big-boy game and can make magic happen all the time. The "block and reflect" crowd simply does not have the technical savvy, nor the artistic vision to light, so they settle for the breadcrumbs of the sun and maybe a $25.00 36" reflector to make their images. Poor souls. Oh yea and they must rely on the "golden hour"...really Jason? That has got to be the cliches of cliches..
Don't get me wrong - I have tremendous respect for Joe McNally, David Hobby, Joel Grimes among others. And I LOVE studio light. Not to bad myself, though my game has a way to go. But in my years of photography, the best photographers I have met and been around always make great pictures with ambient light. They are without a doubt the most resourceful and talented. "Well rounded" doesn't mean employing every major technology at hand, but to make a variety of situations good despite challenging conditions - and that means more than just light, but of location, compositions, how well you work with those you shoot, etc. Those are the talents of great photographers, not whom has $1,000.00 worth of Nikon or Canon Speedlights in their bag.
I once assisted a TTL Queen who knew "how to light". She told me so. A lot. So, her main skill was me shadowing her couple down the sidewalk with the SB800 on a stick, while she shot them with a 300MM from afar..I am sure after 40 or 50 frames she got one that looked ok. I did see a few in the back of the camera and well, yes TTL did <em>it's<em> job. We had coffee after the session at Starbucks and I asked her if she knew who Jose Villa was. "No" she replied, and I began to tell her...before I could finish she smugly blurted out, that "those who are ambient light shooters simply do not know how to light". As if Jose took a Creative Live class in studio lighting his whole game would change for the better? LOL. TTL Queen on one side Jose Villa on the other. Who's the real photographer? Her ignorance was larger than the 300MM Nikon prime she was carrying around.
I shoot digital and film. Ambient and strobes. Mostly JPG fine but on occasion RAW. We can find beauty in all types of light, good and bad if we let go of the "pretty and polished" ideal that the modern day digital universe tends to heap on us. With due respect Jason, most ambient light shooters are looking for something more important than mastering off camera flash. I realize with many, modern photography's sun rises and sets on the digital full frame 35mm sensor, mostly accompanied by little OCF. It is this community that typically has the most inane and insecure people putting down others who don't shoot like them. I find it silly for you to feel upset about it. But I will give you kudos for stirring the pot!
Richard Avedon did his "In The American West" series with primarily open shade for light. He also shot masterpieces with strobes fired into umbrellas. But he had a real affection for "natural" light. That should tell us something.
You're absolutely right but what a hassle to carry lights around with the wires, batteries, modifiers, tripods. Hopefully technology will soon come up with more powerful portable lights !
This article speaks truth whether it's liked or not. With that said, I am grateful most photographers stay away from using flashes and claim to be natural light photographers as it has helped me separate my work from the typical photography portfolio. If you want to make more money doing photography, push your skills further. If you love natural light, stick with it.
Ask yourself, why does it matter what other people call themselves or how other photographers shoot? There are so many types of photographers. From minimalist, to gear heavy "big is better" extremist. Nothing matter besides the image. Stop focusing on the paint brush and start focusing on the art and story telling created by it.
I personally don't care for photos lit with a strobe. I prefer a natural look and working with light on hand. I know that can be accomplished with a strobe but its a lot of work and hardly ever looks 100% natural. I just time my shoots to get the natural light I want. I do mostly automotive photography so 90% of my shoots are outside anyway. I can understand using a strobe for in a studio or indoors where lighting is poor and with moving subjects. But I wouldn't consider myself a lesser photographer because I don't use a strobe in my work. Just my 2 cents.