Fill light question

C

cargo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,645
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
First things first I am not photographer but own a camera and enjoy faffing with it.
I am a touch confused with this fill light thing I keep reading about it in this section and fear I maybe getting things mixed up.
Again it is posted on here a lot that fill lifgt is meant to be from an on axis position.
The photos I have taken, using speedlights and softbox have nearly all been with one softbox and reflector on the other side in such a way as to throw some light back where I require it. In my eyes the images have turned out fine and have been well recieved when posted for critique, so I am thinking why would this be wrong if the results are pleasing ? Obviously there not perfect by any standards. I think what I am trying to ask is this. Is the reflector classed as a fill light ? The way I am using it. Or is the fill light meant to be another light on axis to increas the overall exsposure?
Hope that some of the above makes sense.

Gaz
 
Normally the fill light is on axis and it's purpose is to raise the shadows so that they are visible i.e. reduce the contrast between highlight and shadow to a range that can be captured and is what the photographer wants. Because it is on axis you do not get opposing shadows i.e. cross lighting. It is not the only answr and many will instead of a fill light use a reflector to achieve similar.

Mike
 
— Is the reflector classed as a fill light ?
Yes, it is. In fact, though not see as an active light source like an other flash or daylight, this
passive light source is the cheapest, and easiest to use, one can get.

— I am thinking why would this be wrong if the results are pleasing ?
You surely got that one right!
 
There's no single right way to do this, and there's nothing wrong with what you're doing.

My personal preference is for on axis fill, but that's with a light (it wouldn't work with a reflector), but that's not to say that's the only way I'd light.

There's lots of 'experts' on the internet and plenty of them have a 'right way' of doing things, and they don't always agree with each other.
 
Thanks for the replies good people. Sounds like I am over thinking it a bit. Now for what I guess will be a really silly question "as I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack".
If I have a softbox to one side as mentioned above which is giving me good exsposure but I wanted to lift /fill the other side and I add another light on axis above behind the camera will this light not only lift the shadow side of the face but also the correctly exposed side ?
Or does light not work in such a way ?

Gaz
 
•
Hey Gary,
1. light is additive
2. light behaves like a ping-pong ball: it's all in the angle of incidence
 
cargo said:
Thanks for the replies good people. Sounds like I am over thinking it a bit. Now for what I guess will be a really silly question "as I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack".
If I have a softbox to one side as mentioned above which is giving me good exsposure but I wanted to lift /fill the other side and I add another light on axis above behind the camera will this light not only lift the shadow side of the face but also the correctly exposed side ?
Or does light not work in such a way ?

Gaz
Click to expand...

Yep it will add

Mike
 
Can't remember the last time I used an on-axis fill for basic portraits. I think it's an old fashioned technique TBH, and stems from the days of small, hard, and blazingly hot tungsten lights. They produced very dense, hard-edged shadows that needed quite a strong light to lift them. Using an on-axis fill-in not only lifts all the shadows as seen by the camera, it prevents or minimises the effect of any conflicting shadows cast by the fill light itself.

I much prefer the OP's technique with a softbox/brolly up to one side and a reflector added to taste for fill-in on the other as necessary. With a soft main light, you might not need any fill-in at all. Removing the on-axis fill light also avoids an extra catchlight in the eyes; less is more IMHO. I prefer a softer-lit approach as I think it just looks better (I'm talking just regular, basic portraits here) and also allows more freedom of movement for both the subject and photographer - more relaxed, spontaneous, etc, and that's what I'm after. Hard light leaves very little room for movement.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Hey Gary,
1. light is additive
2. light behaves like a ping-pong ball: it's all in the angle of incidence
Click to expand...
mike weeks said:
Yep it will add

Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks Guys. I like that direct answers keeps it simples for me.

HoppyUK said:
Can't remember the last time I used an on-axis fill for basic portraits. I think it's an old fashioned technique TBH, and stems from the days of small, hard, and blazingly hot tungsten lights. They produced very dense, hard-edged shadows that needed quite a strong light to lift them. Using an on-axis fill-in not only lifts all the shadows as seen by the camera, it prevents or minimises the effect of any conflicting shadows cast by the fill light itself.

I much prefer the OP's technique with a softbox/brolly up to one side and a reflector added to taste for fill-in on the other as necessary. With a soft main light, you might not need any fill-in at all. Removing the on-axis fill light also avoids an extra catchlight in the eyes; less is more IMHO. I prefer a softer-lit approach as I think it just looks better (I'm talking just regular, basic portraits here) and also allows more freedom of movement for both the subject and photographer - more relaxed, spontaneous, etc, and that's what I'm after. Hard light leaves very little room for movement.
Click to expand...
Thanks Richard. Great explanation you have given.

Gaz
 
A true fill is a light that illuminates all of the subject as seen by the lens, which is an on-axis fill.
Another type of fill that can work well is a fill that comes from the same direction as the key light but higher/lower - for example if you have a face pointing not at the lens but at something out of frame, and lit by say a beauty dish, the beauty dish would normally be high and would be positioned in front of where the subject is looking - and so would the fill, but the fill would be lower to add light (if required) to the shadow areas.

A reflector can also be used for fill, often very effectively.

What is NEVER a fill though is a key light on one side and a "fill" light on the opposite side - that's two conflicting lights that create conflicting shadows. Some of the worst magazines, a lot of books and many so-called tutorials on Youtube advocate this approach but I don't, because there's only 1 sun on my planet....

At the end of the day though, whatever works for you is fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top