Here is a link to Montes mentor:
Don't panic when you see how old the photographs are, taken during the 1970's when, well, you look at them and try not to laugh too much!
At any rate, the gentleman Joe Zeltsman was Monte Zuckers mentor. He passed away just a short time ago and it's been over two years since Monte left us.
One time when I was visiting with Monte he said, when he was first starting out, his wife complained on how much time he would spend with Joe. She even told Monte that he would be a cheap copy of Joe. Monte responded, "I may become a copy of Joe but I won't be cheap!"
How can I really answer this question? Why natural light only? Portraits are portraits, regardless of whether the light is the sun or an electric light, and light is light. "Natural light portraits" is such a meaningless technical category. Why make that technical distinction between one source of lighting and another, as opposed to a conceptual one? Talk about meaningless...this is like asking who the masters of telephoto portraiture are, or who the masters of overcast portraiture are. I will tell you that anyone whose portraiture is best described in one short phrase by a technical term is nobody who is worth talking about. Now, "natural portraits" I could understand...
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Natural, available light is [usually] different in character. Of course, it is possible for artificial light to approach the qualities of natural light, but even then, one has to wonder if it is even possible to photograph a portrait subject in the same disposition when artificial light is used. People simply feel a lot more comfortable and 'natural' when they don't have big softboxes or flashes or whatever aimed at them.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Take a look at the following search on Hive Mind. It will show you what people found interesting on flikr.
While Monte was a very successful portrait and wedding photographer, and he often shot on location, I sincerely doubt that during his professional career he shot much without at least a fill-flash, if not an entire array of reflectors, off-camera strobes, and other light modifiers manipulating the ambient light. I can't recall any of his articles for Shutterbug, or any of his books, where he discussed a setup without any artificial light source included.
Originally Posted by wclark5179
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I knew Monte quite well and though he would use reflectors as well as devices to subtract light he, in fact, made many portraits with natural light. Matter of fact he would look for natural controlled light. Do you have "How'd He Do Dat," where Monte used natural light for many of the portraits made on the CD?
I worked with Monte and knew him better than those who only read his articles in Shutterbug and other publications.
Here is a link to some of his ideas on lighting patterns:
Studio setups or outdoors with natural light the patterns are the same. By the way my wife is in a photo in this series:
Quote by Monte:
"Notice anything different about the light pattern on Toby’s face here? Of course not! It’s one and the same! All natural light."
At any rate, thanks for your comments.
Last edited by wclark5179; 11-13-2009 at 07:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.
dean collins did a good job, at least IMO, with reflectors and plexi mirrors.
worked for him, and has worked for me numerous times.
Just saw your post for the first time. Thank you very much mabman!
Originally Posted by mabman
I try to travel light and am a one camera, one lens, all natural light kinda girl.
Nic's smile is all the fill light anybody needs.