I agree with you, Hart. Natural light is the best. In Rachael's earlier years, I lived in an apartment with very large windows. So, all I had to do was to open the window and I get good light. I had the good fortune to move into a house later. Unfortunately, in land scarce Singapore, BCA regulation now allows houses to be built so close to each other that we don't get very good light in most parts of the house. I have shot Rachael in the small parts of the house with good light ad nauseam... but it's getting a bit boring... So I set up a simple studio to get more control of the light. Of course I still shoot her in doing stuff... just that I've been to lazy to post them.
Also, Rachael isn't really a very physically active child... so I don't shoot her doing active outdoor stuff because she's really not like that. But here's one more taken outdoor:
36.
However, I disagree with your statement that using natural light will open up different way of taking images of your child. It is in fact the other way round. I shot with natural light for many years before I bought my flash gun. So, using flash opened up a different way of taking pictures for me. I find a flash gun very difficult to master, but I read... and I learn... and I am still learning. (Most people who use flash indiscriminately don't know what they are doing.) A mini studio is, in fact, a very good learning experience. As I do not have big soft-boxes to simulate large windows, I need to bounce and shape the light from flash guns... which is very tricky. So, natural light does not open up a different way of taking images for me. Good natural light is the preferred de facto light source. In good natural light, even my mother can take good pictures. Unfortunately, if you have a child, you will know that children have to keep to a certain schedule of mealtimes, naps, etc... and Singapore weather is unpredictable. So, knowing how to alter the light helps with capturing the moment. At the very least, a weak flash provides a good source of catchlight.
I have read several books on children portraiture, on top of the usual photography books. I understand light for the most part... though I don't always get it right. But with digital photography, it's no big deal... just chimp and delete. If you shoot enough, the law of large number dictates that you will get a few usable ones.
I want to shoot pictures of my own child because I have the best rapport with her. The relationship I take thousands of hours to build can never be replicated by any professional photographer in a couple of hours. So, I will always have the upper hand. Sorry, but I don't think I need to read a magazine to find out how to get my own child to smile, or do interesting things. A person who cannot do that probably doesn't spend enough time with his/her child and needs to do some serious soul searching... unless the child is one of those unsmiling creatures like Father Time in Jude the Obscure.
Children are naturally interesting. You just need to play with them... and let them be themselves. On the other hand, it is the professional photographer that needs these techniques. He is paid to do a job and only has a couple of hours to deliver.