“I specialize in natural light photography.”
Every now and then I see folks touting that they are strictly a natural or available light only photographer. Typically, this will mean someone is not comfortable with lighting, especially on location. So what happens when this natural light photographer gets into a situation where available light is just plain boring? The image can be stroked in Photoshop and salvaged somewhat, but there are times when available light just won’t do.
The image above is an example of making the best of bad weather. It had rained the entire wedding day, so we planned to come out the morning after to what we assumed would be nice weather again. We were wrong. While it wasn’t raining, it was so overcast and gray that it made lighting the shot necessary. The shot below is literally what we had to deal with. There is not much you can do with that light alone without supplemental lighting.
The experience and skill level of your photographer can make a blah day interesting. Options are good! Here is another example shot the same time:
Posted on June 20th, 2007 by Climie
Filed under: Behind the Image, Destination: Jamaica
Great post and photos!
Clearly these are great images (the “rescued” ones, I mean), but ultimately the blog article is unsatisfactory and frustrating.
Unsatisfactory, because you say “but there are times when available light just won’t do”, and “There is not much you can do with that light, available or otherwise”. That seems fairly clear — except that you’ve contradicted yourself by actually doing something that demonstrates that in fact you *can* do something, very much something, in such conditions.
Frustrating, because although you write “The image above is an example of making the best of bad weather”, nowhere do you give a hint about how. Filtration? Special processing? A bloody big movie-set light to camera right? Certainly not Photoshop, which you pooh-pooh.
In the end , the item becomes little more than a showcase for some excellent outdoor-located portraiture. For that, congratulations and well done.
Martyn
[PS (and I know this really *is* picking nits) I might have felt less unsatisfied and frustrated had you managed to frame your iamges so that the horizons were horizontal. As it is, I feel distinctly seasick. But I'll get over it.]
Martyn,
Thanks for pointing out the “available or otherwise.” I’m sorry the point was lost on you and that it made it more difficult to reconcile. I’ve corrected it. I think, though, that it’s pretty clear from what I wrote that I lit it. For the record it was one of those huge and unwieldy Nikon SB28 flashes. I would think that most people would understand that covering a destination wedding would make traveling light a given. Sorry to frustrate. As for the horizons, well, I’ll just say that crawling around on the face of rocks over the ocean mean I give footing first priority. Yes, I could have corrected that before I posted, but I didn’t, so it is what it is. It was not really a factor in the post. Thanks for taking the time! Good day.
Marc
I’m glad you’ve taken my remarks in good spirit! Yes, it was reasonably obvious that you’d lit the scene, or at least the model, though I doubt even a big flash would have improved the sky to that extent. Nor do I really blame you for my mal de mer. And after all’s said and done, the bride has some great shots for her album.
Glad too to have kept you on your toes. I really am a nit-picker by profession, and couldn’t help it today. I’ll still come back again to follow your blog.
Best…
Martyn
Martyn and Marc,
The tilted horizon is not what bothers me about the post production. My issue is I feel this photo needs a sailboat in the background on the upper left corner and a bird, perhaps a sea-gull on the upper right corner.
May I also suggest some fish in the lower 1/2 of the frame under the water, perhaps orange fish to compliment the blue water.
If Marc could photochop that in for me that would be great.
~Adam
PS: Great blog post.