3 ms·
The inverse-square law can be non-intuitive: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law I know a good
by throw0101d 10mo ago
The inverse-square law can be non-intuitive:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
I know a good number of photographers can struggle with it when they're getting into flash/strobe photography (even though may be good with f-stops generally, the moving of the flash stand appropriately takes some mental 'accounting').
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hySbIWzJAkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hySbIWzJAkM
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-J42VM448 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-J42VM448
- randlet 10mo agoIn your first link the narrator says he "doesn’t understand the physics of it" but there's really no physics involved (ignoring scatter). It’s just a consequence of the math. It’s relatively easy to understand if you think of it in terms of the surface of a sphere. There is a fixed amount of light coming from a point source, and as the light travels outward you can think of it as being spread over the surface of a sphere. Since the surface area of a sphere is 4pir^2, if you double the radius the area quadruples, and therefore the light intensity at any point on the sphere drops by a factor of four. edit: And now after rtfm I see there's a nice demo of this!