How Understanding the Inverse Square Law Improves Your Lighting Skills

[@darlingtoncd]

For anyone not understanding the inverse square law, this is probably the best video explaining it...well done.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

Should have probably mentioned how the size of lightsource also changes with distance: so if you want the same kind of light as small softbox close to subject, but with less fall-off, you will need a huge-ass softbox futher away. This means there are actually two factors that share the property of inverse square-law, effective size of lightsource and intensity. Which means whenever you change distance to fix one effect, you need to take to account how the other changes as well.

[@garbygarb31]

I scrolled down to say this. Also the size of the light source in relation to the subject affects the sharpness of the shadows as well.

[@osalvadordafoto]

THANKS! no one says that

[@TanniTalks]

That was the best one I found on the subject! Thank you very much ZY Cheng, Totally understandable ! I loved the way you were simplifying it and showing examples , Subscribed

[@SergioGVasco]

Your explaining was terrific in this one, very good indeed. The examples were very clear. Congratulations, great work, keep'em coming, please.

[@sunilraj7692]

Great explanation!

[@SteveMasonCanada]

One of the best explanations of the inverse square that I've seen. 4:18 really shows it well.

[@JohnChubbSr]

Excellent presentation! The examples you show along with the formula really nail it down.

[@frankmcleod4617]

Well done. Understood ISL completely (almost) at this demo's end.

[@DrKjjj]

Good one ZY

[@earthwalker4538]

Excellent my friend! Always great content from you and I thank you very much for all you do for us!

[@adg8269]

Amazing! Short but deep. The principles and the practice. One of my fav channels.

[@procopencocorneliu5982]

Thanks! The simplest explanation found!

[@SinaFarhat]

Very well explained! :)

[@gabrielestupinan]

Great explanation!!! Awesome!

[@Javid1992]

Beautiful explanation 👌🏽

[@grad-dd9zj]

very helpful and easy explained. thank you very much!!

[@vdglife]

Fantastic explanation! This was really simple to follow and had great examples.

[@Rafaga777]

Thanks for the explanation. As always clear, comprehensible and concise...

[@cotton3349]

I'm commenting twice because I love this video that much,..lol Thanks again

[@andrewh2341]

Very comprehensible 👍

[@luisvillamagua2675]

very nice explanation, thanks!!!

[@cotton3349]

Great Video!! Nice & sImple, very helpful!!

[@DaleSheltonsPage]

Nicely done

[@ZIONBOKEH]

So technical knowledge. Made me feels like learning photography mathematically. It actually works. Thanks for sharing inverse square law.

[@oukserei]

thanks a lot for your explanation!

[@ErikVanDenBiesen]

Perfect explained

[@leejournals]

Thanks for explaining! Well done 👍

[@Rampiesat]

Thanks excellent explanation

[@Glen.Danielsen]

ZY, brother of calculation! This is helpful in practical ways, and fascinating! Thanks so much.

[@CraftsmanGreen]

Perfect concise explanation , just what I needed to know. Many thanks

[@Tuscanytravel]

A great video. Thank you

[@dwntwndave]

good stuff broski! thanks

[@victormultanen1981]

thanks for great content!

[@iKeto_gal]

Awesome explanation 👍🏻

[@MattyBeavs]

this was great thanks for this breakdown! learned a lot :)

[@MarceloLangame]

Thank you so much for this masterclass.

[@cowboyyoga]

Great video! Very understandable. Thank you! ))))

[@andilematomela2043]

great video thank you

[@adreaminfocus]

thank you - really helpful

[@stephenreed7769]

Good job 👍

[@ChrisytinaaCoffee]

You’re awesome. So thankful for you and you’re knowledge 🙏🏻

[@pataspatas88]

Nice one! Thanks.

[@b991228]

Your first important concern to work with is falloff or the inverse square law equation which means distance of light. The last four aspects of lighting that would be changes in lighting will result in linear change. These four changes would be power of light, ISO, aperture and exposure time. For the final fine tuning it’s best to try to really on doing these last four adjustments resulting in this linear change. Just remember that moving the distance of the lighting will make for big changes. Fooling with that first adjustment will mean your falloff potentially has drastically changed.

[@Falcryx]

This is really informative and useful, both for physics and photography! Thank you~ :D

[@DavidJonesImages]

Perfect thanks

[@pinkace8221]

very helpful!!!

[@daniel-godin]

Very useful. I'm learning how to use artificial light and this explains things well. Thank you!

[@alice-14-k6b]

Thank you!

[@ianjoc00]

Damn! This is was very helpful!

[@tinman6182]

This will help my videos thanks

[@kerniuzas]

Thanks for explaining. Although, I'm still struggling to understand one thing. At 1:39 you've defined your reference point as 1m = 100%. Why exactly 1 meter? What if the reference point was 1km or 1cm, would that make calculation not right ?

[@jacobwarren1985]

The reference point is dependent on the size of the light source. If the light source was very small 1 metre would be too far away as a reference point and the light fall-off would be very gradual, you might then have to use 1 millimetre away from the light source as a reference point.

[@simonesewero9405]

Thank you ^^

[@hathienantruong4148]

Good stuff lad

[@divyalalraveendran1647]

Wow. i liked this video

[@gelopsycho]

salamat sirrr!!!! :D

[@RomboutVersluijs]

What i still dont get is why, say we take the 3m distance. To me the gray value doesnt look like its 11.11% compared to the first meter where its 100%

[@JorenDekker]

So i've learnt math, lighting and videomaking in a few minutes!

[@rudranroy2109]

Are you a student of physics ? Or, were you one ? You sound like one. Btw, love from India. And, as always, this is the best informative page for photography on youtube, and thanks to algorithms, it's the most underrated one. You pack informations within less than 1/4th time of what others would do. And also, what your name ?

[@cobra350hp1]

Do you understand that the inverse square law of light would prove that they never went to the Moon using this law would say that the surface of the Moon would have been so bright they could not have walked on it?

[@cmichaelanthonyimages2197]

ISL...light intensity is equal to its distance square.

[@jayz1987]

👍🔥

[@BMH1965]

One 'take away' from this: use multiple off-camera light sources.

[@aljo.antony]

Contrast ratio.

[@osalvadordafoto]

This law doesn't hold up if you do the math in inches or miles. What no one says is that you have to consider the size of the light source as well. I believe we all agree that a 5 foot octabox will behave very differently from a spot regardless of how far away it is. Explain something to me... how did you do the math in meters and most youtubers do it in feet and you all got the same result?

[@marvoski547]

Would be cool to see how this law applies when you add a light modifier

[@邪悪アヤマ]

The same

[@moza260]

now my brain hurt..

[@mickue]

Sorry, not interested in Square Space