How Important is Learning the Science of Light

Zachadoodle

Zachadoodle

Well-known member
I went down a rabbit hole of studying light going deep into physics like that of Einstein and Issac Newton. I even knew that light as a photon was made from an elementary particle known as a boson. Photons are made of what is known as electromagnetic fields which are made of waves, for example sound is made of waves too. What makes a photographic image is due to these photons displacing loose electrons on an camera sensor inwardly from quantization; yeah I went that deep, and that one may confuse people a bit.

How important is understanding the science behind light for a cinematographer or photographer, since a camera uses light to make an image? It seems pretty helpful to me because things don't feel so mysterious when I look at a photo or even why an image looks the way it does from light. The idea came to me when I asked myself, what if you knew how a camera works like how a mechanic knows how a car works?
 
Last edited:
That's not a rabbit hole. Newtonian physics, Einstein's special theory of general relativity, quantum physics, light, mass, energy, time and gravity are all related and essential to our understanding of the universe.
 
Everything is useful, it's how you apply it that may make a difference. It all depends on the nature of your subjects and where you film, on some street sense and psychology may be significant, while on others the knowledge of optics and light wave lengths, and on others animal behaviour and the natural world. Construction and engineering knowledge can also be important on some projects.
 
Umbra. Pen umbra. Inverse square law. Sun beams are parallel - these are important physical concepts to the dop/gaffer.

W=VxA is not the same as Amax or Whours

Also useful to know.

Wave particle duality and quantum mechanics - less so
 
Listen to what your favorite DP's actually blabber on about. Probably scenework and staging and mood and modifier design and grip configurations. Whatever they're focused on is what you want to focus on.
 
I think knowing a thing or two about how light, imaging technology, and the human visual system work is interesting and useful. Especially as it applies to our work. It's perhaps not necessary, but I found this book really interesting. Available everywhere; if you buy used, be sure to get the second edition... Though I wonder if a third edition is not far away, this is what I read and it's plenty.

Science for the Curious PhotographerAn Introduction to the Science of Photography​



SFTCP.jpg
 
ahalpert said:
Listen to what your favorite DP's actually blabber on about. Probably scenework and staging and mood and modifier design and grip configurations. Whatever they're focused on is what you want to focus on.
Click to expand...
Dont listen to any 'DP'!

Its importat to work out the masics.

For example every insta kid usines some dome. Now I bounce off the wall.. So..

I use less kit
I use less floorspace
my light is more diffuse and flattering.
 
morgan_moore said:
Dont listen to any 'DP'!
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I don't even listen to myself.

My technical knowledge goes up to a certain point and stops with a thunk. I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the technical side any more than I have. It has always bemused me to read message board debates that delve deeply into pixel-peeping territory because I don't understand half of what is being discussed--but somehow I manage to make that camera do what I want it to do without worrying about it. That said, getting into technical details is itself a hobby, so I'm not denigrating it. But to the original point--being an expert on the science doesn't hurt (I don't think) but it's often not necessary.

Cameras are so good now, the translation between what one sees with one's eyes and how a camera will interpret that information has become a much easier translation to make. Those of us who shot video back in the day when dynamic range was a fraction of what it is now know what I'm talking about. And of course--shooting film is quite a different animal because you don't get to audition the image on a monitor, and does rely much more on a trained eye and metering and understanding a given film stock to achieve predictable results.
 
I really hope people don't start thinking there is a difference between a DP and a DoP! I know the difference in terminology has always been there in different countries, but it used to rankle me that the US "kids" (aka the RGB stick ones on Insta) started adopting the Euro version. Apparently it has to do with the less savory use of the abbreviation DP, but I don't really buy it, I think it's just another example of lack of respect for the old guard.
 
Im not sure which is what.

Id say in UK a DOP is someone with five odd 'released films' or a few high end shows and has a significant full time income from the role.

A DP is not a thing. maybe it is a verb.. "to DP" - " will you DP my short?"
I have been the DOP/DP on a couple of small things and that doesnt actually make me a DOP, im just someone who has done some DPing :)


Really Im just saying dont listen to folk on instagram!
 
Everybody with a camera calls themselves a DP.

But back to the original question - it's not important to know the science of anything you use. Do you know the science behind camera sensors, SD cards, car tires? What you want to know is how to use light and shadow. And that only comes with experience. You can read all about lighting techniques but once on set, that will hardly translate into anything useful. You have to know if you need a 100 watt or 300 watt light, what diffuser(s) you need, how to flag off light, etc. This only comes using the tools and see what they do first-hand. This can be done at home.
 
Interestingly I was just watching one othe the young heros and he popped up this (doubtless stolen) image showing inverse square drop off.

Knowing how light spreads and moves (I=R) is important and it is basic physics.

As I mentioned above the more complex physics of light (quantum physics) doesnt seem to come into everyday 'DP'ing.

inverse.JPG

I dont know much about sensor wells or any of the science of digital capture. Ands dont feel the need to.
(I mean who needs to know why non retrofocal wide lenses perform poorly on digital sensors!)
 
morgan_moore said:
Interestingly I was just watching one othe the young heros and he popped up this (doubtless stolen) image showing inverse square drop off.

Knowing how light spreads and moves (I=R) is important and it is basic physics.

As I mentioned above the more complex physics of light (quantum physics) doesnt seem to come into everyday 'DP'ing.

View attachment 5712219

I dont know much about sensor wells or any of the science of digital capture. Ands dont feel the need to.
(I mean who needs to know why non retrofocal wide lenses perform poorly on digital sensors!)
Click to expand...
What you see there is light's interaction as signal energy due to it being em radiation. The science of that is similar as to why when you sleep you feel comfortable admist the cold weather, meaning: the blanket absorbs most of the heat given, and you inside it don't feel the heat, because you are covered by the blanket. Likewise the first subject given how close the light is is more absorbed by it compared to how the signal given how it travels as a photon spreads out more and is less absorbed as it is farther away, though sometimes you push it even farther away you get way less light than more.
 
morgan_moore said:
Dont listen to any 'DP'!

Its importat to work out the masics.

For example every insta kid usines some dome. Now I bounce off the wall.. So..

I use less kit
I use less floorspace
my light is more diffuse and flattering.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you should buy/do what someone else tells you to do.

I'm saying -- name your favorite DP (Deakins, Chivo, whoever... Darran Tiernan is doing great work on The Penguin. etc)

Do you ever hear them discussing the latest physics experiments? Probably not.

There are some physical concepts they know like the back of their hand. Inverse square law. The trigonometry of light scattering as it reflects off or diffuses through a surface. The geometry of light spreading. Blackbody radiation. A bit of electricity. How LEDs work. Etc.

Many of these concepts they probably only have a working knowledge of. They probably never studied a textbook on it.

That's the thing - you could learn everything you need to know about the physics of lighting on the job. Mr. Miyagi-style -- wax on, wax off. You don't even need to know you're learning physics.

In fact, you might be better off that way. Some of the best photographers have the least technical background.

What you really need is a functional eye and a heart.

If you listen to what DPs actually talk about, they'll usually discuss what they're bringing in their lighting package. How many trucks. What's their most powerful unit. What types of lights are they bringing.

They'll talk about the influences for the film style. Often that's other movies. It may also be personal experiences they had in particular places.

I AC'd for a DP who went to AFI and said they spent the first year talking about their feelings. I assumed he meant the way images and lighting made them feel.

I wish I hadn't been so taken in by gear talk early in my career and by the idea that the camera you buy/use is really important. In a way, it's easier to say that now that I can barely tell the difference between properly exposed and graded cameras. But even 15 years ago, camera choice was insignificant compared to dramatic sensibility, lighting, and all the various techniques employed in cinematography.
 
Light is simply a more defined form of signal energy. An example of signal energy is a wi-fi signal. Proof of this is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. How it causes heat is because when electromagnetism is picked up there's movement on the atomic scale. Movement on the atomic scale is heat. You know these two things you got pretty much everything.
 
Last edited:
What may be more important in practice for a DP (or DoP as we say in the UK) than knowing that light is a form of signal energy, is understanding colour theory. This is something that artists study (some deeper than others) and use in their paintings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top