metering when you have multiple lights

Man I have a lot to learn.

Take it a step at a time, learn the basics, keep it simple. Experiment with distance of lights to subject, that to me is more important than direction because it gets you understanding fall off and how it effects how much of your subject and scene get lighted from a source. It's important to understand and internalize where and how much your light is going if you want to be able to put together a lighting configuration that has unity and does what you want.

Lighting is way cool.

windpig wrote in post #14747347
Take it a step at a time, learn the basics, keep it simple. Experiment with distance of lights to subject, that to me is more important than direction because it gets you understanding fall off and how it effects how much of your subject and scene get lighted from a source. It's important to understand and internalize where and how much your light is going if you want to be able to put together a lighting configuration that has unity and does what you want.

Lighting is way cool.

Folks spend a lot of time thinking about light placement (relative to subject), and about the size of modifiers (softbox), but many seldom think about distance and the effects that it has on a photo. Here is an example of a very close distance and a farther distance, to illustrate fall off (the intensity reduction due to distance) and its effect on contrast...

Light at 3'

Wilt wrote in post #14748760
Here is an example of a very close distance and a farther distance, to illustrate fall off (the intensity reduction due to distance) and its effect on contrast...

I don't think the contrast comes from distance of the light.

If anything, the light removed away from the subject should be more contrasty because the apparent size is smaller.

If I were to guess, if you remove the light further away the stray light bounces around the walls acting as a fill.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14752064
I don't think the contrast comes from distance of the light.

If anything, the light removed away from the subject should be more contrasty because the apparent size is smaller.

If I were to guess, if you remove the light further away the stray light bounces around the walls acting as a fill.

Doc, I will provide concrete examples...

• Position a light at 2.8' from the subject...now measure at 5.6' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -2EV less intense than the initial location
  
• Position a light at 8' from the subject...now measure at 10.8' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -1EV less intense than the initial location
  
• Position a light at 22' from the subject...now measure at 24.8' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -0.33EV less intense than the initial location

Wilt wrote in post #14752123
Doc, I will provide concrete examples...

• Position a light at 2.8' from the subject...now measure at 5.6' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -2EV less intense than the initial location
  
• Position a light at 8' from the subject...now measure at 10.8' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -1EV less intense than the initial location
  
• Position a light at 22' from the subject...now measure at 24.8' (additional 2.8' farther) and the light will measure -0.33EV less intense than the initial location

A shadow cast by the light source will be darker (more contrast) because of the Inverse Square phenomenon.

All true, if your room is painted black.

But your fill doesn't come from the main light. It comes from light bouncing around the walls. If you can think of the shadow area in your bear being a separate subject, it might be a better illustration.

If the light is close, bear is lit, but the light has to travel 20x the distance to bear to fill the shadows and square root applies making it dark.

IF the light is far away, the light needs to travel say 3x the distance to bear and still has enough kick to act as fill.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14752163
All true, if your room is painted black.

But your fill doesn't come from the main light. It comes from light bouncing around the walls. If you can think of the shadow area in your bear being a separate subject, it might be a better illustration.

If the light is close, bear is lit, but the light has to travel 20x the distance to bear to fill the shadows and square root applies making it dark.

IF the light is far away, the light needs to travel say 3x the distance to bear and still has enough kick to act as fill.

But Doc, in the example that I posted in Post 33, there was NO FILL source and in spite of any light bouncing around from adjacent surfaces, my examples nevertheless exhibited the increase of shadow contrast in the fur of the subject, as well as exhibiting greater fall off of intensity of the background's illumination from the same single source...

I will concede that with a black surrounding area, the bounce fill is diminished and the contrastiness is even greater than the examples that I posted. But the same falloff characteristics would be visible in both situations (bright surround vs. dark surround)

Wilt wrote in post #14752180
But Doc, in the example that I posted in Post 33, there was NO FILL source and in spite of any light bouncing around from adjacent surfaces, my examples nevertheless exhibited the increase of shadow contrast in the fur of the subject, as well as exhibiting greater fall off of intensity of the background's illumination from the same single source...

I will concede that with a black surrounding area, the bounce fill is diminished and the contrastiness is even greater than the examples that I posted. But the same falloff characteristics would be visible in both situations (bright surround vs. dark surround)

I think we're both agreeing... almost.

You had a fill source from bouncing light, which got stronger the further you removed the light away.

But you're right, falloff is greater if light is closer. Either way, the OP needs to find out how his teddy bear reacts in his living room.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #14753932
I think we're both agreeing... almost.

You had a fill source from bouncing light, which got stronger the further you removed the light away.

But you're right, falloff is greater if light is closer. Either way, the OP needs to find out how his teddy bear reacts in his living room.

Ahh, got the point you were making, that due to diminished falloff of intensity at longer distances, the bounce back from surrounding surfaces was therefore itself of greater relative intensity. I guess I need to reshoot this, outside this next time, so that we see pure Inverse Square effects from a small source, with no possibility of any inadvertant bounce fill. I will maintain, though, that if you examine the frontal surfaces which could receive absolutely no bounce back (e.g. the top edge of the 'foot' where it joins the 'leg'; the light was at the level of the bear, not above), in the photos of Post 33, that contrast intensity is nevertheless maintained.