Have you a reference for this narrow and specific definition of a fill light then Garry?
None of the texts I've read or indeed gaffers I've worked with have ever referred to a fill as anything other than the definition I gave in my post above and I've only ever come across one other photographer with such a rigid concept of fill lighting.
Also, the idea of a 'second sun' is nonsense. Bailey is reputed to have said "There's only one effing sun" but then he was also reported to have stated that his favourite light was 'available light' as in he'd shoot in any light that was available.
Photography has moved on a great deal since Bailey's heyday when shooting with a single light was common place. Besides, until the world is made of nothing but surfaces that absorb all light that strikes them, natural light will always be multi directional. When Bailey walks down the street light is bouncing off every surface it hits to varying degrees. Replicating that multi-directional nature of light in the studio, be it with lights or reflectors, is as natural as shooting with natural light alone.
I don't think that definitions matter that much, except that it helps if everyone understands what is meant when people use a particular term or phrase.
But, if it helps,
Wikipedia does agree with 'my' definition. So does
the free dictionary, I think the important thing here is the explanation that a fill light lightens shadows without altering the character of the key light.
The style of photography has changed since Bailey made his mark - but it should perhaps be remembered that Dave Bailey (later David Bailey later Bailey and later Bail) basically re-defined people photography, AFAIK Bailey was really the first heterosexual working class fashion photographer, the first to shoot with one light, the first to shoot 'punk' style and the first to go out of his way to deliberately make controversial statements that upset the fashion establishment and gain publicity for himself - he was almost as good at self publicity as at photography.
His use of harsh light though was possibly as much due to the fact that when he started he didn't have the money to use more than one light as to the fact that he was trying to get noticed and maybe have a tip at people like Cecil Beaton. And the other very talented east end lads that he knocked about with, such as Brian Duffy and Tel (later Terry and later still Terrence) Donavon were much the same.
I wasn't with him when he made his often misquoted remark about available light, but I believe that he was just putting down a woman who questioned him about his approach to light, because Bailey was (and is) too good a craftsman to just take shots with whatever light happened to be there, he always put a lot of thought into controlling the light, whether it was studio lighting, flashguns or daylight.
My own approach to lighting is exactly the same as Bailey's and Donavon's (even though I don't have the same talent). I set up, always, with just one light and I use that light to define the shape of the face and to set the mood. Then I add any kicker lights such as hairlights, rimlights, backlights or whatever as necessary but only as necessary, and I then have a dramatic and punchy image. Finally, if necessary, I use an on axis fill
to reduce the contrast created by the key light but without changing its character. That's how I teach it too, and it's exactly what I'll be teaching next Sunday on the
Lencarta lighting workshop.
I appreciate that a lot of people do it differently, and use a fairly standard lighting setup with maybe 3 or more lights from the start, but my view is that's the wrong way of doing it and it's also the hard way and that's why I suggested to the OP
But a good starting point would be to place the softbox high, close and exactly in front of where your subject is looking - this will help to define the shape of the face.
Then, and only if necessary, place the umbrella where the camera is (same level, lower or behind the camera) as fill, set it to the lowest possible power setting and take a shot. Then experiment by increasing the power of the fill light gradually until you're happy with the results.
) and it never looked much IMHO.
I love that light (mostly) and I love the freedom of movement it allows for both subject and shooter - not exactly mobile perhaps, but certain fluid and not any of that camera/tripod business with the subject nailed to a chair.