Natural Light, Rants & Raves - Friday, January 22, 2010 11:36 - 11 Comments

Just a Camera and a Subject. Simplicity Can Be Fun.

Recently there was a discussion on whether natural light shooters would be able to compete with the strobe-heavy photographers and those deep into the Photoshop illustrative techniques. And before we begin it must be stressed that I love all kinds of photography. This is not ‘against’ any style that you may enjoy, it is only a look at some simple, and entirely wonderful ways of shooting.

Photography embraces all types of imagery. From the heavily illustrated work of Dave Hill and Tim Tadder, to the Photojournalist with a camera in a war zone, to a wedding shooter with a speedlight – and more. We love it all. I hope that when you look at a photograph you don’t measure it by whether it was ‘hard to do’ but whether it speaks to you and makes its way into your inner vision. The image is what is important.

The discussion was at Heather Morton’s excellent blog. Jaimie said:

“The other post I wanted to mention was the ‘To Gear or Not To Gear’ article where there was a discussion about exactly that. I think this was actually the first compliment I think I’ve received from someone in the industry in regards to my natural light stuff. I guess I’m curious to know why it’s seen as such a bad thing. I completely understand that in the advertising world it’s all about control and customization as well as being a little over the top in many cases. What I don’t understand is why working with natural light seems to be frowned upon and/or viewed as being amateur and simplistic, or something that wasn’t thought out. Seriously, I don’t think either Grant or I or any other shooter that uses a lot of available light (Chris Wahl anybody?) are just taking our cameras outside and hoping for the best when we shoot.”

I think that is something that a lot of people who first get interested in photography through the internets think. Unfortunately. And of course the marketers abound with gear gear gear to a point where some would wonder if were even possible to create images without a ton of lights. And of course it is. And shooters like Frank Hoedle use a lot of gear to achieve a look that seems more natural than not. And this is NOT a gear discussion…

This is a possibilities discussion. I have no dog in the hunt as they say. I could care less what anyone shoots with or without… just show me the pictures. Do they move me? Good.

My post today is on simplistic shooting… just a camera and a subject. The images above were taken 25 years ago. (Natural light, Nikon F3, 180MM f2.8 Nikkor @ 2.8, on Tri-X at ISO200 and pushed 15% in D76.) They were taken in Scottsdale, AZ on a bright, sunny day. There are no fill cards or any other lighting gear used. I think they work.

Why? Because it doesn’t matter to the image. The subject connects with you instantly. The light is subtle and soft and inviting. Was it ‘easy’? I don’t remember most anything being ‘easy’. The location has to work, and then there are considerations to be made. Will the light ‘work’ or will it just be exposure light? Can I sculpt the subject a bit and separate her and emphasize the line and shape and flow? What exposure compensations may I have to make to create on the film or capture, the look I see in my head? The only thing that is easy is that I only had to carry my bag to the shoot.

In the shot on the right we were in a closed in patio with a large window facing south. The light coming in that window was shaded from direct sun by an overhang, so the light was soft and wide. Placing the subject into that light and then making sure the walls were lit enough to provide the soft edge lighting was the goal. We had to move some furniture to get it right, but we did. Same location for the shot in the middle, and as the sun went behind a mountain and left us in shade, we did the shot on the little gravel driveway.

I shoot to the right and process to the left. What that means is I would more likely over expose the image and process to the shadows than I would underexpose. I like brighter skin tones and I like a neg or capture that has some contrast to it. Digital is so flat compared to film. So I shot the film to the regular ISO200 that I usually did (Tri-X was rated at ISO 400… yeah, and I am the king of prussia) and pushed the film (over developed it) to get a bit more contrast. Digital to follow after the jump.

Continue…