Welcome to the forum!
As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.
As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.
Reflection angle
Tony
Member
Hi Neil,
I have been reading your *outstanding* site for a couple of weeks now and am starting to think one of my basic preconceptions about light may be wrong.
I had always assumed that light hitting a surface would be reflected off that surface at an equal and opposite angle, i.e light hits a wall at 45˚ from the left, and (most, but not all) of the light leaves at 45˚ to the right. Much like a pool ball hitting a cushion.
Therefore, I had also assumed that unless your subject is within this angle to receive 'most' of the light, you would get inconsistent results and be wasting a large amount of power.
However, given the example shots you've posted, and particularly the pull back shots you include, I'm starting to think that these assumptions are completely wrong?
Can you please put me out of my misery and explain, what will no doubt be, 'the bleeding obvious' to me?
Thanks in advance, and many many thanks for your openness and generosity that is, neilnv.com.
Cheers
Tony
I have been reading your *outstanding* site for a couple of weeks now and am starting to think one of my basic preconceptions about light may be wrong.
I had always assumed that light hitting a surface would be reflected off that surface at an equal and opposite angle, i.e light hits a wall at 45˚ from the left, and (most, but not all) of the light leaves at 45˚ to the right. Much like a pool ball hitting a cushion.
Therefore, I had also assumed that unless your subject is within this angle to receive 'most' of the light, you would get inconsistent results and be wasting a large amount of power.
However, given the example shots you've posted, and particularly the pull back shots you include, I'm starting to think that these assumptions are completely wrong?
Can you please put me out of my misery and explain, what will no doubt be, 'the bleeding obvious' to me?
Thanks in advance, and many many thanks for your openness and generosity that is, neilnv.com.
Cheers
Tony
Tagged:
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,001
- home433
- news & discussions192
- technique & style & stuff461
- general photography172
- wedding photography141
- portraits & people101
- the gear307
- Canon86
- Nikon116
- other systems40
- flash & lighting537
- flash & lighting121
- post-production199
- post-processing125
- computer hardware & software44
- business64
- business & marketing49
All rights reserved Neil van Niekerk © 2006 - 2019
Comments
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/09/19/workshop-view-jersey-city-nj-2/
Bounce flash is a waste of power, but the TTL system is smart enough to know that it is bouncing flash and adjust subject exposure accordingly (within a certain range). That is how the exposure is somewhat consistent (for consistent, repeatable flash exposure, you have to use manual flash).
Page 96 of Neil's on-camera flash shows two pictures where he is bouncing light of a surface that is approximately equidistant to a group of people that are not lined up in a row. The result is fairly even lighting.
Lastly, you can easily test this yourself with your on-camera flash and a subject. Bounce off a surface at 45-degrees and check the results.
It's not an efficient way of bouncing flash, but the light that returns looks very good.
You can think of bouncing flash as a game of billiards .. angle of incidence = angle of reflectance ... but the light also scatters quite broadly.