Sodafish
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,540
no further productive discussion is possible
Yes, when you're being this obtuse (and insulting) I agree discussion is a waste of time.Hi, I'm a SLT/Gaffer in Film/TV/Commercial production and have helped lighting setups for professional photographers for still photography as well as my own amateur work.
I won't be insulting. I will tell you that nearly everything you have said is wrong, and that you wrongly trust your bias and personal experience rather than talking to and learning from professionals and other amateurs.
Keep shooting. You have way more control of everything you shoot than you apparently believe you do.
Spoilered the off-topic part of the post.
My face is tired. Do we have to say more?
I appreciate the tone of your response, but please don't make the same assumption as PJ did that I am some clueless amateur who doesn't understand how to use and manipulate light, because I am not. Photography is a genuine passion for me, and I have spent countless hours over the last 12 years or so learning everything I can about it.
With that out of the way, this bone of contention is obviously resting on how we are defining "control" in this discussion. Bias has nothing to do with it. Believe me I am fully aware of how much can be done with light, natural or otherwise. I myself almost exclusively use natural light for my work, and in the latter part of our discussion PJ and I were discussing that and its constraints, or at least that was my impression. FWIW I am in full agreement that natural light can be manipulated to a degree, however at the end of the day one's ability to alter its transient properties to achieve a certain goal only goes so far, especially outside of a studio; a distinction I made clear at the outset. My point at its most fundamental is this: when outside you cannot turn night into (real) day at will, change the momentary angle or elevation of the sun in relation to your desired composition, how globally diffuse the light is, its colour temperature, and so on.
That is what I mean by control in this context: to have the potential of FULL control over every single aspect of the lighting at all times, and with natural light this is not possible. I hope this clears things up.
With that out of the way, this bone of contention is obviously resting on how we are defining "control" in this discussion. Bias has nothing to do with it. Believe me I am fully aware of how much can be done with light, natural or otherwise. I myself almost exclusively use natural light for my work, and in the latter part of our discussion PJ and I were discussing that and its constraints, or at least that was my impression. FWIW I am in full agreement that natural light can be manipulated to a degree, however at the end of the day one's ability to alter its transient properties to achieve a certain goal only goes so far, especially outside of a studio; a distinction I made clear at the outset. My point at its most fundamental is this: when outside you cannot turn night into (real) day at will, change the momentary angle or elevation of the sun in relation to your desired composition, how globally diffuse the light is, its colour temperature, and so on.
That is what I mean by control in this context: to have the potential of FULL control over every single aspect of the lighting at all times, and with natural light this is not possible. I hope this clears things up.