Answers on a postcard - what does the Inverse Square Law say about this lighting?

Very good! You're trolling, I'm not playing. Stan will swallow it so I'll let you play with each other.

BACKLIGHTING & FILL FLASH.



Remember boys and girls. There were no secondary light sources on the moon. No reflectors (other than the moon's surface which is equivalent to asphalt in terms of reflectivity, and you don't see many flash photographers bouncing light off THE ROAD

). No gobos. No rogue flashbenders.



It is possible to pick up some bounce fill off a white spacesuit - but you'd really need to get your angles right.

You're not playing because you've lost. Period.

Have a nice evening.

I thought this thread was FILLED with clever people.





Tell me, what is WRONG with this photo? Remember, the sun is 150 million kilometers away.

Do you get it, yet?

Clue: look at 8, 9 & 10.

Now think .... 150 MILLION km.

Let's say the correct exposure for the foreground is, say, f/8. If you had to guess the f/stop for the background what would it be?

What is this TELLING YOU about the source of light given the above?

And no - being on the moon has nothing to do with it. We are talking about a fundamental property of the universe which applies equally well to all travelling waves (such as sound). If anything it makes the question simpler.

This one is a real CORKER

How reflective is a magic suit covered in asphalt?



Barbecue time!

Again, the lighting is wrong on so many levels in this photograph.

Question: what is the melting point of Kodak Ektachrome?