First time I've seen the Inverse Square Law used to justify and properly choose a larger size softbox, or scrim, more likely, for big stuff. Bravo! Showing your tech side, more of this please.
3 months in light department of advertising studio was the best school I could ever attend. I wish I weren't struggling with severe anxiety during that time but I learnt almost everything about light. Am I better photographer because of that? Absolutely, maybe I wouldn't like to carry lights all day but that experience is priceless
And if you need to cheat the inverse square law (eg you don't have the luxury of enough space), you can throw a grid on it and feather it towards the furthest subject without blowing out the closest one.
Nice video, it’s actually refreshing to hear someone talk about how exposure changes relative to the distance the light source is to the subject. It always frustrates me how so-called experts reference using a big softbox close to a subject but never mention how it affects exposure in the shadow areas. Place a light source close, the shadow areas fall dark much quicker so yes, you can get nice soft highlights but your shadow areas can fall of to darkness really quickly, especially if you’ve chosen the wrong modifier. One question I’ve been meaning to ask, do you ever use CRLS lighting, such as the metal reflectors made by LightBridge. They are really expensive for what they are but produce exceptional light. Godox has just started producing a copy which is significantly cheaper. CRLS was designed to take advantage of the Inverse Square Law and enables a user to place the light source further away from the subject without actually requiring a massive studio. It would be interesting to hear you take on these systems.
@@TinHouseStudioUK CRLS have been used in cinema for years but only recently seem to have been taken on by still photographers. They are really just fancy mirrors but with various levels of reflection
@@Mr.right1821 when I’ve managed to achieve the effect I initially imagined. Sometimes I want punchier highlights but with softer roll off I to the shadows so I will use a large softbox with silver interior but remove the interior baffles. I might even change the internal reflective material by adding sheets of coloured Mylar, or simple white tissue. The exact effect may take a few attempts. A bit of trial and error, it’s rarely what I imagined first frame (unless I’m replicating something I’ve shot before).
I haven't heard of the Inverse Square Law and I thank you for explaining it. Explained in a way that was easy to understand. I haven't used a Soft Box before, I use my Nikon SB-700 Speed Light. If I ever use a Soft Box I will certainly use your advice. As I am a enthusiast photographer. Thank you 😊
Scott, what happens if instead of a giant softbox 7m away, I've got a hard light 7m away and a scrim closer to the subject? Afraid I haven't got 7m of space to play in 😅
I hate maths, i cant even work out what my house number looks like never mind the inverse percentages of fall off meters squared times wattage diameter.....eh
Yes, except that the inverse square law strictly applies only to a point source, because the area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius; so doubling the radius spreads the same light from its centre over four times the area. There not much fall-off in the parallel beam from a parabolic reflector searchlight, and almost none at all from a laser pointer.
In Theory yes, the light is collimated. Fresnel lenses, and light condensers (optical snoots) would be other options. In fact this what moving a light-point-source further away actually achieves. IE the further away the light would be, the more collimated the light reaching the subject would be. IE the less of the diffuse (Non parallel) light beams would not reach the subject. So instead of requiring a lot of space and wasting a large amount of light from a point source, use a large collimated light like a parabolic umbrella or a Fresnel lenses. Problem solved.
If you want more lighting knowledge thats of use to pro photographers, head here www.tinhouse-studio.com/product/lighting-101/
First time I've seen the Inverse Square Law used to justify and properly choose a larger size softbox, or scrim, more likely, for big stuff. Bravo! Showing your tech side, more of this please.
If you want to see more of the pro photography non youtube content then head over to here www.patreon.com/tinhouse
Nice conversation! This is why people should go to school or become an assistant to a professional photographer like yourself!
3 months in light department of advertising studio was the best school I could ever attend. I wish I weren't struggling with severe anxiety during that time but I learnt almost everything about light. Am I better photographer because of that? Absolutely, maybe I wouldn't like to carry lights all day but that experience is priceless
We all play a version of that. My magic happens at 1/320 ISO100 f/8 200w@1/4 in a 24x24 softbox. Everything else is working the scene.
“Fortunately I don’t have a friend”…the plight of many a self-employed photographer 😉
And if you need to cheat the inverse square law (eg you don't have the luxury of enough space), you can throw a grid on it and feather it towards the furthest subject without blowing out the closest one.
Or save yourself a lot of space and waste of light , and use a large collimated light source like a parabolic umbrella or a Fresnel lenses instead.
Interesting you mention the umbra and penumbra. I pray to both when using flash.
The real fun and games comes when you're getting scrims involved. Lighting days are non negotiable lmao
Nice video, it’s actually refreshing to hear someone talk about how exposure changes relative to the distance the light source is to the subject. It always frustrates me how so-called experts reference using a big softbox close to a subject but never mention how it affects exposure in the shadow areas. Place a light source close, the shadow areas fall dark much quicker so yes, you can get nice soft highlights but your shadow areas can fall of to darkness really quickly, especially if you’ve chosen the wrong modifier.
One question I’ve been meaning to ask, do you ever use CRLS lighting, such as the metal reflectors made by LightBridge. They are really expensive for what they are but produce exceptional light. Godox has just started producing a copy which is significantly cheaper.
CRLS was designed to take advantage of the Inverse Square Law and enables a user to place the light source further away from the subject without actually requiring a massive studio. It would be interesting to hear you take on these systems.
Hey, no I hadnt even heard of those, I will do some digging.
@@TinHouseStudioUK CRLS have been used in cinema for years but only recently seem to have been taken on by still photographers. They are really just fancy mirrors but with various levels of reflection
How do you know you have chosen the right soft box?
@@Mr.right1821 when I’ve managed to achieve the effect I initially imagined. Sometimes I want punchier highlights but with softer roll off I to the shadows so I will use a large softbox with silver interior but remove the interior baffles. I might even change the internal reflective material by adding sheets of coloured Mylar, or simple white tissue. The exact effect may take a few attempts. A bit of trial and error, it’s rarely what I imagined first frame (unless I’m replicating something I’ve shot before).
Ive oddly justr had a brand offer to send me some haha.
Bang it out at 1600 watts had me laughing a bit too much
I just use a light meter. Easy peezy
I haven't heard of the Inverse Square Law and I thank you for explaining it. Explained in a way that was easy to understand. I haven't used a Soft Box before, I use my Nikon SB-700 Speed Light. If I ever use a Soft Box I will certainly use your advice. As I am a enthusiast photographer. Thank you 😊
Thanks 😊
Awesome. I have heard of the inverse square law but I know have a much better understanding of its practical application. Cheers.
Scott, what happens if instead of a giant softbox 7m away, I've got a hard light 7m away and a scrim closer to the subject?
Afraid I haven't got 7m of space to play in 😅
Making sure to like and comment so you can keep making videos like this. This was incredibly helpful thank you!
I hate maths, i cant even work out what my house number looks like never mind the inverse percentages of fall off meters squared times wattage diameter.....eh
I watch a lot of photography channels, but your's is the only one that talks about lighting!
I like how you've snuck in how all of this applies to protraits
My dumb American butt was like 🤔 7 meters? (7×3=21ish feet) Oh, he's talking about 21 feet! (Why we do this, I'll never know... metric rules!)
And yes, I know it's actually 23 feet. It's all part of being an American thinking we're right when we are not!!
Please confirm that you mean seven meters.
BTW Thanks Scott for ruining youtube lighting tutorials for me ( LOL )
No worries!
Wow! I didn’t know about the inverse square law in relation to lights! Thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
3200 Joules, not Watts
Did you say there was a link to your lighting video below?
just added it. Sorry recorded this so long ago I couldnt remember what link to add haha
Yes, except that the inverse square law strictly applies only to a point source, because the area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius; so doubling the radius spreads the same light from its centre over four times the area. There not much fall-off in the parallel beam from a parabolic reflector searchlight, and almost none at all from a laser pointer.
So it's a good thing we're not lighting with searchlights & laser pointers?
In Theory yes, the light is collimated. Fresnel lenses, and light condensers (optical snoots) would be other options. In fact this what moving a light-point-source further away actually achieves. IE the further away the light would be, the more collimated the light reaching the subject would be. IE the less of the diffuse (Non parallel) light beams would not reach the subject. So instead of requiring a lot of space and wasting a large amount of light from a point source, use a large collimated light like a parabolic umbrella or a Fresnel lenses. Problem solved.