Natural light or flash photographer?

v35skyline wrote in post #15918223
I think at some point most photogs are one or the other and eventually become both. As outlined by Jeffery...

This is so spot on. The bokeh phase... sigh...

so why do we need to differentiate?

mike_311 wrote in post #15918396
so why do we need to differentiate?

We don't. That is the point of the article. However, there is a decent group of photographers who are natural-light/available-light only... more a long the lines of infant, engagement, chic-themed photographers.

Trent Gillespie wrote in post #15918407
We don't. That is the point of the article. However, there is a decent group of photographers who are natural-light/available-light only... more a long the lines of infant, engagement, chic-themed photographers.

i think its less about the kind of light and more about the look of the light. artificial light shots tend to look artificial and natural light tends to look natural, not that there is anything wrong with either.

it isnt difficult to make an artificially lit scene look completely natural, it happens all the time.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15915568
I'm an available light photographer. My flashes are always available.

http://www.goodreads.c​om …n-school-i-wanted-to-be-w

When I was in school, I wanted to be W. Eugene Smith. He was a legendary staffer at Life, a consummate photojournalist, and an architect of the photo essay. He was also kinda crazy.

That was obvious when he came to lecture at Syracuse University and put a glass of milk and a glass of vodka on the lectern. Both were gone at the end of the talk. He was taking questions and I was in the front row, hanging on every word.

"Mr. Smith, is the only good light available light?" came the question.

He leaned into the microphone. "Yes," he baritoned, and paused.

A shudder ran through all of us. That was it! No more flash! God’s light or nothing!

But then he leaned back into the mic, "By that, I mean, any &*%%@$ light that’s available."

Point taken.

― Joe McNally