Talk:Hard and soft light

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Focus of this page

I don't think this article should be merged. Instead, the focus should shift towards hard versus soft light... the 'quality' of the light. Ties this into cinematography by mentioning the uses of soft/hard light, how instrument design affects how well the light "cuts" (i.e. fresnels versus open faced lights), and what instruments achieve soft/hard light. Glennchan 06:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Plans

I propose to expand this article with a section on the methods used by photographers to create soft light specifically as it pertains to portrait photography inside and outside the studio. Let me know of any objections. Manamarak (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft light

This page should probably be renamed 'Hard and soft light' and discuss the differences between the two and what causes them, since they are two sides of the same coin. - 86.42.255.57 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fall-off

In the fall-off section of the page, it says "For a soft light source of infinite size, intensity does not decrease exponentially and is simply inversely proportional to distance.". As it also says, point sources decrease their intensity with the inverse square of distance, not exponentially, so I don't see why it would contrast soft light sources with expontnial fall-off. Also, I would think of an infinitely large light-source as infinite in 2 directions, in which case the intensity would not fall off at all, rather than an infinitely long strip, which would fall off roughly as described.31.53.173.83 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, this seems confusing to me. I'm a little rusty on the inverse square law. I seem to remember that it was for a point source. Also inverse square is exponential. That said, there's another thing that happens with studio lights. Here's what it is: If i use a light that's bright enough to reach an object that's 50 feet away, it won't make much difference if I move it 5 feet closer or farther away. But if a light needs to be close in because it's not as bright, then moving 5 feet either way will make a large difference. It is not so obvious but comes in really handy when you want a light to fall off rapidly, like a camera lite or downstage lite for close up. Also for scenes with large amounts of movement, the lights have to be out far enough that the falloff is not critical to exposure levels.Longinus876 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]