José B
Forum Pro
--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lightsphere vs. Pro Max vs. Omni-Bounce on a 580ex
- Thread starter dewayne howse
- Start date
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
Okay, they're not completely useless. Just mostly useless.
These items are good for exactly one thing: increasing the angle of light projected from your flash unit. This can be extremely useful for flash photography from your 10mm lens.
Other than that, they're worthless.
You see, the softness of light projected on any subject is simply a matter of the size of the light source in relation to the size of your subject.
For instance, the sun is an extremely large light source. I'd even hazard to guess that Gary Fong doesn't offer a diffuser half the size of the sun. But direct sunlight is extremely harsh. Definitely not soft.
Why? Well, the sun's a very long way away. So relative to the subject being photographed, it's a tiny light source.
The same thing happens with these devices. Put one on your flash, which is on your camera, and it's as far away from your subject as your camera is. At typical portrait distances, that's over ten feet.
Now let's say you have an unusually large on-camera flash diffuser. How 'bout five by seven inches? Move it ten feet away and it's a very small light source. Can you imagine a portrait photographer with a 'soft box' that was only 5x7 inches? Heck, the flash tube in my Powerlight 1250 is nearly that big by itself.
But, you protest, you wanted to use it along with bouncing the flash off the ceiling. These items will help project some of the light forward when your flash is tilted upward. But so will an index card taped to your flash head. Keep in mind that bouncing can be a troublesome technique to pull off. Low white ceilings with no obstructions can be hard to come by.
If you want something that will truly soften your image, you need something big, like an umbrella. Umbrellas are measured in feet, not inches. A typical small one might be 36" (three feet) in diameter. Do you want that mounted to your camera? Of course not. At that point, you're talking about having stand-mounted flashes.
The sample photos that people post showing how well these items supposedly work are actually just examples of good fill-flash technique. And for that, you don't need to mount any platic gizmos to your flash at all.
Non-sense. That might have been an issue in the film days, but it's very easy to correct for color casts with digital. I shoot almost all bounced flash with a Lightsphere II indoors, and it's mainly a matter of just shooting, with an occassional shot of a WB reference card for WB correction later. Not a "troublesome" technique at all.
Using something like a LSII can turn an entire room into an "umbrella". And it's a lot less troublesome to use than an umbrella.
Actually, it's "good fill-flash technique" made easier to accomplish by these tools. In fact, they can often be so effective that you can just hand over your camera to a complete flash novice, and it will still deliver excellent results. For more experienced flash photographers, it simply helps you to get more pleasing results with less hassle, allowing you to concentrate on the composition and your subject. I'll take a flash diffuser "plastic gizmo" like an Omnibounce or a Lightsphere II over a bare flash any day. At their worst, the "plastic gizmos" are only slightly better than a bare flash, which still means it's better.
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
Depends on the color cast. How 'bout my living room? Orange walls with white ceiling. Move into my bedroom, and it's green walls with a white ceiling. "Why are all my shadows green...?"
I shoot
It can be. Rooms vary in size, color and layout. Ceilings can be flat drop ceilings, or they can have beams running across that trap light that's shot up at them. If you're moving and shooting rapidly, these are things to be aware of. I've seen a lot of raccoon eyes from people trying this technique.
It's a good thing I didn't have a mouthful of drink, or you'd owe me a new computer. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. You use an umbrella when you want or need control.
And as far as turning an entire room into an umbrella, there's the little matter of the inverse square law. Unless your room is a closet, that's not going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law
See the third bullet point.
If you think it helps your technique, then by all means. Some people think magnetism helps their arthritis, too.
In fact, they can often be so effective
More likely because you've already preset everything for them.
For more experienced
No, at their worst, they suck up four or more stops of flash power, leaving you waiting for your battery to recharge for your next shot. Not to mention how obcenely expensive they are for what you get. Now I use my Omnibounce...when I have my 8mm fisheye on my camera. It's great for that. But it doesn't turn rooms into umbrellas or make novices into experts. Gary Fong's sample photos are intentionally misleading. An experienced eye can tell that the difference in the photos isn't the gizmo, it's the shutter speed.
Sorry pal, but I do it all the time. This shot was taken with the LSII, which delivered a very pleasing "wrap-around" light that direct flash or even bounced direct flash does not deliver. Naked flash, even when bounced, still tends to be much more directional.
And even with the very wide angle of view, you get a very pleasing spread of light that naked flash just doesn't deliver. (Note that I did not have to bother with flipping down the flash's wide angle diffuser panel to get this shot.)
Furthermore, with regard to the inverse square law, what you fail to take into acount is that TTL flash metering will extend the duration of flash output (eg. the amount of flash exposure) until the metered subject gets enough exposure. That remains true whether the path of light goes straight from the flash to your subject, or is bounced off of surrounding walls first. We're not talking about manual flash output here! We're talking about dynamic TTL flash, and more specifically E-TTL2 flash, which measures the amount of light that is being reflected off the subject to determine flash exposure. E-TTL2 could care less about whether the flash light is bouncing off a closet-sized room or a banquet-sized room.
And by the way, I don't think an umbrella could have done any better. In fact, it probably would have done a lot worse-- unless you're talking about a massively large umbrella for this shot. And obviously, it would have been a much larger hassle, too. No thanks, I prefer the LSII's use of the surrounding walls and ceiling as its "umbrella".Sorry pal, but I do it all the time. This shot was taken with the
LSII, which delivered a very pleasing "wrap-around" light that
direct flash or even bounced direct flash does not deliver. Naked
flash, even when bounced, still tends to be much more directional.
That's why you take a WB reference shot in each room you shoot in. It's merely a matter of holding a WB card out in front of you and taking a flash shot of it.
No, the raccoon eyes comes from people using a naked bounce flash bouncing, resulting in almost all of the light raining down on the subject from the ceiling. It's this "from above" lighting that causes "raccoon eyes"-- basically the same as you would get if you were to shoot a portrait outside on a sunny day...under-eye shadows. When you have a product like the LSII, you have much more "fill" light filling in those "raccoon eyes" because the light isn't just coming from above but also directly at your subject, plus from all the surrounding walls and surfaces, resulting in a "wrap-around" lighting.
No, I would hand it over to them the same way that I would use the camera: mostly set to manual exposure, with E-TTL2 metering doing all the rest of the calculations, and with the LSII taking care of the flash distribution and diffusion.
Even in very, very large rooms, I've never had a problem with recycle times. But I use a 550EX, with high capacity rechargeble AA batteries, and if need be, I also use my CP-E3 battery pack. The results are worth it.
All an umbrella is is a large reflective surface off of which the flash bounces, thus greatly increasing the source of the light. The walls and ceiling of a room can do the same thing,
There are plenty of users of the LSII that can vouch for its benefits.
Amy Schwalb
Well-known member
I bought the cloudy and the clear and they just arrived in the mail last week. Also I use The Shell for about eight months now.
I just tried out the lightsphere and was very pleased with the results even on a high ceilings; I'm still getting used to the system. It can fill a big space this is good news for me as I do mainly wedding photography.
I took a picture of my dog who has a very glossy coat w/ the lightsphere; I was amazed that she didn't have all the usual glare. Her eyes were dilated too, which surprised me.
I also like that the lighting is very even all through the frame and the shadows are minimal. There's is no spotlight look to the flash as w/ a naked direct flash.
Amy
I just tried out the lightsphere and was very pleased with the results even on a high ceilings; I'm still getting used to the system. It can fill a big space this is good news for me as I do mainly wedding photography.
I took a picture of my dog who has a very glossy coat w/ the lightsphere; I was amazed that she didn't have all the usual glare. Her eyes were dilated too, which surprised me.
I also like that the lighting is very even all through the frame and the shadows are minimal. There's is no spotlight look to the flash as w/ a naked direct flash.
Amy
Justme
Forum Pro
Why is the Omnibounce "about one notch above useless"? I seem to recall you doing some tests with the Omnibounce (lost of detail?). My LSII (clear and cloudy) has just arrived and I can't wait to try them out. I also have the Omnibounce.
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
--I have all three and the Lightspehere is my favorite. The
Omnibounce is about one notch above useless IMHO so I'll leave it
at that. The Promax is great but it's cumbersome and time consuming
to attach/remove because of the three individual velcro tabs. The
Lightsphere is easy to take on and off and gives the best light
quality IMHO.
--
Todd Walker...Canon TenD, Canon GThree, Canon Ess410, Panasonic FZ20
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
http://www.twphotography.net
I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
Please let me know which you prefer and for what applications do you think they are better for. I can't decide which to get and I don't want to get both right off. Its a hobby and I don't really use much flash outside the home although I might just start with these babies.
Thanks in advance.
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=598880
Thanks in advance.
--
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=598880
Kansas Ron
Senior Member
I just ordered the cloudy from B&H yesterday. It is recommended for portraits. The clear is said to be better for large group shots and I will probably order one too.
--
(See profile for equipment)
--
(See profile for equipment)
Chuck Gardner
Forum Pro
The premise of which diffuser is best is pointless because there's no one size fits all solution to lighting. What is far more important? Predictable creative control of the lighting on the subject and separation of the subject from a distracting background.
It helps to understand the physics of light as it relates to its character and intensity. The sharpness of the highlight/shadow transitions is a fuction of two variables, the size of the light source and its distance. At the same distance a larger lightsource will produce more diffuse shadows. But if the larger source is moved futher away three things happen; the apparent size of the source decreases, the highlight/shadow transitions along the axis of the light become more sharply defined and the light falls off in intensity behind the subject less rapidly.
The best creative control of lightng is obtained when separate sources for key light and fill are used. Separate sources allow the key light to be positioned precisely for the most flattering eye catching pattern on a subject's face and more importantly kept off distracting details in the background. A separate key light source allows selection of a modifier appropriate to the distance to the subject for the desired soft/hard character of the light. Any off axis light will create shadows which can either define the features of the face naturally or create unflattering distractions. Placing the key light about 45 degrees from the centerline of the nose (regardless of which way it is pointing relative to the camera) and about 20-30 degrees will produce a very flattering "short" lighting pattern on the front of the face which will contrast the face with a darker background very effectively.
The lack of detail in shadows is distracting so off axis key lighting requires some source of fill. The addition of front-to-back fill to the sideways component of the key light will act to soften the highlight/shadow transition of the key light. Thus you can actually "soften" the appearance of the key light by using low-ratio fill.
The single flash diffusion systems mentioned all share a common trait when used indoors; spliting the single light source into key and fill components. The "key" component intended to create the modeling of the features is bounced off the ceiling. The direction the light will actually strike the subject's face depends on the height of the ceiling and the distance to the subject. The biggest pitfall of ceiling bounce is that the downward direction of the resulting "key" lighting really isn't very flattering. When used close the steep downward angle off the ceiling may result in the brow shading the eye sockets. Dark orbits are the telltale sign that bounce was used. The light splitters try to overcome that problem by allowing 20% or so of the flash intensity to project straight forward. A card attached to a flash head aimed at the ceiling will produce about the same result.
I learned flash photography by shlepping the off camera flash of the photographer I worked for around wedding receptions. Fill was provided by an identical flash on a bracket. He taught me how to postion it by eye for a short lighting pattern on the subject he was shooting. That's actually very easy without modeling lights. Just stand behind the light and when a perfect oblique view of the subject's face is visible the light will hit the face in a perfect short lighting pattern when viewed full face or from the opposite oblque angle. The flashes were direct and manual. Ratios where determined by controlling the relative distances of the lights to the subject. The combinations of 11ft fill 8ft key, 8ft/6ft and 6ft/4ft all produce a 3:1 highlight:shadow ratio for equal powered lights and the three distance combinations were each 1-stop different in exposure. Thus a 3 f/stop range of aperture covered about 90% of all shooting situations. The photographer I worked for was Monte Zucker and he literally introduced that simple two-light shooting technique to wedding photography and has taught it to thousands of working pros.
Styles and tastes change and vary but personally I don't feel that indoor photograph taken with flash should look like they were taken outdoors on an overcast day. Unless I want to intentionally show an entire room and all its distractions my model for lighting indoors is a stage. I seek to shine the spotlight on the "star" of the photo and let the distractions fade into a darker background. So when possible I'll use two lights, placing the key light on the subject's face and keeping it off the background with separate fill via a flash on a camera bracket. When two flashes are not feasible I;ll use a single flash on a bracket (to control the direction).
At shooting distances under 10ft I'll use a DIY direct-bounce reflector which captures 100% of the output of the flash as bounces it foward. A photo of what I've used is here: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/
No power is wasted illuminating the entire room. Yes the light is more direct than when tupperware is used to bounce off the ceiling but because I typically use two lights the fill softens the edges of the key light's highlight/shadow borders. When I use a single flash with the diffuser on a bracket the distracting head shadow falls out of sight behind the shoulders and the nose shadow falls down or behind it in a flattering way. Most importantly in either situation I have complete creative control of where the light will go and since the ceiling or other external factors don't affect the results they are predictable and consistent indoors and out, shot after shot. Yes umbrellas would produce better results, but they are not as portable. If I want better results than hot shoe flashes with direct bounce diffusers can produce I'll use studio lights and softboxes matching the tool to goal for the lighting.
CG
It helps to understand the physics of light as it relates to its character and intensity. The sharpness of the highlight/shadow transitions is a fuction of two variables, the size of the light source and its distance. At the same distance a larger lightsource will produce more diffuse shadows. But if the larger source is moved futher away three things happen; the apparent size of the source decreases, the highlight/shadow transitions along the axis of the light become more sharply defined and the light falls off in intensity behind the subject less rapidly.
The best creative control of lightng is obtained when separate sources for key light and fill are used. Separate sources allow the key light to be positioned precisely for the most flattering eye catching pattern on a subject's face and more importantly kept off distracting details in the background. A separate key light source allows selection of a modifier appropriate to the distance to the subject for the desired soft/hard character of the light. Any off axis light will create shadows which can either define the features of the face naturally or create unflattering distractions. Placing the key light about 45 degrees from the centerline of the nose (regardless of which way it is pointing relative to the camera) and about 20-30 degrees will produce a very flattering "short" lighting pattern on the front of the face which will contrast the face with a darker background very effectively.
The lack of detail in shadows is distracting so off axis key lighting requires some source of fill. The addition of front-to-back fill to the sideways component of the key light will act to soften the highlight/shadow transition of the key light. Thus you can actually "soften" the appearance of the key light by using low-ratio fill.
The single flash diffusion systems mentioned all share a common trait when used indoors; spliting the single light source into key and fill components. The "key" component intended to create the modeling of the features is bounced off the ceiling. The direction the light will actually strike the subject's face depends on the height of the ceiling and the distance to the subject. The biggest pitfall of ceiling bounce is that the downward direction of the resulting "key" lighting really isn't very flattering. When used close the steep downward angle off the ceiling may result in the brow shading the eye sockets. Dark orbits are the telltale sign that bounce was used. The light splitters try to overcome that problem by allowing 20% or so of the flash intensity to project straight forward. A card attached to a flash head aimed at the ceiling will produce about the same result.
I learned flash photography by shlepping the off camera flash of the photographer I worked for around wedding receptions. Fill was provided by an identical flash on a bracket. He taught me how to postion it by eye for a short lighting pattern on the subject he was shooting. That's actually very easy without modeling lights. Just stand behind the light and when a perfect oblique view of the subject's face is visible the light will hit the face in a perfect short lighting pattern when viewed full face or from the opposite oblque angle. The flashes were direct and manual. Ratios where determined by controlling the relative distances of the lights to the subject. The combinations of 11ft fill 8ft key, 8ft/6ft and 6ft/4ft all produce a 3:1 highlight:shadow ratio for equal powered lights and the three distance combinations were each 1-stop different in exposure. Thus a 3 f/stop range of aperture covered about 90% of all shooting situations. The photographer I worked for was Monte Zucker and he literally introduced that simple two-light shooting technique to wedding photography and has taught it to thousands of working pros.
Styles and tastes change and vary but personally I don't feel that indoor photograph taken with flash should look like they were taken outdoors on an overcast day. Unless I want to intentionally show an entire room and all its distractions my model for lighting indoors is a stage. I seek to shine the spotlight on the "star" of the photo and let the distractions fade into a darker background. So when possible I'll use two lights, placing the key light on the subject's face and keeping it off the background with separate fill via a flash on a camera bracket. When two flashes are not feasible I;ll use a single flash on a bracket (to control the direction).
At shooting distances under 10ft I'll use a DIY direct-bounce reflector which captures 100% of the output of the flash as bounces it foward. A photo of what I've used is here: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/
No power is wasted illuminating the entire room. Yes the light is more direct than when tupperware is used to bounce off the ceiling but because I typically use two lights the fill softens the edges of the key light's highlight/shadow borders. When I use a single flash with the diffuser on a bracket the distracting head shadow falls out of sight behind the shoulders and the nose shadow falls down or behind it in a flattering way. Most importantly in either situation I have complete creative control of where the light will go and since the ceiling or other external factors don't affect the results they are predictable and consistent indoors and out, shot after shot. Yes umbrellas would produce better results, but they are not as portable. If I want better results than hot shoe flashes with direct bounce diffusers can produce I'll use studio lights and softboxes matching the tool to goal for the lighting.
CG
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
Well, 'pal,' that shot is just as directional as from a naked flash. It was good technique, because you balanced the ambient light pretty well, but look at the ceiling. You see the shadow cast by the chandelier? That's the kind of shadow cast by...direct flash. Thanks for posting a photo that proves my point so clearly.Sorry pal, but I do it all the time. This shot was taken with the
LSII, which delivered a very pleasing "wrap-around" light that
direct flash or even bounced direct flash does not deliver. Naked
flash, even when bounced, still tends to be much more directional.
Like I said, one benefit of the gizmos is a wider angle of view.
What you fail to take into account here was that I wasn't talking about the exposure at all. I was talking about the ability of the walls to affect the quality of the light. Let's consider your example photo again (I couldn't have asked for a better example). Your dancers are probably ten feet away from the flash (I'm just guessing here, but it'll do for this example). Looking to the left and to the right of the dancers, I can see that the walls are quite a long way from them. At least twenty feet on either side. That's where the inverse square law gets you, because any light you hope to pick up from those walls has to travel at least forty feet.
That's four stops of light loss when dealing with a perfect reflector. Those walls don't look like mirrors, so you're looking at at least a stop and a half of absorbtion.
So your reflected light from the distant walls may contribute enough light that there's some 'wrap around' that's five and a half stops darker than the direct light from your flash. And I'm being generous with my assumptions here. For all intents and purposes, that's a direct flash. Just look at the shadow on the ceiling again for proof.
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
That helps, but it's not going to solve the problem of the shadows being a different color temperature from the highlights. Fortunately it's not a problem in the real world, because the lightsphere is direct flash, for all intents and purposes.
It is true that the raccoon eyes come frum using bounce flash by itself. But the lightsphere is just direct flash, so that's why you don't get raccoon eyes. A lot of high end flashes have 'wink lights' for filling in raccoon eyes when using bounce.
There are plenty of actors who vouch for Scientology as well...
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
Look at the floor. You can see a line of light that the flash is illuminating. Beyond this point, the light from the flash ceases to affect the exposure. That line is significantly closer to the camera than the walls on either the left or the right of the camera.
Thanks for posting such a great image.
Thanks for posting such a great image.
Todd Walker
Veteran Member
Yeah I did way back when I had my Oly E20:
http://www.toddwalker.net/e20/flashtest/index.htm
I am thinking about doing the same kind of thing again with my 10D since I have so many flash modifiers now ;-)
The Omnibounce just doesn't do much to diffuse the light. It doesn't make your light source any larger, it just makes it very slightly softer. It's better than nothing but every other modifier I've tried does a much better job. The LSII is hands down better.
--
Todd Walker...Canon TenD, Canon GThree, Canon Ess410, Panasonic FZ20
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
http://www.twphotography.net
Todd Walker
Veteran Member
Steve, please don't take this as a jab because that absolutely isn't my intent but I see many photos on your site that would have benefitted from a flash modifier to soften the light.
I disagree. Indirect flash is more flattering that direct flash, can we agree on that? Without a modifier of some sort you get raccoon eyes and uneven lighting because all of the light is coming from above. A modifier like the LS, Promax, etc allows you to bounce some light back at the subject which fills in the shadows. They also enlarge the light source which, as you state below, gives better quality light.
Right. And modifiers increase the size of the light source.
Yes but it's still larger than just the flash by itself.
An index card does a good job at filling shadows but it doesn't increase the size of the light source as much as a Lightsphere or Promax. As for low white ceilings, you are right. That's another great reason for using the Promax.
Of course an umbrella is going to be better but they aren't always practical are they? When you can't set up studio lights a modifier is the next best thing. Can you at least agree that a flash with a Lightsphere or Promax is better than just a flash alone? If not, please tell me why not.
That might be true but good fill flash technique with a larger, softer light source is going to give you better results than good fill flash technique with a smaller direct flash.
--
Todd Walker...Canon TenD, Canon GThree, Canon Ess410, Panasonic FZ20
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
http://www.twphotography.net
Travis Feisthamel
Senior Member
What do you recommend the clear or the cloudy version of the Lightsphere II?
--
Travis
http://www.photosbytravis.com
Canon EOS 30D, Digital Rebel and Powershot A80 User
--
Travis
http://www.photosbytravis.com
Canon EOS 30D, Digital Rebel and Powershot A80 User
Keith Andrews
Active member
The photos on your site are great. I have one 550ex flash. To use your technique to get similar results I would need another flash. Would you suggest another canon flash for the wireless and e-ttl?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum