I never understood the "Studio Photographer vs Natural Light Photographer" debate. There, I've said it!

Light is light. It doesn't matter if it's coming from a bulb in our living room or from a giant incandescent sphere, 150 000 000 km away (our beautiful Sun). In photography what matters is how we use it. And, as any cinematographer will tell to you, emulating natural light it's just a matter of budget.

In the studio, we have a level of control that's impossible outside — I can shoot for 8 hours straight and have exactly the same beautiful light in the first and the last picture.

Outdoors, if we pick the right time of day and know how to work with the available conditions, we are rewarded with the most amazing ambient light. And we have the option to use it "as is" or modify it to our taste with reflectors, artificial lights, flags, etc. But for a limited time. The sun waits for no one.

So, which is better?... Studio light or natural light? The annoying answer is, of course, "it depends"!

As a photographer, I stand firmly on both camps. If I'm seeking to make an environmental portrait, where the surroundings are an important part of the image, I will probably go with natural light. If I need the consistency that only studio lighting can provide, artificial light it is.

These are two of my favorite portraits to date, one was shot in the studio with strobes, the other outdoors with 100% natural light.

The first one was not meant to look like it was shot outside. It was supposed to have a strong, contrasty, almost stage-like lighting, to enhance the idea of “achievement”.

The second one was a matter of opportunity. I was actually waiting for the perfect sunset light on the opposite side of the building, so with a few minutes to spare we made some pictures in a nice shaded area. And I'm so glad we did!

Just as a side note, digital post-production also plays an important role in my photography, but that's a whole other discussion. Anyway, here are the before & after of these two portraits.