OK, I know I'm going to regret asking this question as the anwer is probably dead obvious, but I didn't put my intelligent head on today! I'm currently work with Bagginsbill's lights because I like what they offer me while I'm working on some new morphs & textures. This only occured to me after some test renders. If you look at the two pictures above you'll notice that the one on the right has light reflecting off the side of her face, neck & shoulders. The first one doesn't. Now here's the thing, I haven't moved the figure at all, just the camera, so why should only one angle show the light & not the other? OK, I know Poser doesn't light like the real world but it shouldn't be this different, should it?

It looks as if there is a light to the left and rear of the figure. So if the camera is also to her left, you're not going to get any backlighting, unless there's a corresponding backlight on her right side.

I think...

I see the point you're making Karen, I just thought the difference wouldn't be this great.
Oh well, I guess my Physics O Level counted for nothing after all!

Here's the light setup. There is also an IBL & infinite light.

Storm there is some rather bad incorrect shadow offset going on there.  It's most evident in the right side image, along the jawline and under the left breast.

pjz - Yeah, I noticed that, looks like a bruise on her jaw. Not to worry about this at the moment as my settings here are not for final renders or anything. I was just curious about the light thing.

You render in Vue anyway don't you? 

I do render mainly in Vue yes, but when I'm working on new morphs & redoing textures I like to test them first. This is why the actual quality of the render here isn't so important, just so I have a basic idea of how my work is progressing. As I said, I was only curious about the lights.

storm,

The strong reflection from the rim light is dependent on camera position, because it just so in real life!

This is called the Fresnel effect. When light strikes skin (and many other materials) at a low glancing angle, it is almost perfectly reflected. If you put the camera in line with that reflection, then it shines very brightly. On the other hand if you're looking right at the surface that is doing the glancing reflection, then none of that light is reaching you. 

Hold your hand straight out in front of you, with your palm flat, and your fingers pointing straight at a bright light. Now look at your palm. You'll see lots of specular reflection. Now keeping your fingers still pointing at the light, retrieve your hand so that you can look straight at the flat of your palm (you should have tu move and turn your head for this maneuver). At this point, your palm will be showing zero reflection from that light.

Try the same trick with the lens of your watch.  Get a book or newspaper or magazine with some black text on white paper. Lay this on a table in front of you. Now hold your watch on its edge against the paper, so that a hand at 9 oclock is pointing straight down at the text. Stand over it so that the crystal is only a sliver - you should be able to see the writing reflected in the crystal with perfect clarity. Now get your head low and look right at the watch face. You will hardly see any reflection of the writing at all.

bagginsbill - Thanks for the info. But this is why I was confused. You see I understand a little about the relection of light at low angles. I suppose another example to yours would be like you can look through a window & not see much reflection because you're looking straight on, but if you view it at a low angle then there would be alot of reflection. It just seems the angle of the camera compared to the the light here in the second picture doesn't seem to be low enough for the effect here to be this great compared to the first picture. I quess I was wrong though.
Many thanks.