The reason the two lights don't cancel the shadows created by each other is that they're aimed in different directions. Thus, the "wash: of each can't quite cancel the shadow of the other. This is typical of a somewhat flat lighting arrangement. Better would be to allow one to provide a shadow where yo9u want it, and aim the other to soften it to a stop or less in value. In other words, they come at the subject from different angles. One might be high from about thirty degrees. The other might be low from about ten degrees. Lighting is all about creating a shape and making the lights work for you. In most case, one is the main light, the other is the fill. And by fill I mean the shadow brightener. Think of it that way. The main source lights and creates deep shadows on the subject and perhaps the background. The second light reduces the value of those shadows until they're attractive. From there you can add other lights. A third light to create a highlight where you want it. Anothe r light to illuminate the background. And so on. Lots of fun. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Charles Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Nov 21, 2007, at 15:58, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Only for the sake of discussion (actually I can't discuss the > > question, > > only raise it), why don't two lights (540 flash units for example) > > wash > > out or cancel each other's shadows? > > Example: one flash on either side on a plane with the camera, lighting > > a common subject. > > Must assume perfection in placement with respect to all distances and > > angles even though it's not a requirement. Offered to avoid the issue > > being raised. > > I've known for sometime that the 'wash out' doesn't happen, but the > > only answer I've ever gotten; "they just don't". > > > > Can't answer the question, but I avoid the issue by doing it this way: > > I use a flash in front of the subject (on camera) and a second one > behind the subject to light up the wall behind them. > > That way, the rear flash has more power (closer to the wall) than your > head-on flash and "tada!" no shadows. > > Example here (headshot for work) (warning! full-sized image!): > > http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photos/2007/imgp8627_heather.jpg > > This photo was taken with the camera rotated ccw, with the flash > (af540fgz) rotated upwards and a sto-fen on top of the on-camera flash > to smooth things out. The Sigma EF500DG was on a table behind her > aimed upwards at a 45-degree angle to hit the wall. > > This ain't art, it's just a photo for work. :-) > > -Charles > > -- > Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Minneapolis, MN > http://charles.robinsontwins.org > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
