Sorry, but I still don't understand. If, in your first sentence, I
replace "subject" with "light source" and "illumination of the subject"
with "intensity from the light source" I have replaced subject with
light source and the statement remains true.
I'm still missing something very fundamental.
Chuck Norcutt
WayneS wrote:
> At 11:41 AM 1/4/2009, Chuck wrote:
>> <snip> What I don't
>> understand is why, once the light has struck and reflected off the
>> subject, why the subject is not treated as the "light source" for the
>> reflected light that's emanating from it in the same sense as the sun is
>> a light source.
>
> The subject just gets smaller with distance. Hence there is less light
> reaching the lens, but the illumination of the subject is the same, just
> that its size in the frame is smaller.
>
> If it is the only subject, then an average meter would vary, but a spot
> meter on the subject would be constant with distance.
>
> WayneS
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|