ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- Save 15% on Peter's full tutorial here: Use Code TH-cam
➡️fstoppers.com/product/peter-h...
Learn more on the full article here: fstoppers.com/education/peter...
📸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
In this short excerpt from Fstopper's photography tutorial Illuminating the Face, headshot photographer Peter Hurley explains how the inverse square law works both mathematically as well as how it can be used in the studio to change the look of your portraits.
For more scientific theory on how lighting works in photography, our favorite resource is a booked called Lighting: Science and Magic. Check it out here: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W1D5 | Summer | เก็บคะแนนสู่รอบไฟนอล สัปดาห์แรก](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jSlV6eB1f9k/mqdefault.jpg)
Holy crap. It’s 2023 and I’ve just stumbled upon this tutorial. Learned SO much. Thank you.
This got me thinking how bright the sun actually is... Pretty crazy!
Do some research and it may actually awkwardly surprise you.
Many watts of power per second.
its a fireball that is more than 100 times bigger than earth.
or its a lot closer than they say it is
here comes the flat sunners..
Your theory and practical exercise make this video one of the best one I have seen on this subject.
THANK YOU
One of the most informative and helpful videos that I've ever seen on lighting. Thanks so much for putting this together.
I was thinking the same.
In spite of the criticisms and potential technical fallacies, I found this demo to be very practical and helpful for just a general understanding of creating some basic effects with a light. Just now dipping my toes into the world of strobe photography and can't wait to experiment.
Struggled with this for awhile. Best explanation and now I get it. Thank you.
Thank you for this explanation and your wonderful examples and keeping it simple!
The best and short inverse square law course and demonstration ever !!! Thanks so much Peter
They say the most intelligent people are those who can take complex subjects and make them understandable to the layman! Thank you so much, you just did what SO MANY of those on TH-cam cannot do, you made this entire subject simple to understand and for that you sir are the best thing I’ve seen on TH-cam Barr NONE!!!!! 👍🏽🙏🏽⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Subbed after seeing this video. Super glad to see someone breaking down photog exp in math vs just "It's just how it works".
Thank you so much for this video.
Thank you so much Peter.
Greatest possible Information.
Never would have thought about it without your help.
Thank you for sharing.
What a brilliant explanation. Thanks so much Fstoppers.
Such a great video! I'm in awe of the knowledge and insight I just gained within that 15 minutes! Felt like I experienced an epiphany!
Amazing tutorial. 15 min of gem, thank you...
What Peter presents here is Hurley's Inverse Inverse Square Law.
Hurley's visuals are broken by metering between each shot and shooting in a room that has reflective (diffuse) surfaces. To measure out the math of the Inverse Square Law and show it to us viewers visually, he should leave the settings on his camera set for proper exposure of the first shot and be shooting with a single source of light in a blacked out room . Moving the light back farther then causes an obvious light reduction (the inverse square law in question) and a sharpening of the subject's shadows.
The farther the light source is from the subject, the more light your source has to produce to expose the subject properly. That light reduction effect is governed by the Inverse square law.
The sun is really bright, and really far away, but despite Hurley's Inverse Inverse math the sun produces really sharp shadows. The shadows in question become sharper the farther the light source is from the subject matter and the closer the subject is to the shadowed surface. That's why your feet have sharper shadows than your head on a sunny day. Your head is closer to the light source and farther from the surface. Your feet are farther away from the light source and closer to the surface.
The background wall "color trick" works, but you have to move your subject in close proximity to the light source and away from the wall to create diffuse shadows. If you move your light source away from the wall without moving the subject, your subject will cast harsher shadows even when being properly exposed.
You can try this with a flashlight or your cell phone light right now. Shine your light on your hand while hovering it above your desk. The farther you hold your light from your hovering hand, the sharper the shadow on the desk becomes. If you bring your light toward your hovering hand, you'll see the shadows blur along their edges.
This blurring shadow effect is opposite of what Hurley claims in the video.
This is a really long comment. Thanks for reading it. This shadow softening falloff concept shouldn't have been mentioned in a video about the inverse square law, but I get the impression Hurley's trying to sensationalize his ideas about photography and he presented a falsity which will be confusing to many future photography hopefuls.
You are completely correct about the effect of shadow sharpness/softness based on the light source distance. I think Peter was falsely attributing the various shadow effects on the male model to light falloff (inverse square law) when in fact it's being caused by the angle, size and shape of the incident light source. Since light falloff affects the intensity of the light - and because he was metering and adjusting his aperture between each shot as he moved the light - he was in effect, getting the about same amount of light in each shot.
What WAS changing was the position and relative size of the light compared to the subject's face. The farther away you have your light source, the smaller the light is in comparison to your subject; light hits your subject at straighter angles, which causes sharper shadows. The closer you move your light, the bigger it is to your subject; light is able to hit your subject from multiple angles and soften your shadows (this is why huge softboxes make such nice, soft light on a person's face). Now, light falloff is still something you have to understand - but it really only affects the intensity (amount) of light hitting your subject - NOT the softness of shadows.
Thank you for for this. I have always understood that the closer the light to the subject, the softer the shadows, and Peter's explanation that the further away the light to the subject, "the flatter the light" was confusing. Understanding the difference between contrast/sharpness and intensity is key.
Which means distance from light to subject is a matter of efficiency in light intensity as it pertains to inverse square law and nothing to do with "softness." That is a product of light source relative size (not necessarily distance) to the subject. Correct?@@ryandinan
Dynamic range of camera cannot follow that change. Look up gamma for film and TV. You'd be off the chart if you didn't stop up. You may have missed the point about the light intensity being more equal as the source is moved back. Take another look.
Also, as for the rest of your comment: Shadows don't become sharper as the light source is moved back. They become sharper the smaller the source. It happens that moving something further away makes it look smaller, so bango. But we use large "Softlights" from any distance and the effect is minimal. If we need soft shadows and the light must be way back, we use more softlights.
Your feet cast a sharper shadow for another reason. Look up "Umbra" and "Penumbra".
Hurly is not trying to do anything but make a dry subject a little more zippy for non-tech students that would fall asleep if he was wearing a bowtie and putting numbers all over the screen. First rule in communicating: KEEP YOUR AUDIENCE AWAKE!
Physics's light n optics was never misinterpreted before.
So good. Big kudos to fstoppers and Peter for showing us the ropes!
Been shooting for years now and haven't found a clearer explanation of this, well done. Wish he would've thrown in size of light source relative to subject detail also. Thank you for this!
Great, I love it, I never did any studio photography, so I didn't know about this concept, but actually, it helps to understand better the light in landscaping and street photography. Thanks, Really Appreciate.
I achieved that same affect with my flash on camera at weddings looking as if It were done in a studio. People always asked how it was done especially since they saw no back drops. It really made the dress of the bride pop with a black background. This is just to give you an idea of how and where to use this, you need to experiment.
so cool... need to see the full version. BIG THANKS
Its amazing tutorial on TH-cam...
U hv cleared my concept about the variations of light from distances
Love u and thank u dear,,, thumbs up
Many thanks Peter
Confess never had a clue about the fall off concept
Finally also get the dark background bit
That also means moonlight and sunlight have zero fall off for my photography purposes ...
We had to learn this back in 1978 when I got my 2 year photography cert. in Daytona. Old school stuff works :-)
Extra! Merci pour la vidéo.
On en veut plus !
Man..that was a really good tutorial !!!!! Thanks !!!
Simple and easy to understand. Thanks Peter
Thank you .. excellent information about light and shadow..
Peter Hurley is the best!
Great knowledge here, thanks for sharing some laws of light.
Great video! Appreciate the knowledge!
this is amazing, thanks so much for sharing
This tutorial was awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never realised that distance meant so much. I thought it was all about angle. Ive been working in a tight space so I never thought that would make a difference.
thats one of the greatest vid about lighting
Awesome. Learned a lot. Thank You Sir
My mind went boom 🤯. This is going to help me a LOT with photobooth flash lightning.
Super video! And thanks for sharing a free 15 minutes! This is a very helpful video! )))
Now, this was amazingly cool... thank you...
One of the best explanations I’ve seen, thanks! Notice the shadow cast from your arm while writing? Hard shadow to low contrast ~you can make another video on that.
Peter is a very good instructor. He mentioned more recently that prior to shooting this video he didn't know what "inverse square law" meant, until Lee and Patrick taught him. (He'd known about the relationship between distance and brightness, of course, just not by that name.)
This is so cool to learn! I am just learning how to shoot with flash, and other day I was in a situation where the light was too strong on the subject. So I reduced the potency of the flash, but If I had watched this class before I would just put the flash one or two squares behind. Thanks!
So so nicely explained. Thank you
Awesome tutorial Peter and model!
Best explanation I have seen!
I'm in the middle of the video and I'm stunned with love and wisdom and I can't wait to share it back. Thank You very much for sharing
Thanks for the valuable info
Thanks, I will definitely be using this.
Huge. Don’t have the math gene but thank you Peter Hurley for simplifying this concept. Im a visual learner so this was excellent for me!
Nice video!! Thank you for the explanation...
One of the best light tutorials our there. Period.
That's a good concrete way to explain it!
Very concise! Thank you!
Awesome tutorial, thanks a lot!
Super informative...definite sub keep it up guys
So helpful! Thank you
Wow 😯, that was sooo useful!!! Thank you
That was very interesting, thanks!
You guys are amazing!
Great stuff!!! Thanks!
Excellent video 👍 thank you so much.
Just too good, brilliant video.
This tutorial giving a very good explaination ab inverse square law . Tq
Just awsome! I loved it
I don't shoot portraits. But, this is extremely good to know because I'm an actor and light myself. I've always had the light source very close. I'm really blown away at the distance being the secret for better illumination, to some degree. I mean there is more too it since the light source will be constant and not a flash. I'll experiment with it.
Regardless, this is still just fun to know! :)
Thank you for the video!
Amazing practice 👍
Very interessting! Thank you!
Thanks Peter!!
Sweet Info! Thanks!!!!..
Invaluable. Thanks.
Very cool explanation!
Fascinating!
awesome tutorial
wow this is gold
omg literally changed my life knowledge
Thank you!
Great Lesion.
Awesome tutorial
It was helpful!
Very Helpful! info "clicks" visually and mentally Thank you!
Excellent!!!
Very good information..thank you 😊
AWESOME VIDEO!!!
Wow thank you so much
Awesome teacher.Hatsoff
Wow, this is awesome.
Good job !
Great video and great Subject!
Tutorial is super bro
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that as Peter moves the light source away from the subject, less light is reaching him. Peter then changes his camera settings to allow for more light to enter the camera. Therefore, at some point, he will be allowing ambient light from the studio and windows to enter the exposure (particularly the back of the subject's head) and the ambient light could be mistaken as flatter light from the strobe. Am I over-thinking this?
Which was what I thought too. That makes that demonstration useless. The last one however is the better illustration.
Light meters can detect the percentage contribution of ambient and strobe light, so it's easy to account for that. You might want some ambient exposure, especially as backlight. The general rule is that shutter speed controls ambient light and aperture controls flash. But that depends, I think, on the relative strength of ambient light and flash.
The back of his head can not be directly lit by the flash, it's just physically impossible. Question is: is the light on the back of his head ambient light, or flash light reflected from a wall or curtain behind him? In a room with no window light coming in, even f2.8 1/200th ISO200 will give very little ambient exposure, so my guess would be it's reflected flash light, which in turn would further illustrate the whole inverse square law theory (because the distance is then flash to reflective surface and back to subject). If he had just increased the flash power step by step instead of opening up the aperture, there would have been no doubt...
I think that's less the ambient, as much as the flash's light is bouncing around the room, and lighting him.
Light Meter Logic!
Thank you to the model, I am not sure if they are getting paid or not for stuff like this. I watch a lot of youtube and all these models sit patiently while they explain and experiment for our viewing pleasure. Obvi thx to the photographer and fstoppers also.
Peter, extremely good explanation. Little fly in the ointment. Maybe I shouldn't say anything. I'll be cryptic. 6:31. See the wall behind your bud? You're at f2 (if I remember) something like that, and iso is 100. You take it from there. Again, super job.
Thank you.
That's incredible
Awesome! :) Thank You! :)
You teaching sir!
Cool,i learned something today
mind explodes! Finally makes sense. 😀
thank you
Love that guy; he's simply crazy in the good sense.
Awesome stuff! Can't believe people clicked thumbs down on this.
skip at 6:00 if you are impatient😄
great video!