My basic definition of natural and surreal lighting is very simple, natural is things people can and usually see with their eyes while surreal is something they see in their mind but not with their eyes.

So what is more difficult to do? To me its natural lighting, since there are limitations on what you can do, a greater understanding on how people look at images is required. There are bounderies that one must stay within that everyone that has a pair of eyes know such bounderies. A natural lighting often requires the look of a subject being lit by only one light, since we only have one sun, but not necessarily the set-up was done with just a single light. So technically speaking one must learn to integrate multiple number of lights so that only one is noticeable to the viewer.

So if natural lighting is more difficult, is surreal lighting easier? Easier, yes since in a surreal effect there is nothing that bounds a photographer but his imagination. It may be easier in my opinion but not necessarily easy; it’s quite difficult to break the boundaries of lighting if one doesn’t have a good grasp of the basics. Surreal photography often start as an imagination, skill is required to translate that imagination into a camera. Since we really can’t see a person’s imagination, we always presume that the photo being represented is indeed that person’s imagination. The photographer may have planned a natural looking photo but ended up getting a surreal photo, the beauty of this is no one knows this was purely accidental.

My examples of natural and surreal lighting:

Natural – Shot using strobes indoor, but was set to look like it was shoot under available light outdoor.

Surreal – Used a combination of strobes and continous lighting, shot to show some movements within a still photo. Lights crossing the path of the model and motion blur is not something we get to see with our naked eye.

I use to have a totally different view on these types of cheap photographers, I use to hate them, thinking they would eventually bring down the industry.  Now, because of the trust of my clients I have realized, the negative effect I was worried about affected them (cheap photographers) more than those who are already well established in the industry.

I have always believed that to be a success in this industry, that you must be hired for what you can create and not for how less you charge. I am blessed with clients who believes in my ability to provide them photos they need rather than because I am cheaper, which is rarely the case.

Here are my thoughts on this:

1. Photography should not always be about money, but Business should always be about money, if you want to make your photography as a business then money becomes very important. If you are doing it for the passion, you are better of not charging than being labeled as a cheap photographer.

2. No one can dictate how much you charge, but make sure what you charge covers everything, not just “GIMIK” money or “GADGETS” money. The biggest mistake newcomers make is only costing for their time and often neglect adding enough money for gear replacement, depreciation, repair and acquisition. Majority of other business start acquiring equipment with clear intention to use it in the business, thus costing of the equipment is included in their overhead expenses. In photography on the other hand, many newcomer acquired their equipment during their hobbyist days, that when they started charging they have forgotten to include the gear as part of the computation, as if it was free.

3. If you charge low (or cheap), you need to accept the fact that you will be labeled as a cheap photographer, weather or not that is an insult or not. So don’t be insulted, in the same way those Jollyjeep food stall owners take no offense when people say “dito na lang tayo, cheap kasi”. Clients who cater to the AB market, tends to get suppliers (photographers included) who also cater to the same market, it could be because both have better understanding of the market or it could also be protecting their own reputation, so do not expect the AB market to start rolling in, because of your label as cheap photographer.

4. If you have to charge really low, since this is the only thing you think you have to do to get into the industry, then you are not ready to get into the industry. Entry to the industry is only part of the battle, longevity is the bigger battle, sadly cheap rates doesn’t help on the longevity department.

5. By charging cheap, you are targeting a budget concious market who hire photographer based on rates and not on quality, so no matter how much better you get in your photography, you run the big risk of loosing all your clients the moment you increase your price.  Most companies / clients do budgeting of projects in advance, and tend to use current rates as basis for the budgeting of future projects, so as soon as you increase your rates, they have no other choice but to find someone else willing to do the project at your old rate (or the rate they budgeted for). You can’t really blame them for doing so, since you yourself were the one who made them realize that photographers can be hired cheap.