Available or ‘Found’ Light for Weddings–2011

[picturesque]

<p>This thread is a follow on to the recent Fill Flash for Weddings–2011 thread. Now, I want to discuss using available, or ‘found’ light only. While we recently had an excellent thread about available light by Marc Williams, I am still opening this discussion, but with a more technical slant, hopefully including post processing techniques that make available light more, well–available–as a technique, because when we used film, we didn’t have these options. You will find the link to Marc’s thread below. I encourage you to read or re-read the thread.</p>

<p><a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00XATP">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00XATP</a></p>

<p>Again, I need your help–all of you. I will start off talking about photographing in brighter light/sunlight without using fill flash, but I invite anyone who has good information about using available light only at weddings to post that good information. In anticipation of receiving a lot of good teaching and thought provoking material, I will be ‘stickying’ this thread for a few weeks. I only ask that you limit your image examples to a maximum of 3 illustrations. This means that if you combine images, that composite is counted as 1 illustration. If you prefer to post whole images only (no composites) you may do so, but I would like it if you don’t hot link, because I want the images to remain in the archives, so you may need to post multiple times for each image to be uploaded using photo.net’s utility. I understand if you do not want images to be archived, however.</p>

<p>I am hoping that wedding photographers of all levels, from beginning through advanced, will find something new to think about re using available light only. I am anticipating that I will. I also ask that if you have a strong leaning toward fill flash as a frequent technique, please don’t attempt to derail this thread. You can still post your fill flash info in the fill flash thread if you wish.</p>

<p><strong>Issues with Available Light</strong></p>

<p>Before getting into the fine points of using available light, let’s define the issues that keep us from throwing away our flashes altogether (some of us, anyway).</p>

<p>1. Having enough light to produce a quality image to begin with. Dim lighting, along with white balance/exposure issues, was discussed in the thread mentioned above. However, if you have any useful information about this issue, feel free to post.</p>

<p>2. Contrast. This is by far (IMHO) the biggest issue with available light. Many times the contrast between highlight and shadow is extreme, causing one to have to choose between the two extremes, to the detriment of the other end of the spectrum. This issue is one of the main reasons some of us reach for the flash.</p>

<p>3. Unattractive shadow patterns. There are certain shadow patterns that look appealing on human faces and forms. There are other shadow patterns that aren’t appealing, particularly when combined with extreme contrast. One particular kind is ‘racoon eyes’, where downward light causes shadows in eye sockets and under noses.</p>

<p>4. ‘Blah’ lighting. Many times, available light is the most beautiful light. When it <strong>is</strong> beautiful light, nothing can match it in terms of appeal. However, ugly available light exists–contrasty, shadowy, blotchy, and flat.</p>

<p><strong>Wedding Specific Considerations</strong></p>

<p>When photographing a wedding, we photographers are often unable to control the lighting. Sometimes we can, as when photographing formals, where it is expected and there is enough time, and sometimes, like during ceremonies and some reception activities, we use whatever light is available and augment the light if needed and possible. Now, we also have post processing techniques to rely upon, controls we didn’t have or had limited access to with film.</p>

<p>Since weddings develop their own momentum, we photographers must often make quick decisions and concessions about lighting. Control of lighting without employing studio type set ups can come in three general ways. First would be placement of subjects to take advantage of good available light. Second would be augmenting available light with fill flash or other sources, such as reflectors or continuous light. Third would be digital post processing manipulation.</p>

<p><strong>Placement of Subjects</strong></p>

<p>Sometimes everything is perfect. The subject happens to be in beautiful available light that isn’t too hard/contrasty or creating ugly shadow patterns, and there is enough light for your exposure. Back to reality–it doesn’t happen all that often. When it does–enjoy it to the fullest. Otherwise, one of the simplest things you can do is to put your subjects in the ‘good light’.</p>

<p>Many beginners ask how one can easily recognize ‘good light’. For me, good light has three basic characteristics, beyond just having enough light.</p>

<p>1. The light that illuminates the subject has direction and a dynamic range (light to dark) that is not extreme, to create modeling on the subject and to reveal detail in both light and dark (highlight and shadow) areas.</p>

<p>2. The light is even–not blotchy (as in shadows of tree branches on people’s faces) and the light source is large (for soft light and smooth highlight to shadow transitions).</p>

<p>3. The light is NOT downward light only, such as you get on overcast days. The one exception is when the downward light is used with the subject’s face uplifted, into the light.</p>

<p>One of the first things I suggest to beginners who ask the question above, is to find stands of tall-ish tress or buildings where, in the space between two buildings, one side of one building is throwing reflected light into the shade area of the other building. When one understands the concept, one can easily adapt it for quick analysis of any area.</p>

<p>The reasons the above areas work are as follows. First, tall trees (and their branches) help cut downward light (minimize/eliminate racoon eyes) and create the ‘dark’ part of the dynamic range by cutting out light on one side. This leaves reflected light from the open expanse on the other side to create soft (large light source) directional light on the subject. Porches and windows are great for this natural lighting set up as well. Porches have the little bit of overhang to cut out downward light, a far wall to create the ‘dark’ and an opposite, open area of reflected light, etc. With some practice, I’m sure you can find lots of similar areas of good light. Example G shows the ‘tall trees’ scenario, with the bride’s face turned toward the reflected light from the open expanse to the left of her.</p>

<p>Within such good light areas, one also can put to good use, one’s knowledge of lighting patterns. It is good to study portrait lighting–to know what Rembrandt, short light, loop light, etc., are. This knowledge enables you to know how to place your subjects in the good light. Example C shows butterfly light on the bride and Rembrandt light on the groom. The light was diffused sunlight. Example F is taken with the subject in window light–loop lighting pattern.</p>

<p>An interesting trend in wedding photography is to forgo fill flash in bright sun and then rely a little or a lot on post processing. The idea is to ‘put your subject between you and the sun’, and shoot with a bias toward the shady side of the subject, letting some unimportant parts of the subject blow out. An important requirement for this treatment is to have medium to dark valued backgrounds, otherwise, you may have flare or stark white, blown out backgrounds. Example D shows the concept. When in post processing, you may need to adjust contrast, saturation and highlight recovery. Example E shows the same groom, but with the majority of his face in bright sun, disqualifying this image from the just mentioned treatment. If the exposure were biased to the shadow areas, too much of his face would be blown out. More about this below.</p>

<p><strong>Augmenting Available Light</strong></p>

<p>I won’t go into detail about this, particularly since we just talked about fill flash, and leave it to others–anyone have good information about reflector use (at weddings) and/or continuous light sources?</p>

<p><strong>Digital Post Processing</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

In the previous thread about fill flash, I showed an image taken without flash, without any post processing beyond conversion and a slight exposure bump. It looked washed out, bluish and had a touch of flare. I showed a similar image with fill flash, which can help with saturation, contrast, and white balance. Now, I show the same image (taken without flash), but processed to overcome the flare, and with better saturation, contrast and white balance (Examples A & B). With film, we could not rely on such techniques.</p>

<p>Above I talked about Example E, which shows a dark, dense shadow on the groom’s face. The detail in this shadow can be ‘brought back’ with digital fill, which in turn, will require some adjustments in contrast and shadow white balance, since extremes of digital fill tend to give a reddish brown, milky cast to the shadows. I personally don’t like digital fill, but it is certainly an option. I would offer to send a larger resolution file or RAW file to anyone willing to demonstrate extreme digital fill–Pete S.? :^)<br>

?<br>

I think I’ve talked enough, so I leave other tips to others. However, if anyone has any questions, feel free.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Here comes Illustration 2.</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p><em>Mama Mia Nadine ... that other thread you linked to is packed with info ... then augmented by your post above. So, maybe a different take on it could help?</em></p>

<p>Flipping the idea ... it isn't just light that's available, it is the absence of light that can bring drama and emotional impact to a wedding image. A bit of light in a sea of murky shadows can isolate a subject and offer a different feel. <strong>In short, rather than overcoming darkness, use it.</strong></p>

<p>Often we can become obsessed with a sort of perfection that, while academically correct, is lifeless and not really how we actually see things. Just study the great Hollywood 30s and 40s era portraits of movie stars ... <strong>more notable for the use of shadow than of light.</strong></p>

<p>Here are a couple of examples using <strong>"Available Darkness</strong>" ... one indoors and the other outdoors. </p>

<p>The indoor shot was a location the Bride requested ... an abandoned 2nd floor of an 1880s small town Opera house. There were two weak incandescent bulbs lighting the entire floor. I placed her close to one light and let the further one provide a bit of meager fill. I did take some shots with her looking camera left to let the main bulb light her face and torso, but while more "correct" it wasn't nearly as emotionally dramatic as this more moody, pensive one.</p>

<p>The outdoor image was found luck ... upon completion of the outdoor ceremony, I took a break at the edge of a rise. Peering over the edge, I saw sunlight penetrating the tree cover and hitting the path in the forest below. The B&G were game to go down there and I shot from the rise with a telephoto. Again, isolated light in relative mass of darkness.</p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>All too often, available light is associated with candid photography, which is hardly a reality. When shooting more structured work, <strong>find the light and put the subject there. </strong></p>

<p>Also, all to often we resort to flash just out of habit. It's usually pretty safe to use fill, but then we miss some great opportunities to use what Mother Nature has given us as a gift ... if only we take the time to look. </p>

<p>Here are three examples of the structured shots most of us have to do ... <strong>none of which used flash or reflectors. </strong></p>

<p>The Spanish Bride was shot at dusk, which I waited for. The dark red foliage was partially in the shade of a building wall, so when I exposed for the partially back-lit Bride, that background then came up lighter and the scene evened out.</p>

<p>The B&W was actually shot is horrid lighting conditions ... a small strip of land between a brick wall and a parking lot. This was literally the only spot not plagued with dappled light ... I shot it wide open with an 85/1.4 to obliterate the brick wall, reducing it to an even tone ... and then made use of the soft filtered light in a directional manner.</p>

<p>The "She's The 1" Firehouse shot just used the<strong> indirect North light</strong> of the open door ... and also employs a bit of that "available darkness" as part of the composition. <strong>North light is THE best direction for available light </strong>(when it is available : -)<strong>. </strong>Painters seek out studios with North light, as did early photographers. If doing structured shots look for North light first. If indoors, seek a window that's facing North. </p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>Three's a charm, and three is the limit ... so my last thought is ...</p>

<p><strong>When NOT to use flash.</strong> That can be as important a decision as choosing when and how to employ artificial light.</p>

<p>Here are three situations where the choice to <strong>shut off the flash was deliberate.</strong></p>

<p>The Cigar shot may have worked with flash, but that smoke is pretty subtile and probably would have been ruined by an added blitz ... <strong>it wasn't needed so I didn't use it.</strong></p>

<p>The "Gold Room" was a <strong>gift from "Mother Nature"</strong> which I gladly accepted. The setting sun was pouring into the room and it only lasted a few minutes. It augmented the gold hues of the room itself to create a wonderful ambience that any use of flash would surely have destroyed (IMHO).</p>

<p>The B&W is simply a <strong>forced use of available light</strong>. To use flash at this distance on a subject this large would be impossible. It reminds me of visiting the Empire State Building at night, and watching tourist firing off their P&S ... as if that tiny flash could light up all of Manhattan ... LOL! </p>

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

[picturesque]

<p>Thanks again, Marc. Yes, there is a ton of info in your previous thread, but I wanted to look at the topic from a more basic viewpoint as well as talk about digital manipulations now possible that could mean less flash use.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Well, that's a tough one actually. It seems the focus is on problem areas of lighting where some sort of auxiliary lighting is the better solution compared to post work anyway.</p>

<p>While we do a lot of "fixing" assignments in the Photoshop threads, and those are often related to poor light balance (which can happen if shooting in contrasy or poor available light) it's also often apparent that the solutions are problematic at best.</p>

<p>My last post above was about when NOT to use flash ... but when to use it is just as important. I think <strong>"less flash use" </strong>is directly related to learning to recognize what light is good, and far less related to how to fix bad light after the fact. </p>

<p>However, my bad for not understanding the focus of this thread. </p>

<p>Yes, there are lots of aids in post programs today that can assist available light shots. One technique I've used when faced with a very contrasy scene (and not using flash to balance it out) is to expose to hold the highlights ... select the highlights in PS, feather the selection, and invert the selection and make an adjustment layer so I can lift the mid-tones and shadow areas without blowing the light areas.</p>

<p>I now tend to use PhotoTools 2.5 plug-in for PS, and use their "Digital Fill" option ... or Jeff Ascough's mid-tone lift Action. Both these offer layer control and can be effective IF the situation isn't too extreme.</p>

<p>In extreme situations, the consequences are uneven noise, color shifts and loss of detail ... skin tone and shadow areas being a primary issue.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Thanks, Marc. I didn't mean to say that the focus of the thread is post processing. I welcome any kind of input related to the topic (very grateful for your input), even information that is repeated, but especially different information. The post processing is different info. While your previous thread had a ton of info, the reader had to sift through a lot of information sometimes geared toward more experienced users and sometimes with an extremely personal interpretation, without having a groundwork of basic principles to build on.</p>

<p>The information about post processing is not covered in your previous thread, and while it can be argued that augmenting available light when it is 'bad' is preferable to post processing efforts, it is good to know about post processing solutions, even if it is only to make decisions about whether to use them or augment available light with fill flash or other.</p>

<p>I agree that one should know when to shoot available light or augment it. This is why I described what 'good' available light is for me, and I put this information in (I hope) a concise and easy to understand form.</p>

<p>By the way, if you have illustrations for your post processing methods for available light, you may certainly post them. I'm sure everyone will make an exception for you. :^)</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Nadine & Marc, thanks once again for bringing this topic into the ermmm light :) from a slightly different perspective. I have found that more and more, I use available ("found") light in my wedding photography. From getting ready through the ceremony, I shoot more and more sans flash work. I am learning to see the light more and to work with it better. Perhaps ironically, I am using more off-camera flash for my work outdoors.</p>

<p>Here are two instances where I really think flash would be detrimental to the shot. In the first one, I deliberately blew out the window to create a white background against which to frame the maid being made-up. There was enough ambient light in the room to preclude use of fill flash. in the second image, the bride was holding a mirror. The sun was behind her and threw lovely light into her face. I reckon flash would have killed the mood of the shot.</p>

<p>I think camera equipment these days can also help push boundaries and possiblities. So good has been the performance at high ISO of my 5D2 that I don't take out my flash at all till the formals.</p><div></div>

[markonestudios]

<p>And here's the second</p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>I'm going to talk a little about post processing when it comes to harsh sunlight and I will use Nadine's image as an example.<br /><br />This is actually my third version of this post as the first one turned into a large book and the second one into a small book :-)<br /><br />So, let's just have a look at the images.<br /><br />I've used Capture One Pro as a raw converter because that is what I prefer but you will or can get similar results with any other converter like ACR, LR, Aperture etc.<br /><br /><br />These first images are what you can expect from a raw converter.<br /><br />A - default settings<br />B - default settings with highlight recovery<br />C - default settings with highlight recovery and large amount of shadow recovery aka digital fill. <br /><br />Conclusion: Shadow recovery works OK for landscapes but not for skin tone when doing extreme corrections.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>Raw converters are easy to use multitools and they don't have the power of a dedicated image editor like photoshop. So let's pull out the big guns :-)<br /> <br />C - linear raw conversion in capture one as a start. (Sorry about using C again...)<br /><br />D - C with increased shadow brightness on the subject in photshop. I used the Shadow/Highlight adjustment with "Show more options" for this.<br /><br />E - D with increased brightness on the eyes and some shadows as well as an overall increased subject brightness. I used curves for this.</p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>Then we need to find out how much fill we really want to add by mixing the C with E. This is a matter of taste of course. I also added some more contrast to the image since I used a linear raw conversion as my starting point.</p>

<p>F - What I probably would have liked (about 50%). This is what look most realistic to me while still showing lots of shadow detail. I used layer masks with different opacity % to adjust how much of the adjustment to use.</p>

<p>Please ask questions in this thread if you want to know specifics on why or how I did some of these things.</p><div></div>

[simon_crofts]

<p>My personal philosophy - is that there is not so often such a thing as bad light, it is rather a matter or understanding what is good about each lighting situation, and how to use it.</p>

<p>The biggest exception is the light from dim energy saving bulbs in a dark interior, which can just be tricky. But even then, using what is there can help keep some of the atmosphere that a flash would have killed:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/AS223.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Or, combining 'difficult' lighting sources: moonlight + street light + marquee lights, why not:-</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/photonet/LJ245.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[fotografz]

<p>Nice shot and adjustment of the tent photo Simon!</p>

<p>Another frequent issue with available sunlight is washed out skys.</p>

<p>IF, and I stress IF, you want to hold the sky in a scene when shooting available light, then a combination of under-exposure and knowing what can be done in PS can help accomplish your goal.</p>

<p>Fortunately, when shooting in available sunlight you are usually using a lower ISO ... which can help a great deal when lifting shadow areas ... like a back-lit subject. </p>

<p>Here is one shot with a Leica M9 Rangefinder and a 35/1.4 lens. ISO was 200, shutter 1/750 and aperture f/2.8. It was underexposed just enough to hold some detail in the distant sky. If I had exposed for the subject, the sky would have been completely gone as would some of the highlight areas.</p>

<p>Simple highlight/shadow control in PS was the main tool used ... this is best accomplished in steps as opposed to one large correction which tends to produce halos at contrast points. This was done last year, and looking at it now, I probably would have done something in between these two ...</p>

<p>Top is as shot with nothing done to the DNG file. Bottom is the corrected file as provided to the client.</p>

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

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“This was done last year, and looking at it now, I probably would have done something in between these two ...”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting comment.<br>

Why?<br>

Style, Skill, Trends, All, None . . . ?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>None.</p>

<p>Actually, probably B&W.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes, thanks, Marc. <br>

But where I was heading with my question (and what I am interested in) was about you (your work). <br>

I.e . You now “see” that image as a B&W: because . . . your style has changed? Or you see more scenes B&W now? Or ? ? ?<br>

i.e. <em>what is the reason</em>. </p>

<p>For example: that wonderful image of yours where the Bride in the Old Theatre or Warehouse – you have posted it a few times – hand held at 1/15s or pretty slow Tv - and she is looking downwards – available light shot.<br>

The first time I saw that picture I “saw it” in B&W for exactly the same reasons as I “see” the B&G image outside the Fox Theatre in this thread, <em>in B&W</em> – because (IMO) the whole experience of the image just cries out for B&W – ALL the elements just scream at me: “Monotone” </p>

<p>So what I am asking is “why” would you edit the above image differently now?</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>Understood William. Interesting question actually ... one dealing with a subject somewhat off-topic, but since you asked : -) </p>

<p>Personally, I am sort of reevaluating my approach to wedding photography ... kind of a back-to-the-future scenario. I initially ONLY shot B&W film at weddings ... I took 2 rolls of color in case a Mom forced some color formals, but clients overwhelmingly hired me for the B&W candid work ... and I was booked solid year-after-year. I even hand-made real B&W selenium toned archival silver prints in my darkroom for the albums. </p>

<p>After the transition to digital, I eventually evolved to more and more color, and even though I maintained a similar approach to style and content, the emotional impact of pure content became diluted ... somehow "fluffier" ... which is of course has always been the evangelistic cry from any die-in-the-wool B&W purist.</p>

<p>This also seemed to dilute the competitive edge in the marketplace ... so many shooters doing decent color with all the programs, actions and whatnot ... and clients not quite able to discern the difference in content masked by surface glitz.</p>

<p>Oddly, it was the clients themselves that put me back onto the right course. That and another really good wedding shooter, Marcin Harla. Basically I had samples of whole weddings done in B&W that I had stopped showing. When Marcin saw one, he said if he weren't already married, he'd hire me to do exactly that. So, I started showing those weddings to prospects ... and BOOM! they signed with no more shopping, or asking about how many photos they get, or add-ons or discounts. They instantly were moved by the content and wanted it.</p>

<p>The last straw was a pregnancy shoot I just did for a former wedding client ... every print she bought was B&W. So the answer for me is written in ... Black and White : -)</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thank you for the detailed answer.<br />Though the question might have been a bit off the mainstream of the topic, I believe the answer is actually quite relevant to the topic.</p>

<p><br />I would argue that light for B&W (or “seeing B&W”) in some circumstances, is actually different than the for the light we might seek, for colour. Maybe in digital we would look at the Post Processing differently too – and Avialable Light and Post Productoion are indeed the topics.<br /><br /><br>

Certainly I look for light differently, when my camera has B&W film in it – and I shoot some film, but only B&W film, (and print in a wet lab, from negs). And I mostly only use Availble Light, anyway.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jonathan_davila]

<p>My first post on photo.net! :)</p>

<p>I almost always shoot available light. Maybe 3-5 shots out of an entire wedding do I use a flash, and usually that is during the reception because by that time it has gotten so dark.</p>

<p>To add a little on the why B&W in most scenes vs why not, my personal philosophy is that weddings are a story. You're telling it with your photos. I have no issues booking with my style based on mostly black and whites because people want to remember a fairytale.</p>

<p>They don't want to remember how much people were sweating. or the dreary colour some random guest decided to wear that conflicts. Most (not necessarily all) want to remember their fairytale day as if it were a fairytale.</p>

<p>With a black and white photograph. I personally find it similiar to a novel. The best known novelists were good at what they did because they could paint a picture with their words - However - the picture they painted was solid enough to be plausible, yet vague enough to let each user imagine up their own details. Mostly meaning leaving specifics of location, colours, etc unsaid.</p>

<p>With black and white, each person can remember the day they choose, in the mood and feeling. We're painting a beautiful picture which recaptures the scene - Which is just good enough (so long as you're exposed correctly, etc) and we're letting the users fill in the details with their own memory.</p>

<p>Funny enough - Many of the colour photos that I throw in are tack sharp photos of things like the rings, centerpeices and the cake which people just seem to love in my area.</p>

<p>Speaking of tack sharp that is another complaint of mine personally. I'm sure that some customers like the ultra tack sharp photos provided by the tripod and 70-200 2.8 VR (im a nikon user) and I'm guilty time to time of taking these for them at their request. But most of my colour photos even - I 'shop them to be more dreamy. Softer. Blow out some of the background colours, make that grass a little greener.</p>

<p>To keep the thread on track - I rarely ever purposely under or overexpose a scene with the intentions to correct in photoshop, unless it is an outdoors scene including the sky. The light is there. Fortunately for us available light shooters that prefer doing black and white photography, light usually winds up being a little kinder to us in post processing versus those trying to take -tack sharp- full colour photos in a room that is fully light by Tungsten and bleeding in with cloudy daylight and flash on top of that.</p>

<p>I just personally feel flash in most cases takes away from the feel of the enviroment that I can create later on. Though occasionally it is necessary to hit some key highlights.</p>

[jonathan_davila]

<p>Also just wanted to add that shooting available light I 99.00% of the time only carry 3 primes with me for shooting.</p>

<p>Nikon 50mm 1.4G , Nikon 24mm 1.4G, and Nikon 85mm 1.4G. I keep two bodies on me or within my reach, one with the 50mm and one with the 24mm lens on it. and i swap on the 85mm (usually during the ceremony) I try to remain as unintrusive as possible, but have never found a situation to date where I could not cover accurate with an 85mm. My bodies are Nikon D700's.</p>

<p>I'm not much on being an equipment buff, but for available light photography these tools fit me the best in terms of their ability to use what little light there is efficiently. I should also add that I do sometimes use a monopod for stabilization...a crutch which I know many dread lagging around. Don't keep it on the camera, just hanging from a pouch off my photographers vest.. but it has worked wonders in bad situations :)</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Thanks for the save William : -)</p>

<p>You are right, thinking in B&W while shooting ambient is somewhat different ... more about tonal separation and understanding how colors translate into B&W and the effect of various color temps. </p>

<p>The real difference is in the post work with digital. This really varies from camera-to-camera depending on the camera's tonal response characteristics. I've found some cameras to have a more flat mid-tone response which requires a different mid-tone contrast adjustment than other cameras.</p>

<p>For example, the Leica M8 camera I once used was quite hard to work with for color because it was overly sensitive to IR and required an IR filter on the lens ... however, when used for B&W work it produced amazing mid-tone contrast and looked more like B&W film. When I moved to the Leica M9, the IR issue was corrected and the color was spectacular, but the B&W required more adjustment in post to gain the contrast with purer lights and richer blacks while holding the mid-tone information.</p>

<p>(BTW, one of my digital B&W wedding shots was selected as P.Net's Photo of the Week for this week ... been a while since a wedding shot was selected). </p>

[pasi_h_gg]

Well I don't do weddings but this must be one of the most interesting threads I've read in photo.net in a while.

[markonestudios]

<p>Marc, WW, I like the alternative route (as opposed to tangent) that you took :)</p>

<p>When I shot film a few years back (yikes! time <em>does </em>fly!), I would often shoot a roll of Ilford XP2 and as WW alluded to, would 'see' the light differently when I knew it was a B&W capture. I like contrasty images, so I would also rate my ISO a bit lower to ensure I got punchier images. I shoot all-digital now and do indeed "look for the light" differently depending on whether I'm after a B&W or colour image in the final edit.</p>