ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ม.ค. 2020
- Learn more about Rough Lux Backdrops Here:
www.Roughluxebackdrops.com
📸15% off our Professional Photography Tutorials: Use Code TH-cam
➡️fstoppers.com/store
🦸♂️15% off our photo course The Well-Rounded Photographer featuring 8 different professional photographers: Use Code TH-cam
➡️fstoppers.com/product/well-ro...
Subscribe to the Fstoppers TH-cam Channel:
➡️th-cam.com/users/FStopper...
Our Gear: 📷 and 🎥Workflow Recommendations:
🥰Our Favorite Gear
➡️fstoppers.com/fstoppers-gear-...
🎸Music in our videos🎶
Artlist.io
➡️bit.ly/36hgJal
Epidemic Sound
➡️bit.ly/3aaE7GJ
💻Software📀
Adobe Creative Cloud
➡️ bit.ly/3hjVXdE
Luminar Neo
➡️ skylum.evyy.net/M6RAM
Capture One
➡️ captureone.38d4qb.net/NO29q
🛒🏪🛍 Support Fstoppers by shopping at:
B&H Photo and Video
➡️ www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=6857...
Amazon
➡️ amzn.to/3hkTEXS
🤳🏻Follow Fstoppers on Instagram:
➡️ / officialfst. .
Follow Lee and Patrick's Puerto Rico Instagram:
➡️ / fstopperspr
Many photographers need to control the color of their backdrops. This can easily be done simply be moving your subject closer or further from your backdrop. In this short tutorial, we will show you how you can turn a simple light colored backdrop into a much darker background simply by adjusting your studio flash.
The image at 5:14 is the winner. It’s much better than the final image in my opinion.
Agreed, much more polished
yupp, except for the blown out face.
Agreed
but he already mentioned, it's depend on "what we want"
Correct
I think the image at 5:08 is much more pleasing to look at than the final version. Great, straightforward tutorial regardless.
I was wondering if anyone else thought this also. The final photo has too dark/light extremes but could be changed in post but the broad lighting shot compared to the more pleasing, to my eye, split lighting.
I agree. This is my favorite as well.
I agree. I am not happy with the shiny forehead and the spotlight on the right eye. Maybe lowering the intensity of the spot light by a stop and moving it back to make it a little wider, and rotate it to the left eye a bit. But this is a Great tutorial no matter what... Thanks
Eh I get it though. It’s a more dramatic, niche photo. Both are nice for different results
Ditto here on 5:08
I have watched dozens of tutorials on lighting and this is the first one that really explained how light works. Just telling where lights go gives other's no lesson or knowledge, but this taught me so much about how to use light in a studio. Thank you for your work in making this video
Excellent teaching. Thank you. Never would I have placed the light on the backdrop like that. I appreciate the details.
Great contents. To the point with each variation of lightning shown to demonstrate the differences visually! Separating background and the subject is so important after I watch this.
Wish i had a huge indoor space to practice lighting, that would be so much fun.
This is next level education for us beginners. I don't do a lot of portrait photography, but this is gold.
No it’s wrong……inverse square law states when you double the distance you lose 75% of the light not 50%……you also get four times the spread……hence inverse SQUARE law.
It's not next level it's filling beginners heads with crap making them think they need all this gear that they absolutely do not need.
For an education brand as popular as Fstoppers, I’m surprised they got the inverse square law wrong at the beginning. Go back and fix it so you don’t mess up newbies who are learning.
Allen Deal wrong, how?
Double the distance 1/4 the intensity. Not half the intensity.
In Addition: the law can only be applied if the distance is large compared to the size of the source. With this big Softbox, intensity goes down much slower than inverse square.
@@atalazs Wrong. That isn't true.
This is a great lighting tutorial...bravo!!
Great tutorial! You look and dress just like I did in the 90's - what a stunner!
Fantastic video. Easy to understand. Wish I had seen something like this years ago!
Well that tutorial escalated quickly
yup.. 0-100 in 4sec
Im confused what you mean
@@PapaOrlando gay joke @4sec "...behind the scene..." 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
For real though.
Yeah, this went from single light to full pro setup in one scene change
Wow. This video is great. I've learned so much. Thanks.
Excellent tutorial!
This is so perfect love this thank you for this
Thank you so much for making a video on back drop lighting they are so hard to find. Please make more. PS I like the Ponytail 😏
This was sooo helpful! Thanks so much!
Such a great refresher
this is a great video and great explanations with examples. well done!!!
Great video. Very easy to understand. Thank you for the tips!
Great video David. Nice and straight forward.
An excellent article! Thanking you so much!
We need these kind of content!
Hope the first of many! I was, ok, ok, ok and then ending 🤩🤩🤩 the photo looks epic!
Generally a good video. However the explanation of the 'Inverse Square Law" (at 1:08) is not correct... Doubling the distance between the light an subject decreases the light to 1/4 (2 Stops), and not 1/2 (one stop) as stated in this video. This is also explained incorrectly (at 1:30)... If subject is at 4 feet from light and backdrop is 4 feet from subject (background at 8 feet from light), the background will be 2 stops (not one stop) lower than the subject.
One technique that I have used for some time now (and I have never seen explained in any TH-cam Video, and requires no math) is to use the 'standard F-Stops', 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22... and 'convert this to feet' when using a single light source like a strobe. For example, if subject is at 4 feet from light and background is at 8 feet from light, then background will be 2 stops underexposed (4ft -> 5,6ft -> 8ft). If you really want background to be 1 stop less, then place subject at 4 feet from light and background at 5.6 feet from light (1.6 feet back of subject).
Practical examples:
If you have space limitations and want 2 stops background underexposed, then place subject at 2 feet and background at 4 feet (2ft -> ft2.8 -> 4ft). Of course, this brings other types of issues like fast light fall off in subject is illuminated from above).
If you want to reduce the light falloff between subjects (for example in a group photo), then place the subjects as far away from light as practical. For example, in a group photo with a single light... Placing subjects between 11 and 16 feet (11-16=5 feet distance front-back between subjects) then all subjects will be within 1 stop (f11->f16). If same group was placed at 8 feet then to maintain the same one stop drop, then the back subjects cannot be more than 11 feet from light source (allows for only 3 feet of separation 11-8=3 (f8->f11) between front-back as compared to 16-11=5 feet in the previous example).
If a group is standing 'in-line' that has a lot of depth distance, place the light away from camera. For example to the right of camera so light between light source and subjects are basically at the same distance then all subjects will be exposed about the same.
Thanks, I thought I was crazy for a sec. lol
Mercy..no wonder I buy different shades of a background. All that is too much to wrap my head around. Peter Hurley explained and showed it more simply.
Charles Rollins yes, the formula shows it should be 75% less light every time you double the distance. We were the ones who created that Peter Hurley video but David did get it wrong here. -P
Andrew Miller we cant Re edit a video once it’s on TH-cam but I did pin a post that correctly explains it. -P
Or simply re-uploaded it with a simple couple words on the screen when the host says the wrong thing. Saves reshooting it. Lots of you tubers correct errors that way.
Just what I was in need! Thaks guys
Almost everyone gets these inverse square law tutorials wrong almost all the time. While there are issues with the math this time, the (most common) mistake is changing multiple variables and attributing the resulting changes to "light falloff." At 2:29, the backdrop exposure is what it is...if Matt were to move forward towards the light, and NO OTHER CHANGES were made, the backdrop would expose exactly the same as the previous photo. The error here was at 2:49 when Matt walks closer to the light AND "we drop our exposure to compensate." The resulting photo has a darker backdrop because "we drop our exposure to compensate" which is changing an exposure variable that has nothing to do with the placement of the model or the inverse square law.
If, following the initial photo of Matt just in front of the backdrop, you "dropped the exposure" the background and model would both be darker...argh! I promise, if you put the camera on a tripod and took a single picture as a baseline, then moved the model closer and farther to the light then did not change strobe power, exposure or any other variables the backdrop would expose the same every single time. The model's look would change, but that's just because he's moving closer or farther from the light.
The inverse square law applies to more than just photography...it applies to all manner of energy like light, sound, radiation etc. But, you can't change multiple variables. The important and informative elements of this tutorial regarding light placement, changing light positions and all the good stuff is lost because of the basic errors at the beginning.
Great, concise, simple tutorial.
Great video. That last image was awesome.
Thank you. This was a great step by step video. Learn so much
This was a fantastic tutorial!
Great Explanation
Nicely done and explained extremely well
Awesome video, very helpful. Thank you.
Love this guy
Excellent tutorial. Thank you
Thank you for this :)
There has been a confusion with the explanation of the distance/light rule:
Physics has explained that the intensity of the light fades in a square factor In relation to the distance between the source and the measured point. Therefore, if you multiply your distance by 2 you will divide the light you get by 4. (Not 2 as it was said)
Great content.
Sorry for any English mistakes.
Yes you are correct. We have pinned an updated explanation of the law. -P
Indeed, no need to mention a physics law - no photographer will use this calculation.
I've been doing outdoor photography for over fifty years. Going indoors ! thank you
Good to see David in front after seeing him for many years assisting 😊👌🏻
Great video! Thanks for sharing
Great video. Love the details...
Great Job!
Awesome Tip 🙌🏾
cool tips. great job
Best video ever
Amazing 😻 thank u
Wowwwwwww that was freaking great
So helpful ❤
Great tutorial!
this is amazing
Good content 👍learned a few things thanks
you have such a good subject 👍🏻
வீடியோ மிகவும் பயனுள்ளதாக இருந்தது மிக்க நன்றி
Very useful This video , big thank you (R.MANOHAR ,Chennai.India)
Nice video! The result with the modifier is stunning. I searched for the profoto backlight. It's over 2000$ 😅
Great! Thanx
வீடியோ மிகவும் பயனுள்ளதாக இருந்தது மிக்க நன்றி
இரா.மனோகர் சென்னை .
Very useful This video sir, , big thank you sir R.MANOHAR ,Chennai.India
My fav image at 5:12 . Thanks for the nice video.
good for practice
A GH5, was NOT expecting that. Awesome pictures man!
I shoot with a GH5 and a G85 both stills and video having done so for the past 3 years. Both cameras are very capable still cameras putting out great pictures. I would stack them up against many other offerings of still cameras out there except a Nikon D850 and a Hasselblad H6 of course.
ahaha exactly my thought when i saw it
Wow what a video man! Best explanation about lighting so far.
Thank you
This video might be 4 years old but it is a tremendous help for us
Thank you excellent video!!; Could you tell me which lens you used for the photos and what camera did you record the video?, greetings from Mexico
If am not not mistaken, the inverse square laws means that if you double the distance the power is one quarter as strong. (1/(2)^2=1/4)
The 2nd to last was the best
Great video and presentation. Clear and easy to understand, well done!
When watching it stoned and he throws technical stuff at you...come on man, I thought we were friends!
😂😂😂
Exactly!!
Nah man, don't worry. He got the deets wrong anyway. It's like when you and your bro's are a bit tweaked, and the one dude starts getting philosophical. It sounds great until you hear it sober.
Thanks
Where did this guy come from? He is such a great teacher. Use him More please.
F G David has been with us for many years! He’s helped us film so many of our tutorials and edit many of our videos. -P
Welll..... don't praise him too much. At 1:08, he literally taught you completely wrong. So... yeah
Both the model and the photographer are hot 🔥
Great video
Nice video
thanks
WE MADE A MISTAKE!!! The inverse square law states that you lose 75% of your light as distance doubles (not 50%). To better understand the inverse square law, check out this video we created with Peter Hurley: th-cam.com/video/xO-J42VM448/w-d-xo.html
Cool. Except a white or dark gray background would have been a better comparison on making the white more gray or the gray more white in the adjustments.
Came here to learn how to do things with two lights.. now I realized I need six..😔
😂
FStoppers mostly gives complicated tutorials which kind of encourages you to purchase more equipments
A little secret, you take incredibly beautiful portraits with one light
You don’t need everything they have
More lights for more creative lighting effects 😅.
Good love David using the GH5. Oldish camera, that still mind blowing in terms of video. ✅ Well, off to watch the video... popcorn is ready !
Oldish? what
@@LuisFelipeBustilloVelasquez He's saying the GH5 is an old camera at this point, but that it's still amazing. For reference, the GH5 debuted March of 2017, so almost 3 years ago now.
The ending went from zero to 100 real quick 😂
Handsome model❤️
1:18 hmmm..🤔 but as fas as I know, the intensity that you lose when you double the distance from the sobject to the light source is a 75% less, and not "by a half" (50%), so there you have to deal with the fall off of the light, that happens when the light is too close tto the subjetc... or am I wrong? 🤔
Yes you are right, double the distance means ¼ of the power
See my explanation about the inverse square law. in the comments section.. Has practical examples and requires no math as long as you know the standard f-stops...
@@rzorrilla52 yep I have to explain it this way to beginners as well, most people know their 5th grade times tables. too bad most don't remember any highschool math.
Exactly!!
dam, I've owned 2 GH5 for like 3years now and may have accidentally took a picture once or twice but never even thought of doing an actually portrait shoot with them...huh, who knew
Going from basic to advanced in a short time. Great tutorial
where you buy the grid from you placed on light/. thanks
Work in triples. If you triple the distance, you get 1/9th the amount of light. eg. Instead of 2ft from the subject you move the lightsource to 6ft from the subject (3x as far), you'll have only 1/9th the light falling on the subject. Should give you an idea of just how big and bright the sun is given that it's a long way away! And how much stronger your light has to be dialed up to expect the same exposure.
Easy shoot RAW 😁
David, or somebody... a question about the diffusion fabric we put in softboxes, please. And I'm sorry my English. I'll try my best.
A friend of mine has a broncolor kit system with some stripboxes, reflectors and square soft boxes.
The diffuser fabric has fold marks and I really hate those marks because I use that equipment for product photography. Specially when I shot wine bottles.
If you store your softboxes, how do you fold this diffusion part? I mean, the white fabric part.
I just want to know it because I hope in a near future I could buy my own equipment.
Thanks guys
Hmmm I don't know what the answer to that is. You could buy a steamer and steam your softboxes every time you use them. A lot of pros use rolls of paper in product photography to guarantee the most perfect transitions in their highlights. Obviously it takes a lot more effort to setup the paper but it will give you more control than the front baffle of a softbox especially if you start using grids and shooting through the paper to get white to grey transitions. -P
@@FStoppers thanks
Surely the inverse square law means if you double the distance you quarter the power. (As in physics etc).
sir, please mention camera settings also in image
Double the distance light to subject = 1/4 the light. A 2 stop reduction.
Inverse square says if you double the distance to the subject you decrease the light by 3/4.
If you want to demonstrate this use a light bulb put it two feet from a wall and hold up a one square foot piece of paper. It will cast a four square foot shadow.
As long as the one square foot piece of paper is halfway between the light source and wall it will cast a four square foot shadow.
Hence the square in the name.
Doubling the distance does not reduce the light by 1/4…..it leaves you with 1/4 the amount of light. It reduces the light by 75%.
@@KevinDemsky Yep! Example was correct, fraction was wrong.
voooaaa😍
Dang it...
Now I gotta buy strobes 😂😂🤣🤣
How would you light the background to create a gradient effect going from darker to lighter from the top to the bottom of the frame? Anyone know? Thanks!
Flary Fox softbox feathered up so the light hits the top more than the bottom? -P
What if I use white background and I switch it in PS in post?
Does this work with colored light on the back drop? 🤔 I want to buy a colored light to use in my back drop with a halo light on me for filming videos? I don't know anything about this or the language used lol so hope that made sense
What is the size of the backdrop used here?
Is it possible relight the 1:51 to the 5:14, just by using photoshop
OMG what's the diameter of that octabox? haha I love it
does the light that is on the backdrop stay on constant or is it flash? If its flash is it possible to get the same look if its constant?
That was flash, but you can achieve a similar look with constants if you have some diffusion and light modifiers.
Inverse square law is actually - half the distance = 1/4 the light strength.