"Paul Furman" <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7UzMj.19997$%41.18305@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:oSxMj.3509$vF.2071@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> skippy-007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
quotes...
>>>>>>>>>> The camera plane is a horizontal line that runs
>>>>>>>>>> directly across the camera position as it relates to the
positon
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> subject.
>>>> In the sentence quoted, it's perfectly clear
>>>> that the plane is being extended in the form of a line.
>>> It is unclear without knowing if we are looking at a side view or top
>>> view. The sentence only describes a line not a plane. The only plane
>>> that makes sense would be the film plane or sensor which is
>>> perpendicular to the line connecting the camera & subject. Or maybe
it's
>>> the plane that meets the horizon? No way to know.
>>>
>>> This next part seems unrelated but suggests it's a discussion of the
>>> line connecting the camera & subject:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The subject is at the center of a circle and the camera
>>>>>>>>>> is at the outside edge of the circle so we are able to move
>>>>>>>>>> lights around an invisible circle at different degrees
>>
>> The way I read it, the OP is looking at a plane -- similar to the film
>> plane -- which extends around the subject in a circle. If one were to
>> place lights, either flash or floodlights, on that plane, one could
>> maintain a given lighting ratio while shifting the lights around the
>> subject. One could then vary the effect without altering the exposure
as
>> long as the subject to lights / camera remains constant.
>
> I think this is what is being described. The 'plane' is really a sphere
> circumscribed at a given distance from the subject. But it doesn't
matter
> whether the distance is the same for the lights & camera.
Yes, if that is the general idea, each component could have it's own
spherical plane. As long as the distance for any component doesn't vary
as
it is moved, the exposure remains constant.
>
>> This could be useful if one wanted to quickly change from a side lit
shot
>> to a more frontal exposure. One would merely move the lights but not
>> have to alter the exposure settings.
>>
>> I've seen this discussed in a few books I've read on the subject of
>> studio lighting, but there is usually a cautionary note that, as one
>> shifts the lights, new highlights can pop up and throw off the exposure
>> setting -- effectively defeating the careful planning and meticulous
>> work. Of course, eventually, one would gain enough experience to
predict
>> this anomaly, and it should prove to be a good way to organize a
portrait
>> studio where one shoots more than one style of portrait.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>>
|
