# An Excersice On the Effect Of Distance



## smoke665 (Jan 20, 2019)

@Derrel made a comment on another post about the ideal distance to place your light, "The actual look and "feel" of lighting changes, based on the distance from the light, to the subject". Had some time to kill so I thought I'd try a few experimental shots. There is equal though minimal processing on all three. WB, and a slight tone curve contrast.





After doing this I think I would add to Derrel's comment "and the addition of multiple lights". 

A few things I noted in the example, was of course how quickly the light falls off when you bring the light in close, the darkened background. Something that could be useful to remember if you need to de-emphasis a cluttered background.  The shadows could be filled with the addition of a reflector or second light on the fill side, but there seems to be a lot of texture created on the face by the shadows.

When I moved out to the 6' mark and powered up to to adjust for the exposure, I got a lot of light everywhere. Face, hair even the background with very few shadows, a flat image, but, there was even illumination across the face, hair, even the background.  I tried to maintain the same angle when I moved it back.

The last example, while it looks like the exposure is different it isn't. The light ratio is still the same, but the combination of the two lights required that both lights be powered down, to maintain the same f/5.6 exposure under the chin. When I did that it introduced shadow details missing in the 2nd shot.

While each has their place, I like the last example because of the more even lighting on the head and hair. It also seems to have less texture on the cheeks and nose that could be helpful when lighting skin.

Anyhow, interesting couple of hours of experimenting when it's to cold to be outside.

Clarification on image: I metered the fill light to f/5.6, and the combined exposure (under the chin) to f/5.6


----------



## Derrel (Jan 20, 2019)

I think the first two photos, with just the 40-inch octabox, make for the best comparison of how distance from the light to the subject changes the "look and feel" of the lighting effect. At three feet from the modifier to the face, there is quite a bit of shadowing and fall-off from the light side of the face to the shadow side of the face; but moving the same exact light back, to six feet, creates lighting that is very even.

The takeaway from the first two photos, I think, is to take with a huge grain of salt the common, internet-era saying that, "the closer a light is to a subject, the 'softer' the light is." That is really NOT accurate! Look at how much shadowing, and light fall-off, and how much contrast there is when the octabox is a measured three feet from the subject's nose! Is that "soft" lighting in the first photo on the left? I think not. 

...proving once again...don't take everything that's said in a YouTube video to be the gospel truth. No matter how many times one hears the idea that the closer a light is placed to the subject, the 'softer' the light is...because...that's not really an accurate statement.

Thanks for posting these test photos!


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 20, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think, is to take with a huge grain of salt the common, internet-era saying that, "the closer a light is to a subject, the 'softer' the light is." That is really NOT accurate



Despite thinking I had an understanding of hard light vs soft light, until I did this I apparently needed a heaping dose of that salt! While the first two are better examples of the how falloff is affected by distance, the last was an eye opener to me on the addition of a light and how it can create shadow in an evenly lit image, by reducing light intensity. While the addition of a reflector to the first image might bring fill to the shadow, it doesn't "add" light to the exposure. It only moves light.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 20, 2019)

I think the third photo is a good demonstration of why Main Light + Fill Light became such a common studio portraiture lighting method so,so many decades ago.

Just as an aside, when comparing the first two photos against one another: notice in the first shot, how dark the background is, and in the second shot, notice how much brighter the background is. And the same goes for the tabletop on which the mannequin head is resting; in shot #1, the shadow side of the tabletop is dark, but in shot #2, the light is much more-even on both sides of the mannequin head's base.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 20, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think the third photo is a good demonstration of why Main Light + Fill Light became such a common studio portraiture lighting method so,so many decades ago.
> 
> Just as an aside, when comparing the first two photos against one another: notice in the first shot, how dark the background is, and in the second shot, notice how much brighter the background is. And the same goes for the tabletop on which the mannequin head is resting; in shot #1, the shadow side of the tabletop is dark, but in shot #2, the light is much more-even on both sides of the mannequin head's base.



True but just as important, I think, is how the combined output of two lights required a decrease in the light output of both main and fill to keep the exposure the same. The result was to minimize the flat shadow free look of the 2nd image without underexposing the image.


----------



## mrca (Jan 21, 2019)

Light has 4 characteristics, direction, diffusion, intensity and color. Softness or hardness of light  refers to how rapid the  shadow edge transition is,  a function of diffusion, light relative size/ distance.    The  ratio between highlight and shadow addresses relative darkness of shadows referring to relative intensity.  Your photos are taken with the light so close to the nose axis that there is virtually no nose shadow from which to easily judge the shadow edge transition.  I suggest you move the light more to the side and higher.  The first photo there is barely a nose shadow and it appears the light is at about the same height as the nose.  Move the light higher and to the side to produce a half inch nose shadow extending from the nose down the nasolabial fold to the mouth.  Examine the shadow edge transition, it should be fairly broad, ie soft.  Move the light back on the same line and adjust to get the same loop lighting as well as exposure and take a shot.  Examine the nose shadow edge transition and it will be faster.  This is called "hard light."   The darkness of the shadow relative to the highlight is primarily a function  of the brightness of the main, against ambient/and or fill.    Light reaching the background can be reduced by bringing the lights closer to the subject, speeding up the fall off.   This is also handy when trying to control the tone of the bg separately from the subject or adjusting the bg tone.  In studio I prefer to have no spill on the bg and control the tone of the bg with one or two lights.  I can then add a light for accent...but not the cliched halo, please shoot me if I do. Also, when gelling, it is helpful to eliminate any spill on the bg,  and that enables getting saturated gel colors.  You indicate there is less texture in the last shot. I am guessing because you have filled  shadows.  It is shadows that reveal wrinkles or pores.      I prefer to light in a pattern complimentary to the subjects face then deal with and skin issues in post or have it addressed by my make up artist.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 21, 2019)

Derrel said:


> ... take with a huge grain of salt the common, internet-era saying that, "the closer a light is to a subject, the 'softer' the light is." That is really NOT accurate! Look at how much shadowing, and light fall-off, and how much contrast there is when the octabox is a measured three feet from the subject's nose! Is that "soft" lighting in the first photo on the left? I think not.


  Going to disagree with you here Derrel - if you bisect the face vertically through the nose, and ONLY look at the left (image right) side of the face, the lighter is softer.  Yes, there's a hard fall-off, but that's due to the placement of the light.  If you brought the key around to say, 15-20 degrees off-axis, it would be MUCH more pleasing (IMO).  Agree on the third image and the 'two light standard'.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2019)

The hard fall-off creates...hard light. Not sure how one can disagree with that. Soft, even light is what the second image shows. There's no sense in bisecting a face in a portrait breakdown, since we look at the entire face in the final shot. We are lighting the _entire face_...not just one-half of it. Light that is six stops darker on one side of the face is not soft light...it's high-contrast and hard lighting.

So you want to disagree with this??? I put the most-salient points in bold.

 "I think the first two photos, with just the 40-inch octabox, make for the best comparison of how distance from the light to the subject changes the "look and feel" of the lighting effect. *At three feet from the modifier to the face, there is quite a bit of shadowing and fall-off from the light side of the face to the shadow side of the face; but moving the same exact light back, to six feet, creates lighting that is very even.*

The takeaway from the first two photos, I think, is to take with a huge grain of salt the common, internet-era saying that, "the closer a light is to a subject, the 'softer' the light is." That is really NOT accurate!* Look at how much shadowing, and light fall-off, and how much contrast *there is when the octabox is a measured three feet from the subject's nose!* Is that "soft" lighting in the first photo on the left? I think not.*"

Again...look at photo 1 and photo 2...


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 22, 2019)

@mrca

Softness or hardness of light refers to how rapid the shadow edge transition is, a function of diffusion, light relative size/ distance. The purpose of the exercise was to explore the size/distance aspect. Might have to try one with diffusion. The ability of the light to wrap around features when the light is up close eases the transition of the light to shadow edge, but the depth of light (the ability to illuminate a larger surface at a greater depth) increase as you move away from the subject, thereby eliminating the shadow. Assuming you keep the intensity the same as metered at the subject.

As to your other comments I couldn't disagree with most other then to say this was an excersise to test one thing only, and not necessarily on placement for a portrait. There was a reason for placement at 3 feet and 6 feet as it was an arbitrarily easy way to double the distance, based on the room I had available in my great room.

@tirediron In my unscientific exercise I didn't measure the angle off center, but best guess was > 20 as my lens was next to the octabox, and space was tight. As to falloff see above, distance increases depth, which decreases shadow. (Granted it also causes other negative things but that's another exercise) Supposedly the surface area you are illuminating increases by 4 times when you double the distance between subject and light. I didn't record the outer edges but I suspect that the shadow edges at the outer reaches would be devoid of much transition. Hmmm, another excersise for a cold day.

@Derrel I think Mrca hit on it, as it's not so much the appearance of shadow, as the transition when referring to the softness.

I'm finding the comments on my exercise extremely helpful in understanding the results.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 22, 2019)

Whoops - I mis-read your parameters; I thought you were saying that the light was 40 degrees off-axis.  My error..

@Derrel...  would you accept "more pleasing" vice "softer" in my previous post?


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 22, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Whoops - I mis-read your parameters; I thought you were saying that the light was 40 degrees off-axis.  My error..
> 
> @Derrel...  would you accept "more pleasing" vice "softer" in my previous post?



I would expect you of all people to not confuse inch with degree. Did they let you navigate much


----------



## mrca (Jan 22, 2019)

Smoke, I suggested the creation of loop lighting to give a shadow easy to compare.   The spread of light does occur over distance but properly positioned, you can move the light away and still create loop lighting.   It will just be harder, since it is relatively smaller in comparison to the subject.   Think of a moving truck next to your subject,  much larger than subject but move it a block away and now relatively smaller.  The relative size of the same source determines the shadow edge transition.  You are experimenting and that is the best way to learn.  Hands on.  Remember a great quote on learning, it's called trial and success, it's called trial and error.  Keep experimenting with your lighting,  store the results in the back of your mind, label the photos of what you were doing in the shots so you can go back and compare as you progress.   If you are looking to see how light spreads, you might shoot against a wall from 3' then move the light back several times as your room permits.  Try that with each of your modifiers.  Note the fall off at the edges of the light.  For example, grids in a 7" reflector exhibit a lighter ring around a hotter center.  Armed with that, I was able to solve a problem where I had to place the bg light in the main light side but wanted the bg darker.  Skimming the edge of gridded light across the hill side and placing the hotspot behind subject head, was able to make that side darker against the highlight side and brighter further away on the shadow side  even though it was further away to increase separation, creating chiaroscuro, dark against light.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 22, 2019)

@mrca I always appreciate the advice and guidance you've offered. It's helped me immensely in learning lighting. While basic one light sets aren't that difficult I'm finding moving to 2,3,4.... light setups becomes exponentially more so. Might be partly in my nature as I have to break things down to the simplist point to fully understand, like this exercise. Trying to visualize multiple scernarios at the same time makes for a muddled mess in my brain.


----------



## mrca (Jan 22, 2019)

Smoke,  many of us are on this site, not only to learn, but to share knowledge as others had done for us.  It is encouraging to see you testing, standing back and examining the results, considering modifications.   You are on your way to master lighting, not an end in itself, but part of what goes in to supporting the reason for the shot.  Trying to analyze a complex lit shot can be difficult. When building a shot, always start with one light. usually main or fill.  Turn it off and then add another and you will be able to see what that one light does, adjust power and position.  eg, a kicker.  Turn on the main and see what you have, adjust.  Continue that way adding one light at a time and evaluation position, power then examine it with all the previous lights on.  Note the ratios and amount of coverage you like.  Your willingness to test will give you things that you have somewhat worked out on your test dummy before trying it on a subject.  Another of my favorite quotes from one of my mentors, was you don't own a technique til you use it 3 times.    I have had my lighting influenced by some of the novices here.  Taking a portrait course, a famous teacher emphasized using a hair/shoulder light that you guys were exploring.  My boom arm had collected dust for 10 years.  Now it is up permanently with a 6"x3' gridded strip box that I can turn on and adjust power from my stool.  We all can learn from each other.  I really enjoy watching you guys grow in the craft.   I predict you will become a master of light and that will take you images to a new level.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 22, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Whoops - I mis-read your parameters; I thought you were saying that the light was 40 degrees off-axis.  My error..
> ...


Only on Sundays!


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 22, 2019)

mrca said:


> I predict you will become a master of light and that will take you images to a new level.



Appreciate the kind words but, I fear you over estimate me. There are a lot of mistakes that don't make it online.


----------



## mrca (Jan 22, 2019)

If  you aren't making mistakes, you aren't growing.  How many photographers have you met afraid to make a mistake or just wanted a canned approach.   You aren't afraid to ask for critique.  Folks don't know what they don't know so it is important to get feed back then use your own judgement as to accept or modify the recommendations.  So much of this is subjective.  You are learning the techniques that you will eventually be able to draw upon and combine at will in your own unique way.   You will be making images that come from your heart and mind, not just copied from someone.   You are taking the right path to be able to achieve it.  I have seen it before and see it in your hard work.  Keep at it.  Of so many photographers on this site, I see you and a few  others working hard to master the craft.   Remember, it is a work in progress and always something to learn.  It is the beauty of photography.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 22, 2019)

mrca said:


> When building a shot, always start with one light. usually main or fill.






 
Main light only.



> Turn it off and then add another and you will be able to see what that one light does, adjust power and position.  eg, a kicker.





 
Main with Fill (reflector)



> Continue that way adding one light at a time and evaluation position, power then examine it with all the previous lights on.





 

Kicker/Hair light



 
BG light



 

All together.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 22, 2019)

@Braineack  Nice example (subject could be better) LOL Kidding. Thanks for confirming I'm not so far off.

I do pretty much the same except I'm generally using two lights for key and fill.  My routine is to set the key, meter at the desired level which becomes the basis for everything else, next I set the fill and meter to get my desired ratio, next comes the kicker, which I meter with the key as the basis. At that point any additional lighting is added to the equation and also metered, based on the key. Last to be set and metered are the background lights. I used to take test shots of each light, until I finally forced myself to trust my meter. Final meter reading under the chin with all lights on gives me the combined exposure to start. One of the handiest and most time saving gadgets I have for studio lighting is the recently obtained Buff Cyber Commander (which is calibrated to the Seiko). It allows me to wireless adjust the lights individually, in groups, or incrementally all lights, from behind the camera, plus provides real time incident metering.  It's so much less stressful then acting like a monkey swinging through the set trying adjust lights and not bump into anything.

I'm curious about your placement of the kicker on the fill side. I was taught to put it on the key side, but I have also tried it on the fill. The problem I've found with it on the fill is as in your example the creation of the odd highlights in the middle of what should be shadow, and the invariable light strip on the back of the neck or shoulder. With it on the key side, I generally find -1 to = with the key keeps the highlight on the hair, and the pesky odd ball stray highlights away, or if they do show it's consistent with the direction of the key light.


----------



## mrca (Jan 22, 2019)

Braineack you are one of the others I was referring to as one of the rising stars on this site.  Sorry didn't take the time to find your name but am getting ready for some surgery so kind of under the gun.  Look at how far your work has progressed.  Fantastic.  It separates you from folks stuck with the light they are handed and allows you to tailor the light to your shots. I use the additive metering method so know the precise aperture I want to shoot at so turn on the fill first and set it at a delta that gives me the ratio I want at the target aperture.  Then turn on the main with the fill on and power up til reading where the 2 lights over laps hits the target aperture.  Both readings are dome pointed at camera. I do this instead of the source method where the meter at the subject is pointed at each light to get a desired delta.   I can use the additive method outdoors where I can't turn off the sun when it is fill to take a main reading.  Outdoors, Just take a fill reading then power the main from the overlap area to get the desired delta dome to camera on both as well.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 23, 2019)

@mrca your method is interesting. I've been using the key as the basis to set my ratios (dome toward light) then powering up/ down everything as needed to get to my desired exposure. Being a creature of habit I've learned where I need to be approximately, to be very close on the combined reading.  However I can see the benefit of doing it your way outside. I need to explore this more.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2019)

I usually meter the main light and the fill individually to get the ratio I want (meter pointed towards light source), but ultimately will meter both (meter pointed towards camera) to get the final aperture.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 23, 2019)

Braineack said:


> I usually meter the main light and the fill individually to get the ratio I want (meter pointed towards light source), but ultimately will meter both (meter pointed towards camera) to get the final aperture.



Same here except on the background. Derrel put me onto Dean Collins and his Chromozone method which uses Reflective readings.


----------



## mrca (Jan 23, 2019)

The Chromazone dean collins method uses the delta between the subject incident and the bg reflective.  Dean is perhaps my favorite lighting guy.  I still use my plexi mirrors regularly.  I can sit on my stool and adjust the bg through various shades of color or tones from pure white to grays to pure black by taking reflective readings from my stool and adjusting bg lights from the Einstein cyber commander on camera.   Makes for rapid adjustments.   Braineack that is the source method as opposed to the additive method that takes into consideration main and fill overlap and add to each other in the overlap.   Unfortunately, outside can't turn off the sun to get individual readings.   Sekonic meters do show percentage of light from the main flash versus ambient fill so knowing what ratio is your target percentage allows you to dial it in.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 23, 2019)

@mrca are you using Paul Buff????  If you are we have the same controller, and I love that little gadget. The steps it saves, and the falls it prevents knocking over stuff  I'm hooked to Alien Bees, which seem to be ample for me. On additive light, the overlap is a consideration regardless of if you're outside or inside isn't  it? I think we're all on the same page that you have to account for the combined light. I haven't had time to try your method of starting at the fill and building from there, but I intend on it. I'm just not sure if I understand exactly what you're doing and the advantage over starting at the main/key, but once I start working with the lights maybe it will come to me.


----------



## mrca (Jan 23, 2019)

Smoke, I love the Einsteins.  Have 5 of them.  I was hanging seamless alone raising one stand at a time going back and forth between them.  Set the steps of my 6' ladder towards the sweep that was already formed and after doing the final raise, came down the ladder facing away from the ladder.  For some reason thought I was on the bottom step but was on the third step just above the sweep thinking it was the floor, stepped off into space and realized what I had done as I executed a slow twisting fall.  I didn't know where the floor was and was hoping the brand new 9' roll of paper didn't come down on me from 12 feet.  The paper tore clean right against the roll.  When I landed  on the concrete floor I heard a snap and thought I had broken something, elbow, knee and wrist swelled but then I looked down and realized that sound was my pants unsnapping.  I try to stay off ladders especially in a dark studio and the cyber commander does exactly that.   With a boomed hair/shoulder light, if you lower it to adjust power then you have to re position it or get on a ladder and mine is against the ceiling in front of the chain drive.  Plus the cyber commander allows me to fine tune all the lights  from my tethered lap top.   The advantage starting with the fill at about 2 stops under my target aperture, my preferred starting point slightly higher ration than 3:1, , is I get exactly the aperture I want.  Find the delta you like and you nail it every time.  Also, I can use the same additive metering method outdoors for consistancy.  You only take 2 readings instead of 3, both dome pointed at camera.   Fill measured on shadow side of face main off , combination main and fill on dome in front of cheek where they overlap, ie main side, and adjust the main power til you get the desired target aperture.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 26, 2019)

Hmm, seems like there may be some confusion here. Indeed given the same modifier size, the closer to the subject the softer it is, the further away the harder it is. This is also connected to the inverse square law, which means the closer the light is the faster it falls off but the characteristics of the light does not change.

Your first shot and second shot shows the inverse square law in action. If you really want to see the quality of the light move it further to the right like 90 degrees, 2.8, 4 and 5.6 feet away, note the loss of one stop of light per distance backwards. Then compare, the results, the softest one will be the 2.8 foot shot every time in every scenario, you can’t cheat physics.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 26, 2019)

JBPhotog said:


> Hmm, seems like there may be some confusion her



No confusion on my part. This has already been discussed above. The softness or hardness of a light is defined by the transition or gradation of the shadow edge. Because the falloff is faster due to the increased relative size of the light up close, that transition is smoother.  My example shows there are other things to consider, first is the surface area illuminated by the same light (doubling distance will increase surface area by 4x) and second the depth of the light. Increasing the depth of the light eliminates the shadow all together. What was significant about this to me was the easing of the surface texture, especially on the shadow side.

My unscientific method I'm sure left much to be discussed. Feel free to construct your own example and post, as I personally find these types discussion extremely helpful.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jan 29, 2019)

Thanks for the examples @smoke665. I love these types of threads.


----------

