:) This is the first thread I started... Hope all goes well... Greetings, "Weavers of Light!"

Just want to see what's the view of the group regarding this age old topic... And in turn, may I raise some questions to facilitate the discussion... Okidokee so my query goes:

If it were solely you're call... What would you rather prefer to shoot majority of your work with; ambient light or with the use of a flash? And why?

---------------------------------------------------------

To start, personaly, I prefer to use Ambient light most of the time and if I really can... I just use flash mostly for fill only or if I'm really forced to use it as a primary light source... In such cases if I can get away with it using CLS the better :) I prefer ambient light coz of dimensionality and drama... something hard to explain with words... Cheers :Grin:

Preferably ambient but if needed ill use flash as long as the shot looks natural :)

nothing beats natural lighting :)

ambient light. i believe that ambient light creates the natural drama effect in an image. one more thing, ambient light gives the viewer of the image a feel of the natural atmosphere (ambiance) of the place where the image was taken. go natural! :)

Personally i prefer lighting up a scene with flash. Cause if the existing ambient light doesn't look nice then i can make look better. :) Well thats for my kind of shoots. In the end it all boils down to what you are shooting.

Now i'm exploring more on both, combination of ambient and flash, studio or outdoors. But i'm more comfortable lighting the scene to have more control. with portraits, i'm more comfortable with combination, but most of my shoots requires lighting it with flash, gearing towards one light source. But still by the end of the day, it really depends on how i feel about the subject and my purpose for that image.:)

I'm just curious if anyone here actually does CLS... :Thinking:

Flash, I prefer being able to have full control on my image. Using the proper techniques can make flash look natural.

natural lighting but i mostly used flash. :Grin:

what is CLS??

what is CLS??

cathode lighting?

CLS is Nikon's Creative Lighting System. Achieving advanced wireless lighting with the use of multiple Speedlights. :)

CLS is Nikon's Creative Lighting System. Achieving advanced wireless lighting with the use of multiple Speedlights. :)
I love CLS! I use it a lot for location shoots that can do without studio lights. It's just sooo much easier to travel with. Sample shots in my site: http://pocholoignacio.com/gallery/fashion.html

In this gallery, the toughest CLS setup I had to do was for the model stepping out of the car. ... Sorry but you'll just have to scroll to get to the pic. My web designer used flash for the site.

I love CLS! I use it a lot for location shoots that can do without studio lights. It's just sooo much easier to travel with. Sample shots in my site: http://pocholoignacio.com/gallery/fashion.html

In this gallery, the toughest CLS setup I had to do was for the model stepping out of the car. ... Sorry but you'll just have to scroll to get to the pic. My web designer used flash for the site.
Hi Pocholo. Nice shots. Nice site :) Yup, though I am an ambient light shooter... For me CLS Rocks too! :) Magastos nga lang sa batteries but it's so flexible. Have you ever watched "The Speed of Light" ?

Hi Pocholo. Nice shots. Nice site :) Have you ever watched "The Speed of Light" ?
Hi Earl.

Thanks for the kind words. As for "Speed of Light", I'm not sure. It sounds so familiar. If it's the demo of Joe McNally for Nikon Speedlights, I think I saw this at Sammy's ?? or is it Sam's?? in Hollywood. In fact I saw bits of this right after I did a CLS set-up in Sunset. His use of panel diffusers in front of the speedlights solved my problems with coverage and catchlights. Awesome demo!

Hi Earl.

Thanks for the kind words. As for "Speed of Light", I'm not sure. It sounds so familiar. If it's the demo of Joe McNally for Nikon Speedlights, I think I saw this at Sammy's ?? or is it Sam's?? in Hollywood. In fact I saw bits of this right after I did a CLS set-up in Sunset. His use of panel diffusers in front of the speedlights solved my problems with coverage and catchlights. Awesome demo!
:) Yup that's the one alright... It's more of a promotional DVD however, if one checks it closely it's packed with alot of techniques we can dissect.

:) Yup that's the one alright... It's more of a promotional DVD however, if one checks it closely it's packed with alot of techniques we can dissect.
Perhaps one of the most notable in his demo is the use of diffusion materials. It pretty much shows the flexibility and reliability of the speedlights. I've used the ceiling and mirror bounce successfully and darn these speedlights are smart! Only downside is the number of units you'll need to achieve the same effect as 4 studio lights with various modifiers.

Has anyone else successfully used CLS?

Noticed most of the respondents favor natural light thou some of same respondents work a lot with artificial light sources specifically with flash. Reasons are as many as the replies - but the common comment is that daylight (as referred to in the thread as ambient light) gives a natural and dramatic look.

But for those who work a lot with artificial illumination, it's because it's flexible, controllable and if used correctly could rival natural light in terms of being 'natural' in look and feel.

I too favor natural or daylight illumination. Using artificial light such as flash to achieve daylight's 'naturalness' and drama isn't impossible but quite taxing in the process to mimic it. But I favor natural light not because of the reasons stated above but simply because average daylight has a continuous spectrum and even spectral energy distribution ideal for photography purposes not found in other light sources. It exhibits characteristics that are not easy to emulate closely nevertheless not impossible either. Flash illumination comes close to natural light but still lacking in some aspects to completely match sunlight.

The downside as we all know is that you can't directly control natural lighting. Thou natural and dramatic it may be, it is unpredictable and unreliable at times. As such, many opt to flash as an alternative. Good thing with flash is that you can control it, be flexible with it and can make it appear as 'natural' as daylight. As such I rely on it more in certain applications or jobs.

True, it is not difficult to see if a certain photo was taken with flash as the primary light source or not, especially if executed by a not so skilled artificial lighting practitioner. But like others have said here, flash lighting setup can appear to be like a natural light setup provided the photographer knows how to make it look like one.

And to execute it successfully, it is a must that the photographer understands the nature of light and how it affects our vision as well as how our cameras capture it to be able to control it. Otherwise it is just another unwieldy animal that can make your image unnaturally lit and even looking unnatural.

To achieve this, one should possess a firm grasp of the elements of lighting that I always drill in the minds of my students. Without this, it would be just a guessing game and trial and error method in the art of lighting with artificial light sources. It is also by mastery of these elements that will give you a better understanding of natural light and how to read and interpret it and apply modifications to it to achieve the look and effect that you desire.

Noticed most of the respondents favor natural light thou some of same respondents work a lot with artificial light sources specifically with flash. Reasons are as many as the replies - but the common comment is that daylight (as referred to in the thread as ambient light) gives a natural and dramatic look.

But for those who work a lot with artificial illumination, it's because it's flexible, controllable and if used correctly could rival natural light in terms of being 'natural' in look and feel.

I too favor natural or daylight illumination. Using artificial light such as flash to achieve daylight's 'naturalness' and drama isn't impossible but quite taxing in the process to mimic it. But I favor natural light not because of the reasons stated above but simply because average daylight has a continuous spectrum and even spectral energy distribution ideal for photography purposes not found in other light sources. It exhibits characteristics that are not easy to emulate closely nevertheless not impossible either. Flash illumination comes close to natural light but still lacking in some aspects to completely match sunlight.

The downside as we all know is that you can't directly control natural lighting. Thou natural and dramatic it may be, it is unpredictable and unreliable at times. As such, many opt to flash as an alternative. Good thing with flash is that you can control it, be flexible with it and can make it appear as 'natural' as daylight. As such I rely on it more in certain applications or jobs.

True, it is not difficult to see if a certain photo was taken with flash as the primary light source or not, especially if executed by a not so skilled artificial lighting practitioner. But like others have said here, flash lighting setup can appear to be like a natural light setup provided the photographer knows how to make it look like one.

And to execute it successfully, it is a must that the photographer understands the nature of light and how it affects our vision as well as how our cameras capture it to be able to control it. Otherwise it is just another unwieldy animal that can make your image unnaturally lit and even looking unnatural.

To achieve this, one should possess a firm grasp of the elements of lighting that I always drill in the minds of my students. Without this, it would be just a guessing game and trial and error method in the art of lighting with artificial light sources. It is also by mastery of these elements that will give you a better understanding of natural light and how to read and interpret it and apply modifications to it to achieve the look and effect that you desire.

:) Appreciate your contribution to this thread Jay. Thanks :Grin:

Very, very deep sir...

Lighting really is another topic to master after the principles of exposure.



Noticed most of the respondents favor natural light thou some of same respondents work a lot with artificial light sources specifically with flash. Reasons are as many as the replies - but the common comment is that daylight (as referred to in the thread as ambient light) gives a natural and dramatic look.

But for those who work a lot with artificial illumination, it's because it's flexible, controllable and if used correctly could rival natural light in terms of being 'natural' in look and feel.

I too favor natural or daylight illumination. Using artificial light such as flash to achieve daylight's 'naturalness' and drama isn't impossible but quite taxing in the process to mimic it. But I favor natural light not because of the reasons stated above but simply because average daylight has a continuous spectrum and even spectral energy distribution ideal for photography purposes not found in other light sources. It exhibits characteristics that are not easy to emulate closely nevertheless not impossible either. Flash illumination comes close to natural light but still lacking in some aspects to completely match sunlight.

The downside as we all know is that you can't directly control natural lighting. Thou natural and dramatic it may be, it is unpredictable and unreliable at times. As such, many opt to flash as an alternative. Good thing with flash is that you can control it, be flexible with it and can make it appear as 'natural' as daylight. As such I rely on it more in certain applications or jobs.

True, it is not difficult to see if a certain photo was taken with flash as the primary light source or not, especially if executed by a not so skilled artificial lighting practitioner. But like others have said here, flash lighting setup can appear to be like a natural light setup provided the photographer knows how to make it look like one.

And to execute it successfully, it is a must that the photographer understands the nature of light and how it affects our vision as well as how our cameras capture it to be able to control it. Otherwise it is just another unwieldy animal that can make your image unnaturally lit and even looking unnatural.

To achieve this, one should possess a firm grasp of the elements of lighting that I always drill in the minds of my students. Without this, it would be just a guessing game and trial and error method in the art of lighting with artificial light sources. It is also by mastery of these elements that will give you a better understanding of natural light and how to read and interpret it and apply modifications to it to achieve the look and effect that you desire.

creative lighting system. check this http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=9520&p_created=1078847713&p_sid=aXjlGSfi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9NCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PWNscw**&p_li=&p_topview=1
what is CLS??

ambient light! more dramatic :D

ambient light! more dramatic :D

:D he he he... I thought you'd say that Karen.

oooops OT: Karen mission accomplished ako last night... Yey :)

Try to experiment like this guy...

click it http://www.zphotos.org/techniques/sparklers.html

Eric

as for me - i love creating playing with lights. For outdoors i will always have lights to add on whether for fill or as main.

as for me - i love creating playing with lights. For outdoors i will always have lights to add on whether for fill or as main.

Thanks g-nie for contributing to this thread. :)

soft flash, just to fill, i try to shoot around 3-5 meters away..

if too near i avoid flash, but there should be good lighting, i like cloudy day.. not dark clouds though, and around 4-5 pm

I'm just curious if anyone here actually does CLS... :Thinking:

i love cls!!!

here are some sample shots i took a week ago. i'm still getting the hang of it though.

http://static.flickr.com/109/275148613_657a1c2b13.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/110/275148533_cd3cbd67f7.jpg

it was shot in an auditorium with all the lights turned on and was quite bright...

although, i do love ambient light as well.

I rarely use my flash i like ambient light gives drama to pics. only use flash when my friends are against a light source.

CLS is Nikon's Creative Lighting System. Achieving advanced wireless lighting with the use of multiple Speedlights. :)

Try this sites (http://www.craigsactions.com/Tips/LocationLightingSurferGirl.html) guys. they discuss about CLS. enjoy.........:)

been a fan of ambient before. but you have to try off-camera flash (cls or other) for "dramatic" results - natural effect or intentional hard light.

still boils down to the effect or image that you want.

For me, lately its Natural light with my SLR, and Flash with my P&S....

Try this sites (http://www.craigsactions.com/Tips/LocationLightingSurferGirl.html) guys. they discuss about CLS. enjoy.........:)

thanks manuel, this does look interesting :Evil:

Mixing natural and artificial light usually make the photographs better. Experiment and explore every creative aspect of your tools, you'll be surprised that you can do better. Happy shooting!!:)

Mixing natural and artificial light usually make the photographs better. Experiment and explore every creative aspect of your tools, you'll be surprised that you can do better. Happy shooting!!:)

i agree on this.

second that!

I use flash all the time even on bright outdoors. I just adjust the FEC to mimic natural light. I'm starting to experiment on ambient lighting, but I'm not really satisfied with the all ambient light source. Maybe it's just me. =)

thanks manuel, this does look interesting :Evil:

You are welcome John.:)

when flash techniques mimic ambient light

My sister did swear this was light from our window, but i proved her wrong.

http://www.gfoto.com/Files/E5766BC3C55642D5870B131443A5F536/orig_E148A10B3EB34D02A0BDDA1EA39F242B.JPG

I do use a mixture of both ambient and flash light. :)

:Grin:hi man!!!! i think it depends on how u wanted it, i like using both artificial and ambience

:Grin:hi man!!!! i think it depends on how u wanted it, i like using both artificial and ambience

Hi Charles, welcome to DPP... Yup, I agree that it certainly is a preferential thing... :Grin:

No flash, unless extremely necessary. So my vote goes for ambient lighting (natural, artificial... basta yung available light hehehe), full M and custom WB! :)

No flash, unless extremely necessary. So my vote goes for ambient lighting (natural, artificial... basta yung available light hehehe), full M and custom WB! :)

I share your sentiments on this one Bro.! :)

I share your sentiments on this one Bro.! :)

Yeah Bro.! I guess it's always nice to be in full control! :)

Ambient light. Still learning how to use flash! 8D

heres two samples from my Movements series, my explorations on slow shutters and flash/ ambient light

this one has no flash
iso 1600, f4, 1/15sec

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/11902/normal_dancer_series10.jpg


This one has flash
iso 1600, f13, 1/2 sec
http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/11902/normal_dancer_series_10.jpg

just adjusted levels in PS..

@ mario

... and the master strikes again. nice post! :) i also am interested in learning how to control strobes/flash. love the idea of combination of the 2... ambient + flash photography... maybe someday:)

thanks levi,

you should see my bloopers with flash in a food setup with complex lighting conditions.
i think i posted it in a separate thread on lighting..

was chided by the master of light, Sir Jay :)
kakahiya, the prob was my white balance, so now i dont use Auto WB anymore

Nice share here Mario. :)

thanks earl :)

thanks earl :)

No problem Mario. You're most welcome. :)

couldnt resist one more..:)

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/11902/normal_dancer_series21.jpg

This question is deceptive as I initially thought that it simply involved choosing one over the other. Having read the different opinion of the group, I've come to reliaze that photography is not only about mastering light, but it's also about being able to communicate the same mood/emotions you felt while immersed in the scene to a disconnected audience.

I dug these photos from my archives from around the time that I was new to digital photography (all images shot with a D1x, 85/1.8, SB80DX mounted on a Stroboframe).

http://www.jerry.ph/76.JAGBNC030.jpgl.jpg
http://www.jerry.ph/59.JAGBNC013.jpgl.jpg
http://www.jerry.ph/57.JAGBNC011.jpgl.jpg


The place was dark and lit by weak theatre lights. Techno was the music of choice and young model-wannabes strutted their stuff in the hopes of making their mark in the industry.

To capture the mood meant shooting with ambient light but low shutter speeds would have resulted in excessive subject movement. The situation called for a combination of card-bounced flash, ambient light, slow shutter speed, and a small aperture to get the mood right.

So there you go, one has to learn to use both forms of light and I hope you felt what I felt back then (it was pitch dark and nubile bodies were gyrating all over the place). :Grin:

@ Jerry Tieng - Yup, photography's about connecting and conveying! If you manage to do that well and given the response (cause and effect)... You're on the right track! :)

Nice images BTW! :)