You can have 20 fill lights if you want, all coming from different directions,
And depending on their relative intensity, you could end up with 20 crossed shadows created by those "fill"s, all coming from different directions. Not what I would consider desirable. But if that’s the effect you’re after….
A fill light is a light that reduces contrast. I'm not sure how else you would define it.
That makes perfect sense. But aiming a fill light from subject left and aiming the key light from subject left will reduce contrast how? I mean the subject’s right is still in complete shadow. What I’m saying is that a true “fill” would actually do something about lightening up those shadows.
So I still haven't had it explained how exactly one can "do it all with a histogram." even if you don't always do it now. How can it be used to set up a main light/ fill light portrait
Can doesn't mean always. I use tools that I have at my disposal as time permits. I used a light meter for many years. I still have one that cost me quite a bit at the time I bought it. It sits in an old camera bag unused. A light meter is certainly no guarantee you're not going to have to fix something in PP if you don't check your work as you go along.
I’ll just cut and paste this one:
So I still haven't had it explained how exactly one can "do it all with a histogram."
So far it appears that your method primarily involves chimping. Why don’t you just say that.
Besides, light meters tell you next to nothing about color.
An accurate monitor doesn’t just refer to color. Ever notice the grayscale patches and luminance settings that appear during the calibration procedure. To properly use it for exposure checks, room ambient light also needs to be controlled. Hard to do under the variable conditions found in the field. Even then, a print probably won’t have the dynamic range the monitor can display. You could set up tethered in a studio and soft proof for the paper profile. On the other hand, a few test shots and prints noting exposure settings will tell you exactly how many stops lower the shadows can go and still print with detail. With this knowledge in the field you can with a couple of measurements determine when you’ve achieved your goals. You
can try and keep the contrast down (not always possible) and then increase it in post. But that’s like saying – I won’t bother getting it right during the taking of the picture. I’ll just fix it in Photoshop.
A fill light is a light that reduces contrast in the exposure. It's that simple. Are you saying you can't have a key that's on axis?
No. But then you won’t need a fill light either.
If that's not what you're saying are you saying you can't have a fill light if your key is on axis?
No. But then you won’t need a key light either.
Besides, no light ever produces a shadow. Only the absence of light produces a shadow.
Really? I’ve never seen my shadow being cast in a completely dark room, a room that has an absence of light. On the other hand, when I’m outside on a bright and sunny day, I can see shadows everywhere!
You can also blame at least one of my professors in college from 30 years ago as I distinctly remember them defining fill in just that way.
I had a calculus professor at a very expensive and “prestigious” college back east who stated in class that the diagram on the board of a U shaped curve was “convex up” while that of an inverted U next to it was “convex down”. He kept repeating that until finally one student asked if he really meant concave up (for the U) and concave down (for the inverted U). I distinctly remember his boisterous response: “What the hell difference does that make?” Everyone’s open Math book confirmed the student was correct but this tenured professor apparently didn’t understand the meaning of English words. And as an American, it was clear that English was not his second language. Well I transferred out of that school after the first year. The point being, professors don’t always speak infallibly.
As far as David goes, he also seems to have a pretty wide and diverse audience for his "misinformation", and his work speaks for itself.
Since you ended your previous post with:
None of this is my invention. I've just adapted it to my own style and methods. It's all spelled out in David Hobby's Lighting in Layers DVD set.
The implication is that your earlier statement about using an incident meter to achieve correct skin tones would result in “overexposure” of white clothing was not really your invention. Now you acknowledge that it wasn’t his either:
I haven't heard him say much of anything about incident light metering, other than to say he might use his light meter once per year and he might not.
Perhaps another look at the tutorial on the Sekonic site will clarify why you do not need to selectively lower the light on the white dish in order to get it and the fruit correctly exposed.
While David has found his formula for success, there are many, many others who view an external lightmeter/ flashmeter as useful. Photographers such as Dean Collins, known as the Master of Light comes to mind. Before his passing, he had enjoyed a very successful career and produced many popular educational guides and workshops. Christopher Grey, Wil Crockett, and thousands of others continue to rely on the straightforward consistent picture making method of setting their exposure with this tool.
Remember the woodworking mantra about measure twice, cut once. I suppose there are carpenters that leave their tape measures, spirit levels, and chalk lines in the toolbox and just eyeball hanging a cabinet. But like using an uncalibrated display for exposure decisions, a house whose walls have settled is not the best gauge for hanging cabinets. You may end up with doors that like to swing open on their own.
