From: Larry Colen
On Dec 24, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
You can see, how even on the back half of the floor, inverse
square is really biting me with the dancers closer to the
light close to overexposed, while the ones in the back of the
room are just about right. In this case, I'm guessing that
the nearest dancers are probably 20' from the closest light,
and 50' from the furthest.
You could probably get better balance between near and far if you
find a way to move the stands out from the wall & bounce the
flash off the ceiling. You'd give up a bit of power, but likely
balance it a little better so that the nearer dancers are not so
overexposed.
>
Actually, that would probably make it worse, as the nearer dancers
would be that much closer, so the ratio between near and far would be
even higher. Also, in that room, any closer and the stands would
have been on the dance floor.
When you add in the distance from the light head up to the ceiling, the
ratio between near and far becomes less. Add 10' to the light path for
the bounce and 20':50' becomes 30':60' ... 2:5 becomes 1:2.
I'm sure that exaggerates the difference, but the change would be in a
positive direction. You're lengthening the light path to the nearer
subjects more relatively than you are lengthening the path to the
farther subjects, so the near light drops off more than does the far light.
Wouldn't work if you brought the lights down and continued to use direct
flash, but a bounce off the ceiling would give a broader, more diffuse
light over a larger area.
--
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.
