The best way of photographically rendering a human being ...

droj

droj

Messages
4,517
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
The best way of photographically rendering a human being is by natural light. Discuss.
 
In terms of being empathic, sympathetic, natural, non-controlling, that sort of stuff ...
 
Last edited:
Nothing to discuss. It is.:D
 
I find the best way of rendering a human being is to boil them for 8 hours on a low heat [/hanibal lecter]
 
droj said:
The best way of photographically rendering a human being is by natural light. Discuss.
Click to expand...
droj said:
In terms of being empathic, sympathetic, natural, non-controlling, that sort of stuff ...
Click to expand...
Surely it depends on the intent?

If, for example, you wanted to show them in a horror type setting then using artificial light would make the job easier.

Either way I'm not sure a blanket statement such as yours is correct, at least as in "The best " part of it :)
 
Light isn't a constant; natural light varies all by itself according to latitude, time of day, weather and (if used indoors) the position and size of windows and the position of the sitter. Artifical light can be varied by the user at will (subject to equipment and power constraints).

It's easy to set up straw men and say that artificial light will do a better job than the sun if you're having the subject look towards the sun and screw up their eyes (unless you want this effect, of course). Similarly, there are ways of using artificial lights that won't produce pleasing effects.

It's the quality (and in some cases) the quantity of light that matters, not the origin.
 
Surely its the ability of the photographer that matters ...
 
I though with a camera, as opposed to say a paintbrush would probably be the best way
 
StephenM said:
Light isn't a constant; natural light varies all by itself according to latitude, time of day, weather and (if used indoors) the position and size of windows and the position of the sitter. Artifical light can be varied by the user at will (subject to equipment and power constraints).

It's easy to set up straw men and say that artificial light will do a better job than the sun if you're having the subject look towards the sun and screw up their eyes (unless you want this effect, of course). Similarly, there are ways of using artificial lights that won't produce pleasing effects.

It's the quality (and in some cases) the quantity of light that matters, not the origin.
Click to expand...
The quality of the light is the very thing I'm talking about, Stephen, so you may have lost the plot of what I'm on about?
 
Nah, light is just light. You have more control of artificial light, but you might struggle to replicate natural light if you don't understand it.

Besides, there's a whole spectrum of conditions that affect natural light, so what kind of natural light are you referring to?

There definitely isn't a "best" way of doing it, just different ways.
 
droj said:
The ability to what?
Click to expand...

to take great photos regardless of the light... saying 'natural light is best' is meaningless because it depends on what the photographer does with it - a crap shot taken with natural light isnt better than a good shot taken with flash
 
droj said:
The quality of the light is the very thing I'm talking about, Stephen, so you may have lost the plot of what I'm on about?
Click to expand...

I've always assumed that with sufficient skill and equipment it was possible to replicate natural light indoors (in a film studio?); and with natural light indoors a lot comes down to the size, number and placement of reflectors (even if, in the limiting case, the number is zero). With that starting assumption, my natural "take" was that the quality of the light wasn't under consideration, just the source of it.

I think it's possible to have bad quality light from both sources, but that it's easier (certainly for a beginner) to use natural light. A lot depends on the type of photograph required. The "formal portrait" of my youth which had a main light, a fill in, two for the background and one as a rim light could be difficult to reproduce in natural light.
 
droj said:
In terms of being empathic, sympathetic, natural, non-controlling, that sort of stuff ...
Click to expand...
I find being all those things is part of my personality, I've got no idea what it's got to do with a light source. :thinking:

Harsh midday sunlight on its own definitely couldn't be described as 'sympathetic' whereas clamshell lighting is, whatever the light source for the clamshell.

In short, the whole question is somewhat odd.

And definitely from a 'learning photography' point of view, a day spent in a studio playing with lights teaches you not just how to use flash, but how to use available light too.
 
Been thinking about this, and come to the conclusion there is no best way. There can't be. The moment you decide on the "best" way, then everything that doesn't meet that criteria is then deemed as left wanting, which is patently nonsense, as there are as many ways as you can imagine. It depends on intent, reason, and the person being photographed.

There is no best way.
 
droj said:
The quality of the light is the very thing I'm talking about, Stephen, so you may have lost the plot of what I'm on about?
Click to expand...

Light is light. It's quality can be expressed purely in terms of direction, intensity and colour (and phase, but that's rarely relevant). It knows nothing about where it came from. A skilled photographer can make artificial light look like natural light. Or they can do the oddest things with natural light by diffusing it, masking it, reflecting it or whatever.

Phil V said:
In short, the whole question is somewhat odd.

And definitely from a 'learning photography' point of view, a day spent in a studio playing with lights teaches you not just how to use flash, but how to use available light too.
Click to expand...

+1. I've learnt far more than I thought possible about using natural light by working in a controlled environment. I find it remarkable how small a proportion of photographers even attempt to get to grips with artificial light. It's fundamental to our medium - but that may just be because I'm an analytical kind of person.
 
juggler said:
I find it remarkable how small a proportion of photographers even attempt to get to grips with artificial light. It's fundamental to our medium - but that may just be because I'm an analytical kind of person.
Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question. :)

Each to their own, but some people find working with what the world throws at them more interesting than being in total control.

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas
 
•
droj said:
The best way of photographically rendering a human being…
Click to expand...
•
I have seen so many fantastic takes in both natural or artificial
or both, from full figures to very close facial portraits…
The only reason I keep going is that infinity has no ends just
like the possible answers but nothing is the best… or it all is!
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think you've answered your own question. :)

Each to their own, but some people find working with what the world throws at them more interesting than being in total control.

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio."
Paul Reas
Click to expand...

It's still worth understanding what the world is throwing at you.
 
Early daylight studios were technically very adaptable and controlled. Today we think of control in terms of flash and artificial light. All the early silent films were made in daylight studios. Though the many white faces was down to make up and blue sensitive film.
 
Ok - my initial question was meant to stimulate reflection & debate, but it arises out of my own current viewpoint. Maybe I should expand it a bit. Some of you are highly adept at light management, whether natural, artificial, or mixed. But I was talking in particular about the sensitive rendering of a human being - not their physicality or of them as actors in a scene, but more their inner being, without there being a domineering hint that it's been a technical exercise.

Rendering was the best word I could think of, pertaining to how we 'read' photographs ...
 
juggler said:
It's still worth understanding what the world is throwing at you.
Click to expand...
You don't need to play with artificial lights to do that, just learn to look, really look. That's what making pictures is all about. Looking and seeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top