How Understanding the Inverse Square Law Improves Your Lighting Skills

What is 'Falloff'? What does the inverse square law have to do with photography?
Head to www.squarespace.com/zyproductions to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code ZYPRODUCTIONS
___________________________________________________
Gear I use to film my TH-cam videos:
kit.com/zyproductions/youtube...
Support me on Patreon!
/ zyproductions
_____________
Royalty-free music I'm using for my videos (2 months FREE if you sign up using my link!):
artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
You can also license stock footage from Artgrid.io (same 2 bonus months applies!):
artgrid.io/Artgrid-114820/?ar... Where I get my music from:
artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...

[@darlingtoncd]

For anyone not understanding the inverse square law, this is probably the best video explaining it...well done.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

Should have probably mentioned how the size of lightsource also changes with distance: so if you want the same kind of light as small softbox close to subject, but with less fall-off, you will need a huge-ass softbox futher away.
This means there are actually two factors that share the property of inverse square-law, effective size of lightsource and intensity. Which means whenever you change distance to fix one effect, you need to take to account how the other changes as well.

[@garbygarb31]

I scrolled down to say this. Also the size of the light source in relation to the subject affects the sharpness of the shadows as well.

[@osalvadordafoto]

THANKS! no one says that

[@ayo8381]

The best explaining about inverse square low, thanks 💛

[@frankmcleod4617]

Well done. Understood ISL completely (almost) at this demo's end.

[@SergioGVasco]

Your explaining was terrific in this one, very good indeed. The examples were very clear. Congratulations, great work, keep'em coming, please.

[@b991228]

Your first important concern to work with is falloff or the inverse square law equation which means distance of light. The last four aspects of lighting that would be changes in lighting will result in linear change. These four changes would be power of light, ISO, aperture and exposure time. For the final fine tuning it’s best to try to really on doing these last four adjustments resulting in this linear change. Just remember that moving the distance of the lighting will make for big changes. Fooling with that first adjustment will mean your falloff potentially has drastically changed.

[@cotton3349]

I'm commenting twice because I love this video that much,..lol Thanks again

[@sunilraj7692]

Great explanation!

[@procopencocorneliu5982]

Thanks! The simplest explanation found!

[@DrKjjj]

Good one ZY

[@SinaFarhat]

Very well explained! :)

[@MattyBeavs]

this was great thanks for this breakdown! learned a lot :)

[@ErikVanDenBiesen]

Perfect explained

[@Javid1992]

Beautiful explanation 👌🏽

[@andrewh2341]

Very comprehensible 👍

[@oukserei]

thanks a lot for your explanation!

[@SteveMasonCanada]

One of the best explanations of the inverse square that I've seen. 4:18 really shows it well.

[@gabrielestupinan]

Great explanation!!! Awesome!

[@grad-dd9zj]

very helpful and easy explained. thank you very much!!

[@DavidJonesImages]

Perfect thanks

[@earthwalker4538]

Excellent my friend! Always great content from you and I thank you very much for all you do for us!

[@luisvillamagua2675]

very nice explanation, thanks!!!

[@MarceloLangame]

Thank you so much for this masterclass.

[@michael_dalessandro_lena]

Thank you!

[@Rafaga777]

Thanks for the explanation. As always clear, comprehensible and concise...

[@ChrisytinaaCoffee]

You’re awesome. So thankful for you and you’re knowledge 🙏🏻

[@adg8269]

Amazing! Short but deep. The principles and the practice. One of my fav channels.

[@leejournals]

Thanks for explaining! Well done 👍

[@JohnChubbSr]

Excellent presentation! The examples you show along with the formula really nail it down.

[@VictorGonzalez-to2jw]

Fantastic explanation! This was really simple to follow and had great examples.

[@adreaminfocus]

thank you - really helpful

[@DaleSheltonsPage]

Nicely done

[@Rampiesat]

Thanks excellent explanation

[@CraftsmanGreen]

Perfect concise explanation , just what I needed to know. Many thanks

[@cotton3349]

Great Video!! Nice & sImple, very helpful!!

[@Tuscanytravel]

A great video. Thank you

[@dwntwndave]

good stuff broski! thanks

[@victormultanen1981]

thanks for great content!

[@Glen.Danielsen]

ZY, brother of calculation! This is helpful in practical ways, and fascinating! Thanks so much.

[@andilematomela2043]

great video thank you

[@ZIONBOKEH]

So technical knowledge.
Made me feels like learning photography mathematically. It actually works. Thanks for sharing inverse square law.

[@pataspatas88]

Nice one! Thanks.

[@Falcryx]

This is really informative and useful, both for physics and photography! Thank you~ :D

[@cowboyyoga]

Great video! Very understandable. Thank you! ))))

[@iKeto_gal]

Awesome explanation 👍🏻

[@pinkace8221]

very helpful!!!

[@tinman6182]

This will help my videos thanks

[@stephenreed7769]

Good job 👍

[@ianjoc00]

Damn! This is was very helpful!

[@daniel-godin]

Very useful. I'm learning how to use artificial light and this explains things well. Thank you!

[@divyalalraveendran1647]

Wow. i liked this video

[@hathienantruong4148]

Good stuff lad

[@gelopsycho]

salamat sirrr!!!! :D

[@RomboutVersluijs]

What i still dont get is why, say we take the 3m distance. To me the gray value doesnt look like its 11.11% compared to the first meter where its 100%

[@kerniuzas]

Thanks for explaining. Although, I'm still struggling to understand one thing. At 1:39 you've defined your reference point as 1m = 100%. Why exactly 1 meter? What if the reference point was 1km or 1cm, would that make calculation not right ?

[@jacobwarren1985]

The reference point is dependent on the size of the light source. If the light source was very small 1 metre would be too far away as a reference point and the light fall-off would be very gradual, you might then have to use 1 millimetre away from the light source as a reference point.

[@jayz1987]

👍🔥

[@JorenDekker]

So i've learnt math, lighting and videomaking in a few minutes!

[@cmichaelanthonyimages2197]

ISL...light intensity is equal to its distance square.

[@rudranroy2109]

Are you a student of physics ?
Or, were you one ?
You sound like one.
Btw, love from India.
And, as always, this is the best informative page for photography on youtube, and thanks to algorithms, it's the most underrated one.
You pack informations within less than 1/4th time of what others would do.
And also, what your name ?

[@BMH1965]

One 'take away' from this: use multiple off-camera light sources.

[@aljo.antony]

Contrast ratio.

[@cobra350hp1]

Do you understand that the inverse square law of light would prove that they never went to the Moon using this law would say that the surface of the Moon would have been so bright they could not have walked on it?

[@moza260]

now my brain hurt..

[@marvoski547]

Would be cool to see how this law applies when you add a light modifier

[@user-dt6xn9qu7f]

The same

[@osalvadordafoto]

This law doesn't hold up if you do the math in inches or miles.
What no one says is that you have to consider the size of the light source as well. I believe we all agree that a 5 foot octabox will behave very differently from a spot regardless of how far away it is.
Explain something to me... how did you do the math in meters and most youtubers do it in feet and you all got the same result?

[@mickue]

Sorry, not interested in Square Space