Have you "Seen The Light"?

<p><blockquote><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> I encourage all of you to take advantage of this opportunity to share and learn about available light--how to find it, how to recognize good available light, and how to maximize and augment available light, if needed. If you are proficient at it--and you know who you are--please contribute information and examples. If you are seeking more information about using available light for weddings, please ask questions. Don't let this chance pass you by.</blockquote></p>

 

<p><strong>This thread is about available light.</strong></p>

<p>Much is discussed about artificial lighting here, however in most cases artificial light is a supplement to what light is already there. <em>You can't mimic available light if you do not already truly know it well. </em>In other words, the best way to use flash is to <strong>really understand available light first!</strong></p>

<p>So, understanding available light is a critical key to all good lighting for (wedding) photography. Quality of light, direction of light. Learning to see it, learning to use it. Learning to search for it, learning to wait for it.</p>

<p>This is not my thread, it is for all of us to share our personal knowledge ... or lack of knowledge ... freely. It would be truly great if some of the dedicated and highly experienced practitioners of available light photography would please join in and share their thoughts, specifics, and a picture to illustrate it. However, those who want to know more ... or wondered about this or that, should feel free to toss in a question or two. <strong>Only available light as it relates to wedding or event photography please!</strong></p>

<p>Here are a few quotes to set the tone for an intelligent and fruitful discussion:</p>

<p><em><strong>"In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary"</strong></em> Aaron Rose</p>

<p><em><strong>"Light is the first of painters. There is no object so foul that intense light will not make it beautiful."</strong></em> Ralph Waldo Emerson</p>

<p><em><strong>"Where there is much light, the shadows are the deepest."</strong></em> Johann Wolfgang Geothe (He must have had to shoot in bright midday sunlight : -)</p>

<p><em><strong>"We burn daylight."</strong></em> William Shakespeare</p>

<p><em><strong>"For I light my candle from their torches." </strong></em> Robert Burton (A tribute to the <em>"mentors of light"</em> we all are about to learn from).</p>

<p>Great idea, Marc, as I've learned so much from PN forums.</p>

<p>Since there's no Bar/Bat Mitzvah forum, I consider our work to be part of "event photography," and hope that this submission meets the criteria. To me, this shot is a decent example of the first quote above, as it was a totally unplanned accident that has received a lot of good feedback from the client, and prospects who see it.</p>

<p>My wife and I work together, and I was setting our lights to do a pre-mitzvah family portrait session in the client's house. They wanted to shoot in this room and wanted the various elements in the background. While I was getting one camera ready to go on the tripod with a 50mm, my wife picked up the other camera that was wearing an 18-200. She just started walking around the room shooting various elements -- more to kill time and occupy the client while I was metering and adjusting -- and she just grabbed this shot, without direction to the subject or much forethought.</p>

<p>Hand-held, D90, 18-200 at 34mm, f/8, 1/50th sec, ISO 400. Because the aperture was not the best for the effect we wanted when we finally saw the image, it was blurred in Photoshop. We originally had planned to crop the window from the frame, but decided to keep it to add to a dreamy type of look. The book she's reading is her siddur, a prayer book, and we thought that in its final form this image has a quiet serenity to it.</p>

<p>This looked good in the D90's monitor at the time, so we shot a whole series of natural light images before moving on to what was originally planned. You never know.</p><div></div>

<p>I hope no one minds that this image is again not from a wedding but a christening, it's got an almost Caravaggio quality to the light which is a directional spot light shinning down and reflecting off of the vicars white robes, I couldn't get wider than the 24mm at my widest setting, and I was leaning back as far as i could to try and get the kids faces in shot, could have done with an extra foot of space to back into. Anyway I loved the shot but can't find space for it on my web site being a christening, so thought it might be of interest here. I think most people think of available light being daylight, but i shoot whole weddings in darkest December with a handful of flash shots, you can retain so much more atmosphere by working with the light that's available to you.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm all for available light images with wedding coverage however only a small percentage of my images use available light exclusively. Even window portraits of a bride will be taken with a reflector to augment the light and even-out the darker shadows. I also get concerned with self-described natural light shooters because it can mean that they don't know how to use flash or in some cases don't even own a speedlight. Ansel Adams used available light for most all of his images however he spent hours in the darkroom, dodging and burning to augment/supplement the available light.</p>

<p>Below is an image captured primarily through the window light. The floor lamp to the left of the mirror was deliberately kept on to add another lighting element to the frame.</p><div></div>

<p>IMO Bar/Bat Mitzvahs and Christenings are definitely "Events" and it's refreshing to see some variety. Beautiful light.</p>

<p>David, love the warm and cool with the almost "lantern" quality to the dress. Bravo! </p>

<p>I understand the concerns about "strict" use of available light. I would add a caution to the less experienced: while you may feel available light work to be aspirational, it is not as easy as it looks as done by masters of it. It really is a difficult discipline where the eye has to be super aware of where light is coming from, and its affect on the subject ... and if the quality of light is an asset or a liability. </p>

<p>Yet I'd question thinking about it only in more conventional terms. I wonder if we have set a standard that has gone astray from a very long photographic history of using available light. The discipline is very different, and I wonder if the "art" of it is being lost in the blitz of flash works. Using available light as a mainstay requires a different mind set, a really light oriented eye, and a different expectation of the outcome. </p>

<p>Part of the discussion probably has partly to do with the shooting style itself. Very candid oriented shooters feel flash is intrusive, and by extension I would think that reflectors and scrims would also fall into that category.</p>

<p>Most of the Masters of photography shot available light ... with less capable cameras, ISOs (ASAs) and lenses than are readily available now.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Excellent idea for a thread.</p>

<p>Rab mentions Caravaggio. I think there's an implicit understanding among available light photographers that if you want to 'see the light' you have to start with paintings. Everything you ever need to know about light direction, fall off, intensity, wrapping and modeling can be seen in art galleries.</p>

<p>This image is pure window light. The best way to work window light is in any direction except with the light. If you choose to shoot in the same direction as the light source then you get broad, flat lighting. It's deeply uninteresting, pretty much like straight on camera flash. The best character of light is found at 90 or 180 degrees to the light source, because you're interested in creating a modeling effect - which means the most important element is shadow, not light. <br>

<img src="http://ambroseandalison.com/singleimages/pnet/AA_20100725_069.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is the same angle, but stepped back about eight feet for a wider angle of view. Both images are with the same prime lens (one camera, one lens, nothing else). The dimensionality of the light becomes visible with the extra space, shows how the fall off works. The light skims through the scene and lights everyone's face, even the bridesmaid at frame right. The person at frame left has his back to the light and is lit only by the reflection from the bride's dress and veil. The largest part of the image is shadow, and I believe it's the shadow that makes it. If it were all evenly lit (as from a bounced flash, for example) then it would be pretty characterless.<br>

<img src="http://ambroseandalison.com/singleimages/pnet/AA_20100725_072.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This image is strongly backlit. The windows received direct light from mid-afternoon sun and were ultra high contrast. The standard procedure for flash would be to even out the contrast using fill flash. But I think that would be a lesser choice, as the curtains have made the light source into a ready made softbox. The image was shot at 90 degrees to the light, several stops overexposed, and physics does the rest. The natural character of light is to diffuse and envelop whatever is in its path, and if given the chance it can produce nice wrapping.<br>

<img src="http://ambroseandalison.com/singleimages/pnet/AA_20100703_268.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This last example is different as it relies on artificial light, although all of it ambient to the scene. The singer was backlit by stage lights, and there was a curtained area to her right which reflected some light back at her. The image was shot straight into the main light source, but positioned so the singer's head acted as a flag. This allowed the light to wrap nicely, giving her a rim light effect, with just enough fill from the curtains to illuminate her face. A bounce flash would have drowned the subtlety of the scene, casting a bright white zone on the dropped ceiling, losing all the colour and tonality in the ribbons above the singer, and generally looking pretty unspecial. This is another reason why I prefer available light - it lets you work with more shadows, which can be used to obscure things that are not interesting, such as ceiling tiles, fire extinguishers, exit signs, etc.<br>

<img src="http://ambroseandalison.com/singleimages/pnet/AA_20100703_364.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks Marc, Available light is extremely difficult to work with when covering a wedding. Often the photographer does not have the luxury of being able to place the subject exactly or the freedom to move about the room to get the most desirable position. The below window lighting of the bride works because she is in profile and directly facing in the light source. I was also lucky enough to have two windows which allowed me to position her veil in the darker area between the two windows. However, if she were to move her eyes/head to the camera, I would have too much shadow on the left side of her face and would need some fill in the form of bounced flash or a reflector.</p>

<p>IMO, light is the most important element of an image while shadow (or shades/degrees of light) plays an important role. Lighting is either flat or broad.......... Flat light can be quite flattering for some subjects. Classic paintings are an excellent source of lighting inspiration. Rembrandt lighting requires multiple light sources and careful control of light ratios. Most of the "Masters of photography" in my professional lifetime almost always used supplemental lighting and light controls in some form.....Zucker, Cricchio, Ketcham, Lewis, Tim Kelley, and Dean Collins immediately come to mind.</p><div></div>

<p>David, my list of masters is quite different from yours ... all masters, but different philosophies. When younger, I was thunderstruck by the work of Lartique, Rodchenko, Abbot, Lee Miller, Chim, Kertesz, Mary Ellen mark, Bill brant among a list of 100 more, ... I adored Doisneau and Bresson, and Arnold Newman was a revelation. Original vintage prints from some these photographers hang in my home.</p>

<p>I must admit that my work has not improved with the addition of artificial lighting where I once used none, only become more prolific and diluted. So, I've been trying a course correction by returning to more available light work ... but it takes working with a client to make them understand that it is about the right light. Convincing clients that selective shooting yields a much higher quality of wedding photography over copious quantities of images is not an easy sell in a digital and disposable world. </p>

<p>So, I agree that exclusively shooting available light at a wedding is very difficult, but think the difficulty is more about controlling expectations ... or perhaps better put, l<em>etting expectations control you.</em> Some wedding shooters have successfully maintained a more reasonable expectation that allows patience while waiting for the right moment, in the right light ... and the luxury of finding the light in the first place.</p>

<p>Anyway, by no means am I advocating this for everyone ... just that understanding and using available light is paramount in general, even when using supplemental artificial light.</p>

<p>We also have to remember that we shoot a fair amount outdoors, and that not all available light need be highly directional and crisp. Sometimes a nice, soft natural light is preferable ... like this perhaps ...</p><div></div>

<p>Before I posted, I wanted to really search for something using available light that was, what I felt, a little challenging, yet different. This shot was from an event, the Grand Opening of a brand new Starbucks Coffee House. This was actually the first assignment where I chose to forego the film and shoot only digital. I wanted to work in color and felt I could get a better handle on the mixed light by fine tuning in JPEG while I was shooting, at this point I was only dabbling in RAW and didn't want to go that way. After arriving and looking things over, I decided my method would be available light/no flash, Nikon D200 ISO 800 with noise reduction on max and JPEG Fine/Large using only one lens for the whole night, my old manual focus 50mm 1.8 short version, some people call it a pancake. For shoots like this I much prefer manual focus because I am always changing where the primary subject will be and am working with very shallow DOF. I used the incandescent WB as my base setting as that was the primary source, not to mention the continuous auto headlights from the parking lot. After a few test shots, I prefered an ambient exposure of 1/60th at 1.8 and that's how I worked for the remainder. From there what I needed to do was just frame subjects in whatever interesting light I could find working and leave the exposure alone. So here's a shot of the jazz trio, perfect for the coffee house setting.</p><div></div>

<p>In his DVD trainings ( <a href="http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD">http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=LLT028&Category_Code=DVD</a> ), Ed Pierce does a good job of showing what can be done using just available light. However one must first understand the specular qualities of light and recognize how light can be bounced/reflected off of various surfaces. In DVD #4, Ed takes a pretty girl downtown and to the waterfront and makes some exceptional images with available light but also uses building awnings for shade and alley-ways where the light is bounced from building surfaces. These are some terrific shots, however, then he adds a diffusion panel, or a large reflector, or a speedlight as an accent light, or various combinations of these.....and makes terrific images even better. Even a simple lens hood serves to modify light. I'm not anymore impressed by how many gadgets a pro uses to get an image as by how few he uses....</p>

 

<p>Horses for courses here IMO. Or, shoot it as you would like to have it seen, natural/available or modified. I say this with the thought that while you may have available light, it does not follow that it will work.</p>

<p>I use available ONLY at times, but sometimes it just does not work well. If it's a bit less than I want, or serves a purpose but not THE purpose, then I will add light to get my desired results. Images are made, not merely taken. As Neil points to, it can be the only source ( and often should be at an event to preclude the interruption of flash) when you know what you want to get, and how to get it with what is there. Conversely, you may be stuck with what is there and not have time/ability to modify the light, or to change your perspective enough to make it great.</p>

<p>Marc, I love some of those quotes and work by a few of them. My favorite approach to natural/available light is to treat it as THE light source, then see what can be done with it. But I depart from it being the only source as soon as it leaves the images I desire to create in "ugly" light. Then I think the selective addition of flash, bounced, reflected, diffused or other means of "altering" the light is in order.</p>

<p>There are times where the light is OK, but does not provide drama or depth. It's here that I like to add light and model my subjects with it if I can. Great images are those whose content works, composition works, lights works, and that tell something about the subject/content to the viewer, that will enlighten or engage them IMO. If you have the content, composition, but not the light, I think an otherwise great image falls flat.</p>

<p>I think many have offered great examples here, but there are few shown of what NOT to get, when what you want to create is a great image. So, I offer this one from last nights festivities as one where the composition works, the content works, but the light was just so so. It's a moment unplanned (as many are during the day), but anticipated somewhat as I shot the details before the guests entered.</p>

 

<div></div>

<p>Sometimes being fortunate enough to have nice light in a spot can enable me to get more photos. Yesterday the daylight coming through the door was decent for the receiving line because the couple was just the right distance from the door to be in the sweet spot. There were other various tungsten light sources inside. I was able to turn off the flash and shoot away. I took a bit of a chance on the color mix but I think it was worth.<br>

Other times I have made choices to add light that I didn't really want too, because available was too risky.</p>

<div></div>

I'm interested in reference points for "masters of available light". Anyone care to share theirs?

 

My all time master of available light is Fan Ho. Anyone interested in 'seeing the light' would enjoy his book 'Hong Kong

Yesterday' available from Nazraeli press. In my opinion one of the most exquisite depictions of light ever published. All his

work is an exercise in simplicity: one camera, one lens and no equipment beyond the light that was found and the subject

as it was seen.

 

He is not a photographer that many people are familiar with, but in his career he won 183 international awards, directed 67

films and was a judge at the Oscars. He is one of the best directors and cinematographers in Asian cinema, and his

early work (including HKY) gives an insight into someone who really knows what can be done with available light.

<p>Using available light as a mainstay does require a different mindset and an acceptance and expectation of different and varied outcomes: often the outcomes are more reactions to the situation or (shooting) environment, than control or manipulation of it.<br>

Thank you Nadine and Marc for the invitation – I shall contribute three images and comment on them.<br>

For Available Light <em>Portraiture</em> Work, even if it is more candid style capture, there is often more time and availability to control the light and the camera viewpoint, for example: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10442919&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442919&size=lg</a><br>

But, in contrast and also in keeping with this Forum’s guidelines, the each of these three images is from a different event; using different equipment; a different time and perspective; in a differing location and lighting situation.<br>

This is a learning thread. One of the most valuable learning tools I have found is <strong><em>comparison and contrast</em></strong>. One of the most valuable development tools I have found is, <strong><em>noting the reactions TO my work, FROM Prospects and Clients.</em></strong> Each of these three images has drawn a wide range of comment and interests from Clients. I will endeavour to now tear each apart.<br>

The first image “<em>The Lamp Post Will Not Divide Us”</em> was taken a couple of years ago and it was at the end of a Corporate New Years’ Eve Party. The function also doubled as a Rewards Night for the high achieving employees, in a casual atmosphere. On first thought it might seem perhaps difficult to capture raw emotion at such a function, save that of large egos and lots of grips and grins: and from a technical perspective most of the evening I used Flash inside. When I retired outside, after the job, for a breather I noticed these two people. The elements I saw in this scene were in stark contrast to the vibe and the adrenaline inside. I had only a couple of seconds to use what I had at hand, a 5D with a 135/2: I had a Scotch and Ice in my other hand. I had to wait for her expression and as I could not rely on her eyes, because she was lit from directly above, I had to rely on her <em>whole body</em> expression. That meant dependence on her hand and her mouth and angle of her head – and that was what I was watching the most. The fact that was I using a 135mm lens meant I had little fiddle room to manoeuvre my camera position – and anyway there was so little time.<br>

The comparison elements in this image, to the other two, are: stealth; attention to the subject’s body language, especially the hand and the mouth - not relying on the eyes as much as we would in a more controlled lit shot; using DoF to concentrate the image, to make up for inadequate lighting.<br>

The contrast elements in this image are: minimal ability for a camera viewpoint change to overcome a physical element in shot – the lamppost; making do with the camera and lens at hand – a longer lens than I would normally use and I was severely restricted in movement: <em>“What’s the best gear for this shot? – The camera in your hand, at the time”.</em> <br>

Tech: 5D + 135/2. Shooting: F/2 @ 1/100s @ ISO3200, HH, Spot Meter, -1.0 Comp, Av Priority.</p><div></div>

<p>This second image is the oldest; it was taken several years ago. Obviously it is from a Wedding. It is the closest (in age) to me pulling out a neg and scanning it, (which I do not see any value in and so I haven’t done). This was purposely shot with monotone in mind. It was taken with a 20D when that camera was “new technology”.<br>

The element of DoF is a similarity and also the mainly downward light – so the overall body language (of each subject) is important. But when I contrast this image to the other two, I find there is more prescription to it. I wanted “a group” of the Bride and Bridesmaids, so I was prepared to wait, choose a vantage point and capture the trio in “a reaction” – it was during the Groom’s speech. So to some extent there was time available to me.<br>

The other integral and unique element to this image is it was the first Wedding using the 20D (yes we had film there too), so after running the camera in for a few months, I was intent on stretching the limits, just wanting to know what exactly I could squeeze out of it. Sometimes I pushed too far, but I think this capture is just about at the limit of the 20D.<br>

Tech: 20D + 50/1.4. Shooting: F/2 @ 1/50s @ ISO3200, 0 Comp, HH, CWA Meter, Manual Exp.</p><div></div>

<p>The third image is my favourite of the three, because it is the type of Image and Capture I adore: Tight; by Stealth; Intimate lens; Capture of the moment which is reflective and meaningful for the subject. But in some manner, it is least technically correct, but often the question is: does the Subject (Client) consider this? This was taken at a 21^st Birthday and the Subject is the Sister of the Party Boy – she is engrossed in her Brother’s Speech. The image (she says) relives the moment and his words . . . meaningful to the client.<br />The comparisons between this image and the other two are few, mainly because this image is at close quarters and using a FL and viewpoint, the impact of which is vastly different from the previous. Stealth, I suppose, is the major comparison.<br />The major contrasts are: Perspective and Viewpoint, Relevance of the moment of capture, for the Subject; recognition of Secondary Subjects / Moments, at an event. <br />Tech 5D + 50/1.4. Shooting F2.2 @ 1/60s @ ISO3200, -0.3 Comp, Spot Meter, HH, Manual Exp.</p><div></div>

<p>Neil, I listed my influences for available light ... my masters so to speak. What were you specifically looking for? More than anything I prefer to look at prints in galleries, and visit the Leica Gallery in NYC every time I'm there for example. I literally have 3,000 photo books in my library ... but nothing equals looking at the shots by masters hanging on my walls to remind me what light can actually look like.</p>

<p><strong>Rather than debate whether to use available light,</strong> the notion for this thread was to explore it as an option so perhaps more people will try it. To do that, it may help if some specific information on <strong>"How To"</strong> could be shared all in one place by those who use it well, whether occasionally or exclusively.</p>

<p><strong>RE: Quality of Light</strong>: One thing I've been interested in is how to keep it natural looking when in heavy tungsten lighting scenarios. The heavy warm cast can actually lead to unintentional under-exposure, and more noise or grain when the ambient light exposure is corrected. Not good when using higher ISOs in low light. I know some of it is due to taste ... where the photographer lets it go warm for aesthetic reasons ... but ... leaving WB corrections to the RAW file processing may be misleading.</p>

<p>So, for example, I've been getting more adept at setting manual WB from a pocket grey card much more frequently than before so the LCD image better shows possible underexposure than when it is more yellow-red ... which is falsely brighter. </p>

<p>I also found this helpful even when the intention is B&W ... get the color right, and the B&W conversions are a lot easier and less noisy.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"One thing I've been interested in is how to keep it natural looking when in heavy tungsten lighting scenarios.The heavy warm cast can actually lead to unintentional under-exposure, and more noise or grain when the ambient light exposure is corrected. Not good when using higher ISOs in low light. I know some of it is due to taste ... where the photographer lets it go warm for aesthetic reasons ... but ... leaving WB corrections to the RAW file processing may be misleading."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em> . . . it may help if some specific information on "How To" . . . </em></strong><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I often set K = 2800°.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>My personal philosophy is that there is no such thing as bad light, there are just different possibilities presented by different kinds of light. You can interpret any lighting situation in a number of ways - maybe even in a huge variety of ways.</p>

<p>So, for me David Wegwart's example of 'not great' light above - I actually like the lighting in it. Not every image has to have the dramatic lighting of Caravaggio, sometime a soft enveloping tender light is better. In that particular image the skin tones are a touch raw/red/darkish for my tastes, but that's a personal preference, and not the lighting.</p>

<p>Another thought (maybe an obvious one, but still I think worth saying) is that 'available light' covers an incredible range of situations - from the overhead midday light in the tropics to candlelight or the light of a chinese lantern, flourescent lighting to the burst of a guest's flash or a flash of lightning, a backlit setting sun to the reflections off the windows of an office building. So the approaches to using these light sources is also hugely diverse.</p>

<p>As for Neil's masters of light - I guess it wasn't just available light, some of it may have been added, but for a mastery of light that blends with the surroundings I nominate my favourite director Krzystof Kieslowski (famous for Colours - Red, White, Blue, as well as Dekalog, The Double Life of Veronique). Especially his cinematographer in A Short Film about Killing and (I think) Blue - Slawomir Idziak.</p>

<p>I'd post a sample or two of available light images for discussion too but at the moment my ftp-upload server seems to be misbehaving :(</p>

<p><em><strong>"I also found this helpful even when the intention is B&W ... get the color right, and the B&W conversions are a lot easier and less noisy."</strong></em></p>

<p>Yes. Agree 100%.<br>

Further I am not beyond using CC (for colour under Tungsten light if the ISO can handle it) and Toning Filters (for B&W).<br>

These are a whole different topic (and hotly debated) and not a tangent for detail here I think, but relevant and worthwhile pursuing, IMO for those interested.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>My comment about their being no bad light was made before I saw Marc's post about tungsten light. For me, I don't see tungsten light as a problem any more than daylight, which also of course varies in colour temperature - but unfortunately tungsten is becoming increasingly rare, and energy saving bulbs are taking over, which don't have a continuous spectrum at all, so the orange cast can't be filtered out.</p>

<p>It can be tough. There are a range of options depending on the situation. One is to introduce another light source - that may of course be a flash, filtered to be as colour balance close to the energy saving bulbs as possible, but with a continuous spectrum. But other light sources may be available to throw into the mix - disco lights, candles, a few tungsten bulbs, etc. May not be colour balanced, but they give material to work with. It helps to use 14 bit RAW and a camera with a great dynamic range, to capture as much of each channel as possible. Trying to use as low an ISO as possible also helps. Then you can gather the colour information available and go for a colour cast that looks pleasing in the context - it doesn't have to be neutral - the room isn't neutral after all, so no need for the pictures to be. If it's a real beast, it could be candidate for a b&w conversion. Or you might take inspiration from Rut Blees Luxemburg who turns the cast of these kinds of lights into liquid gold.</p>

<p>But, I think that in a room little wholly by energy saving bulbs, this 'nastiness' of colour is part of the atmosphere that the eye also feels, and the challenge is to try to turn it into something interesting...?</p>

<p>Some energy saving lightbulbs, with a bit of candlelight for good measure:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/kj204.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/kj187.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/kj203.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p>And a bit of chinese lantern from our last wedding, just for fun:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/rj3780.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>morning (handheld, from my room in the hotel)</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> John--sorry but this thread isn't for non-wedding/event images and also isn't a no-words thread. So unless you can tell me the image relates to a wedding or event in some way and additionally, you can talk about it in relation to available light wedding and event photography, I must remove the image.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>to take advantage of this opportunity to share and learn about available light--how to find it, how to recognize good available light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has very little available light early in the morning (the sun has not really rised yet). The light is not much but I see it nice</p>

<p>Well, John's photo does have a church in it ... if it was part of a wedding shoot, it would be a very nice image to start the Wedding Day Album : -) I wish I had a few like it in my wedding portfolio ... <strong>but it takes the gumption to get out there and get the shot when the light's right, rather than just when it is convenient.</strong></p>

<p>While I am primarily a Photojournalist style shooter, I do include some posed work ... at the very least a couple of Bridal shots. More and more, I've been working with client's scheduling, looking up the weather forecasts, and when sunset is ... then trying to advise clients well before the wedding day as to when the best time to shoot their posed work will be. Doesn't always work out ... but clients have been more flexible than I had suspected.</p>

<p><em><strong>Available light images of a Spanish Bride done in July at 5:30PM.</strong> Partly overcast conditions, and I found a reception area that was in full shade at that time of day ... Full length Bridal: Sony A900 @ ISO 100 with a Zeiss 85/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/8000th shutter. Close up: A900 @ ISO 400, Zeiss 135/1.8 @ f/1.8, 1/4000th shutter. <strong>Not using flash let me totally control Depth-Of-Field with no restrictions on shutter speed. </strong></em> </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Neil, I listed my influences for available light ... my masters so to speak. What were you specifically looking for?...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yours are great examples - just looking for more of the same. I share your taste for books and prints and have been building my own collection for a while. But I'm always looking to add to it, and ideas from photographers can be insightful. There is huge inspiration to be had in cinematography and fine-art, and I'm probably not the only one who thinks real expertise can be found a bit further than training DVDs.</p>

<p>Simon, thanks for the reference to Kieslowski and Idziak. I have the Three Colours series and you've reminded me to watch it again.</p>