Reading mode: Light Dark

Puffers PUF-01 diffusers on 24ex heads in a detachable way?

Go to last post
J

jpr2

Forum Pro
Messages
15,554
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,781
Location
FR
in the past some users have shown here stunning examples of
macros obtained with a help of the 24ex twin flash AND diffused
with Gary's Fong Puffers.

So, finally I took a plunge and ordered them too. However,
is there a way to attach these Puffers to the twin heads of the 24ex
in a reversible, that is a detachable way? Do you have your own
solutions which proven themselves in a field? Some ad hoc means
are certainly working, but so far all I've tried are sort of flimsy and not
exactly elegant,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
Yes I bought a set and attached them with a small amount of velcro, but can still push on the Stofens. After using both the Stofens & the puffer, I much prefer the Stofens for use with the MPE65; the puffers interfere with the modelling light on the MT24ex and produce an image that is lacking in shadows and is just too flat, IMO. I thus prefer the Stofens for the MPE65, however prefer the puffer for my other macro lenses (60, 100 & 180L).

Kind regards
Stephen
jpr2 said:
in the past some users have shown here stunning examples of
macros obtained with a help of the 24ex twin flash AND diffused
with Gary's Fong Puffers.

So, finally I took a plunge and ordered them too. However,
is there a way to attach these Puffers to the twin heads of the 24ex
in a reversible, that is a detachable way? Do you have your own
solutions which proven themselves in a field? Some ad hoc means
are certainly working, but so far all I've tried are sort of flimsy
and not
exactly elegant,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Click to expand...
 
bed bug said:
Yes I bought a set and attached them with a small amount of velcro,
but can still push on the Stofens. After using both the Stofens & the
puffer, I much prefer the Stofens for use with the MPE65; the puffers
interfere with the modelling light on the MT24ex and produce an image
that is lacking in shadows and is just too flat, IMO. I thus prefer
the Stofens for the MPE65, however prefer the puffer for my other
macro lenses (60, 100 & 180L).
Click to expand...
Stephen,
velcro was one of the means I tried already, perhaps I should put myself
more to this task and try to work harder on it, as velcro was perhaps
among the best and most convenient.
As to the flatness of lighting as rendered by the puffer - I agree, it gives
sort of very even scene-of-the-major-surgery kind of a look. On the other
hand I did not find Puffers being more obstructive than Stoffens towards
allowing modeling lights to do their (very, very flimsy) job - one just needs
to mount Puffers pretty low on the 24ex heads. In fact, if mounted like this,
they seem to be less obstructive - the rectangular bulk of Stoffenses
extends more - although both Puffer and Stoffen extend abut the same
distance from the head if measured straight on.

So far, out of all these experiments, the simple, flat pieces of semi
translucent plastic, like cuts from a milk jug, worked best. Least troubles
with putting flash heads in non-colliding way when shutting mpe65 and
24ex together at mags. higher than 3x. This is my major problem with
both Stoffens and Puffers - they just do not fit between the lens and
the target at 3-5x - how do you cope with this? Taking the heads off and
holding them separately with one of yours ten spare arms :))

kind regards,
jpr2
---

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
With the Velcro on the puffers, I have mounted a small semi-circle piece just on the flat part on the inside and a corresponding small semicircle on the flash; they don't grip fantastically but enough to do the job. I agree with the puffers getting in the way at high magnifications and you can only use them at the high flash positions on the flash bracket, otherwise they bang into things. I have not had this problemswith the Stofens as they can be somewhat pushed back onto the flash head.

If you wanted to mount the flash heads off camera, you could buy a Novoflex twin arm flash mount: http://www.adorama.com/NVMFBWFA.html

I did buy one of these but they are so heavy I have hardly picked it up. This would be best used on a tripod.

Kind regards
Stephen
jpr2 said:
Stephen,
velcro was one of the means I tried already, perhaps I should put myself
more to this task and try to work harder on it, as velcro was perhaps
among the best and most convenient.
As to the flatness of lighting as rendered by the puffer - I agree,
it gives
sort of very even scene-of-the-major-surgery kind of a look. On the
other
hand I did not find Puffers being more obstructive than Stoffens towards
allowing modeling lights to do their (very, very flimsy) job - one
just needs
to mount Puffers pretty low on the 24ex heads. In fact, if mounted
like this,
they seem to be less obstructive - the rectangular bulk of Stoffenses
extends more - although both Puffer and Stoffen extend abut the same
distance from the head if measured straight on.

So far, out of all these experiments, the simple, flat pieces of semi
translucent plastic, like cuts from a milk jug, worked best. Least
troubles
with putting flash heads in non-colliding way when shutting mpe65 and
24ex together at mags. higher than 3x. This is my major problem with
both Stoffens and Puffers - they just do not fit between the lens and
the target at 3-5x - how do you cope with this? Taking the heads off and
holding them separately with one of yours ten spare arms :))

kind regards,
jpr2
---

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Click to expand...
 
I tried many combinations of settings and various diffusers in order
to avoid that boring "surgical" look of overly even lighting:

like 1 Puffer + 1 Stoffen; or 1 diffuser + 1 bare head, at various
ratios of power between A & B; also varying subject's and heads
distance - but it is rather hard to do when these critters are moving
constantly and everything changes so quickly;

but will try some more for sure - esp. as 1 Puffer + 1 plain bit of white
(or semitranslucent) plastic seems to give most pleasing results;

as to the velcro - two strips on both sides of a Puffer, all way along;
with a corresponding pieces on heads, far enough to still leave a space
to push Stoffens into their position, are looking best for me so far.
And it is possible to manipulate position of a Puffer higher or lower on
a head (even to an extent to expose that pesky modeling light).

However, I sort of hope that someone might devise a better way to
diffuse light on 24ex - every day brings so many inventions :)

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
Odd that you find the lighting to be "surgical" -I've never seen that effect in my photos. I always shoot with one flash head at the top and one flash head on the side. If the critter id facing to my right I turn the flash mount so that one of the flash heads is on the right, and if the critter is facing the left I turn the mount to place on head on the left.

If you are placing both flash heads toward the top of the lens, or 180 degrees apart, then the light will look flat...

Examples of what I've done with the Puffers. Note that I am no longer using them: I contacted a company that makes diffusion plastics and they sent me some engineering samples.

For the dragons I had an 81A waring filter on the MPE-65 (and it's never coming off):







On my finger:







--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
John K said:
Odd that you find the lighting to be "surgical" -I've never seen that
effect in my photos. I always shoot with one flash head at the top
and one flash head on the side. If the critter id facing to my right
I turn the flash mount so that one of the flash heads is on the
right, and if the critter is facing the left I turn the mount to
place on head on the left.

If you are placing both flash heads toward the top of the lens, or
180 degrees apart, then the light will look flat...
Click to expand...
Hi John,

long time not seen your non-croppers on this forum.
Thank you for your insights and observations. What ratio between the
overhead and the side head are you using (or were using) with the Puffers?
John K said:
Examples of what I've done with the Puffers. Note that I am no longer
using them: I contacted a company that makes diffusion plastics and
they sent me some engineering samples.
Click to expand...
The new source for "ever better and rising" diffusers seems intriguing :).
John K said:
Click to expand...
of all your examples today, this is the only one with a semblance of something
approaching a well defined shadow. And I do find prevalence of shadows in
a natural world one of the most important factors in not appearing like
at the surgical operating theater :). Mind, they are all excellently lighted,
there is no grain of doubt about, but... shadow-less. Mine are as well
lighted only sparingly, and on top of it they are usually flat-looking with
the 24ex.

And yet I never (perhaps need to emphasize this - NEVER) had this
problem using a simple, DIY diffuser:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qmusaget/1852566819/
(I know, boring as you saw this diffuser many, many times, so just as
an illustration).

With the 24ex, either bare, or with any combination of diffusers as
described previously, such good results are achievable by me only in a
studio conditions (rather often - granted), and much more rarely in a
field.

kind regards,
jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
of all your examples today, this is the only one with a semblance of
something approaching a well defined shadow.
Click to expand...
OK, I see what you're driving at. Weather or not you see shadows depends a lot on the scene. In some of my high magnification shots you won't see a shadow simply because the ground isn't included. The image of the bee on my finger is an exception because of the way I had the flash heads positioned -the critter is looking to the left but I had my key light (the side light) on the right. The reflection in the eyes gives the flash head position away:



Now let's look at the same bee and finger model (your's truly ;) but with the flash heads positioned to make the shadow visible:



Critter's looking to the left and the key light is to the left as well. Even though my finger is curved you still see some shadow.

More examples with the fill light (the top flash) and the key light (the side flash) properly positioned:





With the high magnification shots you have to look at the way the light falls over the subject -clearly there are shadows here because the light isn't even:



No other flash will give you the kind of three dimensional lighting that you can get with the MT-24EX nor will you get this level of shadow control. But you have to be careful how you position the lights -I look at every scene and position the flash heads before I move in. After a little practice it will be automatic for you.

If you want harsh shadows then you'll have to use a single light source like a standard flash and diffuser. A friend of mine is using a piece of 20x30cm piece of plastic to pull of flash shots that look like natural light. It all depends on what you want the final image to be...

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
I tried the velcro but it did not work for me. So instead I devised a much better solution - will post some pics alter.
--
Waldo Nell
 
John K said:
If you want harsh shadows then you'll have to use a single light
source like a standard flash and diffuser. A friend of mine is using
a piece of 20x30cm piece of plastic to pull of flash shots that look
like natural light. It all depends on what you want the final image
to be...
Click to expand...
what prompts you to say that? nowhere I said to be after "harsh"
shadows :). Some nice, naturally looking would be certainly fine, though.
And believe it or not, but the idea to use a really big sheet of semi-
translucent plastic, connected to the front of the mpe65 (the same
way as with mine DIY diffuser), and then curving all the way back,
to be somehow hooked by that black Puffer's gizmo - just enough
to catch bursts from an on board flash, is a next item on my agenda.

Already have the front part (plastic and a filter's thread) ready, but
haven't devised yet a way to hook it up at the back).

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
what prompts you to say that? nowhere I said to be after "harsh"
shadows :). Some nice, naturally looking would be certainly fine,
though.
Click to expand...
Sorry -I did say that wrong! :)
jpr2 said:
And believe it or not, but the idea to use a really big sheet of semi-
translucent plastic, connected to the front of the mpe65 (the same
way as with mine DIY diffuser), and then curving all the way back,
to be somehow hooked by that black Puffer's gizmo - just enough
to catch bursts from an on board flash, is a next item on my agenda.
Click to expand...
Careful getting the light source too far away from the flash -the duration of the flash will go up and your ability to freeze motion and get sharp images will go down...

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
John K said:
Careful getting the light source too far away from the flash -the
duration of the flash will go up and your ability to freeze motion
and get sharp images will go down...
Click to expand...
this was my reasoning - as why to for a curved surface? that other,
simple DIY diffuser certainly works rather fine; but at the same time is
quite far away from a firing head. Hence, bringing diffuser closer on
top, and yet further away at the bottom (point of lens fixture of it),
should have a twofold effect: a target will get more variable light - leading
to more naturally looking shots (do you remember perfect macros shown
here about 1-2 months ago by Arcadius from Poland? I wonder why he
doesn't post more often!!); and getting diffuser closer to head should
help in preventing the effects you mention above. Preliminary test
seems to confirm the "theory" with some practical corroboration.

I'm all the time on a search for means to make my macro gear as portable
as possible - just in order to have it always with me when I'm carrying a
camera (which is... just about everyday :)),

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
John K said:
Careful getting the light source too far away from the flash -the
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry -I didn't proof read that well. I meant to say "don't get the flash too far away from the subject".

Getting the flash close to the subject not only means that the flash duration will be short (and you can freeze motion better) but it also means that you can get away with using a smaller diffuser due to the apparent light size principle:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/07/lighting-102-unit-21-apparent-light.html

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
John K said:
Getting the flash close to the subject not only means that the flash
duration will be short (and you can freeze motion better) but it also
means that you can get away with using a smaller diffuser due to the
apparent light size principle:
Click to expand...
I will certainly look into many aspects of a huge diffusers use at close quarters,
and pretty soon too; John, I know that you're not only an expert user
of mpe65+24ex, but a wizard with them too, but... have you ever used one
of that DIY inventions? You know... they do work too :) And surface being
large doesn't necessarily means the flash output needs to be huge as well.

One of the reasons is that a big surface submits to a sum of light from many

angles all at once - and ETTL "sees" it all. Perhaps the only vital requirement

is... that at least part of a diffuser is really close to a subject (where a "really
close" sometimes might mean 70cm or more - like with most of these
examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/qmusaget/1096538470 ; all
done with an aid of extremely modes means: 70-300/IS non-DO, and on
board flash; and yet I certainly struggled latter on to get even closely similar
results with the mpe65 :)),

jpr2

PS and one more thing - lately I'm experimenting a lot with 24ex and 550ex for
IIFs using a H-sync mode, and flash durations of 1/1000-1/2500 (sometimes

even shorter) AND that DIY kind of diffusers - and yet, very often it is possible
to "pump" bursts of 4-5 shots at 6fps from both of these (modest as they are)
flash units. Which means that their power outputs just MUST be small enough,
as otherwise they will need to charge much longer than between such series at
6fps - don't you agree?
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
There are a lot of different ways to get from point A to point B -and I'll never sit here and tell you that I know which way is best ;)

But here's what I do know about flash macro: One of the big misconceptions is that the flash duration, no matter how long, will freeze motion and it's just not true. Once I realized that flash macro was really nothing but a form of stop motion photography, and once I started doing things to get my flash duration as short as possible, the sharpness of my images improved. It doesn't even matter if you use a tripod, in fact the motion that I'm most concerned about is the subject -I can't stop the wind from blowing a flower or the subject from moving no matter what I use to brace the camera...

The more distance you put between your flash and the subject the more light the flash has to produce to give you a proper exposure. Since the intensity of that light doesn't significantly change from exposure to exposure the only way to put more light into the scene is for the flash to turn on for a longer duration. But that duration is really your shutter speed, since there isn't enough natural light in most macro shots to be registered by the sensor in the camera (unless you shoot with a small Fstop or a high ISO) so the shutter speed you have the camera set to is irrelevant. The longer the flash duration the slower your virtual shutter will become...

FWIW this is what I can do at 2x hand held:



This is 3x, also hand held:



No tripod -I just look for ways to brace the camera and then rely on an insanely short flash duration to freeze any motion...

I'm not saying that what you want to do won't work -it will definitely diffuse the light from the camera's flash. But odds are the duration of that light won't be short enough to give you sharp images...

--
My Blog: http://www.no-cropping-zone.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
http://photos.dalantech.com

Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder... ;)
 
John,

absolutely excellent captures - and I just love the eye in the I-st one :).
John K said:
Since the intensity of that light doesn't significantly change from
exposure to exposure the only way to put more light into the scene is
for the flash to turn on for a longer duration. But that duration is
really your shutter speed, since there isn't enough natural light in
most macro shots to be registered by the sensor in the camera (unless
you shoot with a small Fstop or a high ISO) so the shutter speed you
have the camera set to is irrelevant. The longer the flash duration
the slower your virtual shutter will become...
Click to expand...
[....]
John K said:
I'm not saying that what you want to do won't work -it will
definitely diffuse the light from the camera's flash. But odds are
the duration of that light won't be short enough to give you sharp
images...
Click to expand...
for a long time this was exactly my reasoning too - and esp. so since these
experiments and measurements of Jim Harrison about two months ago, you
might still remember too. However, consider this, and just assume:
  • you're using H-sync mode and a II-nd curtain sync;
  • and a flash which is capable to perform at such a regime - say, 24ex;
  • and then suppose you're using 1/8000 sec. duration of SS;
  • all this is possible - you can check it with your unit if you wish :).
So, how to reconcilliate all the above? Certainly it can not be that camera
just "waits" with the II-nd curtain until ETTL pumps enough light for the
proper exposure, as this would invalidate the 1/8000 sec. Tv settings.

Which to me means that there are some means by which 24/550ex (and
perhaps other units capable of H-sync operation, but of course I can only
attest to the ones I have, and checked) is capable of pumping more energy.
By "more" I mean of course the sufficient amount. As it happens I'm trying
to convince Jim to return to the same kind of measurements, but with
flashes operating in a ETTL mode.

jpr2

PS all the above is obviously not applicable, to the on board flashes, so in
this part I do agree wholly with what you argued for.
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top