Tom wrote: >>I was under the impression the rays just bounced off the plane at the >>angle they came in at (angle of incidence?). The bounce doesn't spread >>them out any more, though I guess a stucco style ceiling might do a >>little of that. >>The light *is* more spread out because it's traveling farther. >>I don't think the results look nicer because of the diffusion, they look >>nicer because of the angle. They still look like point source lighting >>shots, it's just that the point is effectively shifted somewhere over >>their heads. >>In any event, the calculation works in practice. >>tv
Not fully right Tom, your statement is only correct for a shiny surface, in that case every part of the reflector (the ceiling) is directing the light in the same way. But a perfect non-shiny (I do not know the right word in english: difuse?)surface will reflect over 180 degrees with the same intensity in all directions. If your approach works in practise, that could be due to the presence of reflective walls that guide a part of the lost light to the subject. Some tests in the dark outside would confirm this. Greetings, Jos (Jos bought his first Pentax in the seventies. Now uses MX, ME-super and Z-1 with a PHILIPS TTL flash) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
