Lightsphere II WOW

Hi,

I just received my Lightsphere II. I did some shots of my wife and they look awesome, great skintone and perfect light.

Tim
--
Visit http://www.voider.net
(Still in production)

could you please, post some of samples done with and without Lightsphere and using something else like Stofen omnibounce ?

thanks
--
eli

Yea! please show us a sample.

regards
Wayne

It will take a while until I will be able to post some good examples. I just did a few shots yesterday and the results with and without lightsphere are just blowing me away. I did not compare it yet with the omnibounce but I believe the results are better with lightsphere II. This thing is pretty big and it gives you much softer like.

What I was mostly surprised about where the skin tones. They look so good.

Tim
--
Visit http://www.voider.net
(Still in production)

Here are examples with the Lightsphere and the stofen that comes with the nikon SB80. If you zoom in you can see the catchlight in the shape of the Lightsphere in one and the rectangular stofen in the other. Guess what folks, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!!

Hi,

I am not sure which one is the lightsphereII but the first picture has much nicer skin tones. More natural. The second one has this typical flash skin tone.

Calibrate your monitor and you will see the difference.

Tim

PS: Is the first one the lightsphere?
--
Visit http://www.voider.net
(Still in production)

The second one is the Lightsphere!!!

You can easily tell which is the Lightsphere and the Stofen by the catchlight size. If you zoom in, then there's no doubt by those who are visually challenged :> )

I like the Stofen flash example better....

My 2-1/2¢...

Rick
--
'Effort equals Results' as told to Roger Penske by his father.

SteveDoubleU said:

Here are examples with the Lightsphere and the stofen that comes
with the nikon SB80.

Click to expand...

The difference will depend on the location (ceilings, walls to the side and back, floor for bouncing). What's missing is a third pictures without a modifier.

The maddness seems to reside, chiefly, in using a flash-gun, and whichever of the two light modifiers, straight onto a face AT ALL. Really grisly, guys. Give us a bit of shadow, at least...

Shiner

I agree, most people want to take more than just passport photos...

One thing I will say about the Lightsphere is that I don't have to think about bouncing so much like I did with the omnibounce. With the omnibounce I have to angle the flash head, decide if I want to bounce off
the ceiling or wall etc. With the Lightsphere i just decide top on or off
and only need to touch the flash when switching between portrait or landscape.

I know some people don't like the Lightsphere for some reason, in that case done use it, but please stop preaching to others about it and let them make their own minds up. I'm very happy with my Lightsphere.

david mackenzie said:

I agree, most people want to take more than just passport photos...
One thing I will say about the Lightsphere is that I don't have to
think about bouncing so much like I did with the omnibounce. With
the omnibounce I have to angle the flash head, decide if I want to
bounce off
the ceiling or wall etc. With the Lightsphere i just decide top on
or off
and only need to touch the flash when switching between portrait or
landscape.
I know some people don't like the Lightsphere for some reason, in
that case done use it, but please stop preaching to others about it
and let them make their own minds up. I'm very happy with my
Lightsphere.

Click to expand...

I've been using the Lightsphere II for about a month and a half now (using it for five weddings in that time). Prior to using the Lightsphere I was using the omnibounce. I am pleased with the Lightsphere, but let me say this:

For 50 percent of what I shoot there is no "major" differenece between using the Lightsphere and the Omnibounce ... though my personal opinion is that in 100 percent of my flash photos skin tones look more natural and less like "flash skintones" when I use the Lightsphere. In the other 50 percent of the photos the Lightsphere helps because (like David said) I don't have to worry about how my flash head is positioned. I know that I'm going to get a good spread of light all over the place each and every time ... no "flashlight effect."

Like any type of lighting or light modifier, some people will like it and others won't. The Lightsphere is NOT the one and only solution for lighting and it will NOT make you a better photographer ... if your photos stink using the Omnibounce, your photos will still stink using the Lightsphere. If you don't want to use it, don't buy it. If you think it's useful, give it a shot.

When you guys use either devices, do you have the flashes Wide Angle piece down or up? I imagine with it down, you'll already defuse the light in a wide path inside the ombi/bounce?

--
-Kevin

vienke said:

When you guys use either devices, do you have the flashes Wide
Angle piece down or up? I imagine with it down, you'll already
defuse the light in a wide path inside the ombi/bounce?

Click to expand...

I've done it both ways and it really didn't make a differnece what I did with the flash's built-in wide diffuser lens inside the Omnibounce. The suspect the biggest benefit to using the Lightsphere over the Omnibounce is the size ... sort of like the difference between using a small umbrella and a large umbrella ... or a small softboft and a large softbox.

Weither you use the Omnibounce or the Lightsphere it's still on-camera flash ... there are just some slight differences in how that light is sent out.

I wondered the same thing. I think the built in diffuser (I have a sigma 500dg super) would be overkill, but i wondered what zoom setting on the flash. When i point my flash upwards it defaults to 50mm setting, but I can

manually adjust this from 24mm to 105mm. This would make a big difference on the angle of light entering the Lightsphere and I wonder if people take this into account.?

Optically, you wouldn't expect a big difference optically as the lightsphere is only a slightly larger light source. The size of the light source and the quantity and quality of bounce light off of reflective surfaces is what makes a difference between either of these light modifiers and direct flash.

The main advantage to the Lightsphere is the ability to use the swivel head to reposition the light as you rotate the camera. Thus you don't need to use a bracket.

I use a compact bracket that I am accustomed to using and prefer the more compact Omnibounce Diffuser. I cannot tell much difference in optical rendition between the two--as one would expect given the physics behind the two bounce diffusers.

Just my 10 cents.
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com

david mackenzie198573 said:

One thing I will say about the Lightsphere is that I don't have to
think about bouncing so much like I did with the omnibounce. With
the omnibounce I have to angle the flash head, decide if I want to
bounce off the ceiling or wall etc. With the Lightsphere i just decide top
on or off and only need to touch the flash when switching between
portrait or landscape.

Click to expand...

Omnibounce and Lightsphere work very similar. Omnibounce is a wide-angle reflector increasing the angle of illumination of the flash light to something like 180 degrees. Lightsphere is a "bare-bulb" modifier that we know very well from many manufactorers (for example Broncolor's "Balloon" http://www.bron.ch/bc_pd_ps_en/detail.php?nr=955 and many others). A "bare-bulb" reflector is an even "wider" reflector and it increases the angle of illumination to something like 360 degrees.

If there are no bounce surfaces around, the only difference betwen bare flash, a wide reflector and a bare-bulb reflector is the angle of illumination. Light and shadow characteristics remain unchanged because neither reflector changes the size of the light source any relevant way.

Things look difference if there are sources available from which the flash light can bounce. Then, due to the bouncing (and not the reflector), shadow characteristics are changed because both light coming directly rfrom the flash and light arriving indirectly ("bounced") will illuminate the object. The higher the amount of bounced light relative to direct flash light, the "softer" the resulting lighting will be. A "bare-bulb" reflector in a typical residential house will create slightly more diffuse light because the amount of bounced light will be higher. On the other hand, a "bare-bulb" will require more flash power to achieve this effect. And this is a bit of a problem with on-camera flashes because they are not very powerful and one will suffer from even longer recycling times.

In short:

A) the shooting environment plays an important part in how your light modifier will affect the final picutre.

B) "soft", "diffuse" ertc. light is only a secondary effect of on-camera light modifiers.

C) Due to B, in a shooting environment where bouncing is possible, the differences between bare flash, Omnibounce and Lightsphere will be minor.

Omnibounce was once very among press photographers and journalists because a lot of on-camera flashes did not have built-in wide-angle reflectors that were really wide enough. This situation has changed.

Another point is that image quality of digital camera at higher ISO settings (ISO 800 and up) has become really good. High ISO capabilities of a camera are important in flash photography because it allows the photographer to mix in more ambient light without incurring a significant loss of image quality. The less flash light in a picuture, the less important the characteristics of the flash light source, the less the need to use gadgets like Omnibounce etc. With a modern digital camera, on-camera flashes can be used as a "fill-in light" even in rather dark lighting conditions. This is great news since this is what on-camera flashes are good at.

Vance Zachary said:

Optically, you wouldn't expect a big difference optically as the
lightsphere is only a slightly larger light source. The size of the
light source and the quantity and quality of bounce light off of
reflective surfaces is what makes a difference between either of
these light modifiers and direct flash.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The thing that keeps on amazing me is the rather small number of people that seem to understand this. Given that this is supposed to be a "lighting forum", this is rather odd.

Does the omnibounce make any difference when used headon outside?
I alwasy thought the flash had to be at 45 degrees to work. I see so
many press photographers using them headon.
I have both the omnibounce and the Lightsphere. I know both will improve

on bare flash. I got the Lightsphere because i can remember situations I've been in where I usedthe Omnibounce and had problems with beams on low ceilings for example. Sometimes I need to spend less time thinking about the flash and more on the subject. The Lightsphere just seems less

hassle than the omnibounce. I agree that it's not the answer to all situations, but if the results are good and more importantly consistant
then I will be happy. The theory doesn't really bother me that much.

david mackenzie198573 said:

I have both the omnibounce and the Lightsphere.

Click to expand...

Then do some comparsions in different environments.

david mackenzie198573 said:

The theory doesn't really bother me that much.

Click to expand...

Same here I haven't studied photography, and I haven't studied optics or a similar disciplince. All I know is that I once tried such gadgets but dismissed them because they don't make a relevant difference. In the meantime, I have lerant a bit about light and lighting and I now also have the vocabulary to descrive why they didn't work.

On the other hand, if you think these gadgets make a difference, then go for it: Compared to a lot of other photo equipment, on-camera light modifiers are cheap. And even if they don't work, they will not lead to worser results in most cases. Although bad pictures due to such gadgets can result due to unnecessary loss of flash powers, there is also the chance of missed shots due to longer recycle times. Secondary costs exist too in the form of increased battery usage etc., but this is really nitty gritty.