Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,150   Posts: 1,614,013   Online: 1031
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 69
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    There's no real difference indeed, whether point or line, except that you don't calculate the effect of a change in distance from subject to one point light source, but to many. Each behaving in the 'inverse square way'.
    All I can say it's much easier to think of a line source as a line mathematically in this case and not as a collection of points. One can do that problem, but it's a heck of a lot easier to look for the symmetry in the problem.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    All I can say it's much easier to think of a line source as a line mathematically in this case and not as a collection of points. One can do that problem, but it's a heck of a lot easier to look for the symmetry in the problem.
    It hides the fact that this inverse square thing is at work then too.

    And i'm not going to do the math.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Alright you win. Look at a big line source and think, "That's a collection of points, all behaving the inverse square law." What does that tell you about how the light falls off with respect to distance? I'd rather look at it and say it's a line source and it falls off as 1/r.

    It's geometry. That's it. Inverse square law is for a point source (hint - it's not just for light). A collection of points is a line. It doesn't hide anything about that the 'inverse square thing is at work'. It's not a point source. A collection of points is not a point.

    Again, the math is pretty dang easy. If you can write a fraction, you've done the math. I'm out. Hope I didn't annoy anyone being too pedantic.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    You're not one for representing things the way that makes most sense in a given context then?

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    There's no real difference indeed, whether point or line, except that you don't calculate the effect of a change in distance from subject to one point light source, but to many. Each behaving in the 'inverse square way'.
    Not in any radiometric sense. As Tim stated, a point source, a line source, and an extended source are all different. The inverse square law is for point sources only. An area is not a collection of point sources not does it behave the same. This is well recognized in astrophotography where extended objects and stars are effected differently based on f-number and entrance pupil.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    As stated before and from the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography:

    Point source E = I/d squared
    Line source E = I/d
    Extended source E is invariant with d

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Hikari View Post
    Not in any radiometric sense. As Tim stated, a point source, a line source, and an extended source are all different.
    Of course they are.
    Where did you get the idea that only Tim thinks or says so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hikari View Post
    The inverse square law is for point sources only. An area is not a collection of point sources not does it behave the same.
    Why does this happen all the time..?!

    Yes, it is, and it does.

    I'm not going to tackle the, judging by how hard it has turned out to be to explain something very simple, no doubt unsurmountable problems that would be encountered explaining that to you.
    So read a good book about photometry.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Of course they are.
    Where did you get the idea that only Tim thinks or says so?



    Why does this happen all the time..?!

    Yes, it is, and it does.

    I'm not going to tackle the, judging by how hard it has turned out to be to explain something very simple, no doubt unsurmountable problems that would be encountered explaining that to you.
    So read a good book about photometry.
    Thank you. I have radiometry and photometry books. And I have read them. You do not need to explain anything to me because I understand how light works and behaves in this context. It is well documented.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Hikari View Post
    Thank you. I have radiometry and photometry books. And I have read them. You do not need to explain anything to me because I understand how light works and behaves in this context. It is well documented.
    Good.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481
    My earlier comments applied to the great outdoors.

    On the other hand, if using incident light metering indoors (e.g., light source is a window, lamp or flashgun) then distance from light source does matter and the inverse square law (subject to light source, but not subject to camera) does apply and readings should be taken as close as possible to the subject, meter pointing towards the camera.

    Folks, incident light metering (like the tides) does work in a predictable fashion. If you want to explain just how it is that it works, there may be a PhD. thesis in it for you.

    Incidentally, (pun intended) for those who agonize about metering a 3-dimensional subject half in the light and half in its own shade (say, a subject's face), that is exactly why the meter has a dome (some domes being more sophisticated than others) which, if the meter is pointed correctly, results in an in-meter averaging of the required exposure with a single reading (the dome being a model for the face).

    In fact, this is what makes incident light metering so convenient: this relatively simple device -with a single reading- results in the same exposure outcomes as is generated by the averaging of a number of spot metered readings, shade and light averagings taken by reflected light metering, and any number of "you beaut" "matrix" and "honeycomb" metering contraptions.
    Last edited by Galah; 02-09-2011 at 06:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin