flash diffusor???

[winparkman]

Gray, let's take a look at the simple physics. You suggest that physics says light gets more diffuse when it comes from a large area. So, sunlight should be really diffuse, right?

There is more than the size of the light source to diffuse soft light. More than a flimsy little card, too.

Some work a lot better than others and I think the Gary Fongs do a pretty good job if you combine them with good flash technique.

And I think it's the "good flash technique" that's doing a pretty good job...not any attachment you might have.

It's simple physics. You cannot give light a quality of "soft". The soft-light effect is produced by diffused light from a large area. That's why bounce from the ceiling works. All flash attachments represent a tiny area in comparison to even a small umbrella. Any light that a LightSphere is going to throw forward is exactly the same as light from a "flimsy card" or any other attachment.

.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[winparkman]

So, Gray...exactly what is your physics background? I am curious because you have staked out the expert role in physics and physics is actually pretty complicated.

Both Fong and Sto-Fen say the same thing...that their attachments creates a "bare-bulb effect."

I have no idea what that means!

^^^ Finally you speak the truth ^^^

Resorting to witless insults...a typical reaction to being unable to defend a position with science or even sound reasoning.

It was not unexpected.

.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

 

[ZorSy]

Though it looked like the war in some of the previous posts, here is my thought:

I bought "tupperware" when I got flash, thinking it might work (and I was not new to flash photography). Nevertheless, it was left forgotten at the back of the shelf as it did not do "magic". It's interesting how nobody tried to explain that GF difuser actually does both, providing some direct light and as well bounce of the ceiling (being used at 45 deg angle). But, the catch is it "steals" huge amount of light, scattering it around withlout real purpose (or use). Even so, the bounced side-light may hit the coloured walls and give undesired cast.

As the result of this and for the portability purposes, I turned back to what I already knew and used - bounced flash and the reflector card (when the ceiling is white or light enough). But looking at you guys with D90/7000 and high ISO/low noise cameras (compared to my humble D80), you can easily use 1600+ and fill flash to provide some direct light with few EVs down dialed on the flash for most applications - I'd say more important for this is to have gels (colour correction filters) to match the ambient light, rather than spending money on GF "thingy".

Anyway, it really depends on application - it's hard to win having portability and "proper" lighting. Multi flash setup would be great for posed or known events, but how convenient is moving umbrellas around (unless one have assistants to do this, yet that is another cup of tea alltogether). Just my thought.

BTW, I again use GF thingy with 11-18 Tammy when bounce is the problem.

 

[westerner]

I have the Lightsphere universal, amber dome and chrome dome. Works well in specific instances. I also use a Opteka 8" x 6" soft box on my SB-900. I mount the flash on a flash bracket with SC-29 sync-cord. This is key to getting optimum results This set-up works very well for a variety of different shots, from close-ups to group shots. I generally use slow-sync from a tripod if shooting adult subjects that can hold still, as this gives a beautiful balance between ambient and fill flash. Leaves almost no shadows, diffuses nicely, and leaves a nice "twinkle" in the eyes of the subject - very cool. Omni-bounce is OK, but usefulness is limited. I don't use it hardly ever.
K.B.

 

[JEPH]

You've got it Graystar. When I see the "improvements" of various small flash accessories (like diffusers ), their major "improvement" is solely the reduction of the level of flash, resulting in slightly less flash "artifacts" due to attenuation, not diffusion.

The relative distance to the object (considering diffuser size) is more important than the object size...

I'm not even sure what a relative distance is, but for soft light the size of the diffused source, relative to the size of the subject is the most important determinant of the softness of the light.

There is still a considerable difference between the small white card and a 5x larger grey card (or lightsphere or such) when used as fill with ceiling bounce at 2 m distance.

No, there isn't. They both act as point light sources. What they both do is to send a small amount of light forward to lift shadows a bit. That's what improves the image.

.

[/U]

 

[Graystar]

Gray, let's take a look at the simple physics. You suggest that physics says light gets more diffuse when it comes from a large area. So, sunlight should be really diffuse, right?

No, that's not what I said. I had said that the soft-light effect is produced by diffused light coming from a large area. Two points on that...Patco corrected my response by adding the word "relative", as in a relatively large area compared to the subject. Second point is that I'm assuming the light is diffused already. I did not touch on the subject of creating diffused light.

Soft light is not diffused light. Diffusion is the scattering of reflected light, and is a quality of a surface. Diffusion does not depend on a size of a surface. Soft-light is an effect created by diffused light coming from an area representing a large angular size from the subject's point of view.

Sunlight isn't diffused because all the light is traveling a parallel course by the time it reaches us. Even if sunlight were diffused, it couldn't provide a soft-light effect because its angular size is only 0.52 degrees...smaller than a dime at the end of your outstretched arm.

.

 

[JEPH]

The best advice that anyone gave me for getting flash to not look like flash was on this website

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

This guy is one of the masters of on-camera flash.

No, he isn't, at least if that link leads to his images.

Take a look at the bride posed in front of an accidentally crooked window!! You've got this busy strongly colored crooked window behind the bride and almost the same width as the bride, acompletely squashing her, her skin tone, and the sand colored periphery.

The bride's face can't compete, as it's presenting in very "tired" lighting.

Truly terrible composition, terrible lighting, terrible camera technique.

Sorry.

 

[Cookster670]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at Winparkman..maybe i'm misunderstanding, but direct sunlight, is not a large source of light, it's actually a very small source of light (relative to it's distance from Earth), hence why it is so harsh.

Sunlight on overcast day through clouds is diffused light though

physics aside, which is not my speciality at all, it's well known that the closer and larger a light source, the more diffused / or softer it is.

I don't think anyone is arguing any different here are they ?

As for diffusers...i have used a stofen and demb flip it, They can help in certain circumstances at the cost of power. They cannot be applied to all situations, but the demb is more versatile than most in my opinion. When i can, i try bounce off a wall or behind me. I no longer bounce off the ceiling (as i used to) because of the raccoon eye effect

Gray, let's take a look at the simple physics. You suggest that physics says light gets more diffuse when it comes from a large area. So, sunlight should be really diffuse, right?

--
****************
Nikon D80. Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 28-200, SB600

'I am a better critic than photographer'

 

[Graystar]

So, Gray...exactly what is your physics background? I am curious because you have staked out the expert role in physics and physics is actually pretty complicated.

Please show me where I said I was an expert in physics. You don't have to a physics professor to understand physics, and you don't have to complete knowledge of the entire realm of physic to have knowledge in particular areas of interest.

In this case the physics are simple, so anyone can easily understand. It's all about the reflective properties of a surface, and the angular size of a light source. There's a great deal written about this on the practical and experimental level, such as these sites. The first link demonstrates that using a diffusion dome is worse than using a small bounce card.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics3.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/07/lighting-102-unit-21-apparent-light.html
http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics3c.html
http://www.scantips.com/lights/umbrellas.html

.

 

[Patco]

Gray, let's take a look at the simple physics. You suggest that physics says light gets more diffuse when it comes from a large area. So, sunlight should be really diffuse, right?

Yes, the sun is a huge, but its apparent size, because of its great distance from us, makes it, in effect, a relatively small light source. As an analogy, my Lumiquest SoftBox is a huge light source when using it for close-up/macro, but is relatively small at a distance of, say, 20 feet.

If the sun was the same distance as the moon, it would appear to be about 400 (if I remember correctly) times larger, and should give nicely diffused light.
But, of course, we would all be dead ;-)

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[shetani]

Put a white plastic cup over the flash - should also work well

 

[_sem_]

The relative distance to the object (considering diffuser size) is more important than the object size...

I'm not even sure what a relative distance is, but for soft light the size of the diffused source, relative to the size of the subject is the most important determinant of the softness of the light.

There is still a considerable difference between the small white card and a 5x larger grey card (or lightsphere or such) when used as fill with ceiling bounce at 2 m distance.

No, there isn't. They both act as point light sources. What they both do is to send a small amount of light forward to lift shadows a bit. That's what improves the image.

You've got it Graystar. When I see the "improvements" of various small flash accessories (like diffusers ), their major "improvement" is solely the reduction of the level of flash, resulting in slightly less flash "artifacts" due to attenuation, not diffusion.

With a say 10cm gray card diameter and say 30cm target frame diagonal, there is considerable diffusion at .5m distance, still a bit at 2m, not really much at 5m. To get the same diffusion at 5m as you had at .5m, you need a a 100cm umbrella.

It is true that the sto-fens and alike do not increase the surface compared to the flimsy white card, they just fill the shadows a bit via bouncing, and mainly just eat light at longer distance and in the absence of reflective surfaces.

A larger grey card (and some of the commercial contraptions) leaves most of the light for the ceiling bounce just like the flimsy white one, and gives a similar amount of light (relatively small portion of the flash power) as the small white card for the front fill. For softening of the shadows this works at relatively short distances only.[/U]

 

[RacingMike]

the demo with umbrella, flash with and without diffusor is great!
thanks for the links!

 

[Neil van Niekerk]

The best advice that anyone gave me for getting flash to not look like flash was on this website

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

This guy is one of the masters of on-camera flash.

No, he isn't, at least if that link leads to his images.

Take a look at the bride posed in front of an accidentally crooked window!! You've got this busy strongly colored crooked window behind the bride and almost the same width as the bride, acompletely squashing her, her skin tone, and the sand colored periphery.

The bride's face can't compete, as it's presenting in very "tired" lighting.

Truly terrible composition, terrible lighting, terrible camera technique.

Sorry.

Hi there .. in checking my webstats, I noticed you posted the same on my blog as a comment. I'd like to offer my reply to your comments:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/1-natural-looking-flash/

...................................

I tried to copy and paste my complete reply here, but the DPreview forum software stopped me on the word count. But I do ask that you read my comment in that linked article.

There is no anger, nor a tantrum.
Just an explanation and an invitation.

best

Neil vN
http://neilvn.com/tangents/

--
http://neilvn.com/tangents/

 

[spbStan]

You are going to get 100 different suggestions because there is no one answer that fits all situations, you will likely use a number of them. The lack of single answer coupled with the lack of understanding light as it pertains to photography is very common on equipment forums that emphasis gear as the answer to every problem. It is not.

For some situations the GF LS works great, but in the wrong situations for its advantages it becomes a liability.

A bounce card works, sometimes but in most cases people use too much direct light(any more than 1/2 inch exposed to the subject if within 10 feet produces worse catch light than if none is used.

Bounce from the ceiling can be great, or it can ruin an otherwise good shot. Dominate light coming from a high angle is anything but flattering. The best bounce conditions rarely exist in real situation. If possible bounce up and behind to the rear wall and rear ceiling combine to produce light that is broad and diffused(defused in the send of consisting of non-parallel paths) Bouncing from one surface doe not produce diffused light. The Fong Lightsphere produces some difused light because it is using the entire room but concentrating light in a horizontal plane, so it is much more efficient than people who have not used it claim.

In reality the dome that comes with the SB900 and careful attention to flash level and direction can be just as effective as any light modifiers. You will likely start adding different home made and commercial modifiers to increase your options in different lighting environments.

I primarily shoot events, clubs and portraits and use the LightSphere 1/2 cloud universal quite often in clubs, and parties, never in larger venue events, and occasionally in portrait sessions along with other light sources(have 2 SB900s and a Sigma 530Super as slaves) and seldom use my 600w/s studio strobes anymore. I love the SB900, if it does not work well for someone, it is the user's problem not the flash.

My bag has a whole array of diffusers, speedlight snoots, gels, bounce cards, etc and they all are occasionally the best compromise.

Rather than getting any 3rd party flash modifiers yet, I suggest one of the flash workshops or several books or courses, it can shorten your learning period by years of experimenting. Nikonians.org, the largest Nikon user group, has some very good flash education programs and podcasts.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

 

[Cookster670]

Neil, for what it's worth, you don't need to defend yourself here. Your work and reputation speak for itself. I've studied your blog, listened to you on podcasts and "tried" to buy your book. (can't get it Australia)

I really like that photo..great example of lighting technique and composition.

Unfortunately this forum has become a place of nitpicking and nastiness. Lots of measurbators talking about pixels and stats, but very few of them ever post a picture.

The best advice that anyone gave me for getting flash to not look like flash was on this website

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

This guy is one of the masters of on-camera flash.

No, he isn't, at least if that link leads to his images.

Take a look at the bride posed in front of an accidentally crooked window!! You've got this busy strongly colored crooked window behind the bride and almost the same width as the bride, acompletely squashing her, her skin tone, and the sand colored periphery.

The bride's face can't compete, as it's presenting in very "tired" lighting.

Truly terrible composition, terrible lighting, terrible camera technique.

Sorry.

Hi there .. in checking my webstats, I noticed you posted the same on my blog as a comment. I'd like to offer my reply to your comments:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/1-natural-looking-flash/

...................................

I tried to copy and paste my complete reply here, but the DPreview forum software stopped me on the word count. But I do ask that you read my comment in that linked article.

There is no anger, nor a tantrum.
Just an explanation and an invitation.

best

Neil vN
http://neilvn.com/tangents/

--
http://neilvn.com/tangents/

--
****************
Nikon D80. Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 28-200, SB600

'I am a better critic than photographer'

 

[olynik969]

Omnibounce w/my SB800 and it works great. Cheap, and effective.

--
Nik-Nik

 

[RacingMike]

you are right
I thought it would be an easy post......
I will try to go at a flash workshop
and ...practice practice and practice

You are going to get 100 different suggestions because there is no one answer that fits all situations, you will likely use a number of them. The lack of single answer coupled with the lack of understanding light as it pertains to photography is very common on equipment forums that emphasis gear as the answer to every problem. It is not.
...

Rather than getting any 3rd party flash modifiers yet, I suggest one of the flash workshops or several books or courses, it can shorten your learning period by years of experimenting. Nikonians.org, the largest Nikon user group, has some very good flash education programs and podcasts.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

 

[larsbc]

for my D90 and SB600

Gary Fong Lightsphere Collapsible? Soft Box?

goal is to look like natural light (duh! lol) (out and indoor) and to remove the shadows while indoor....

for what I see, the Lumiquest Soft box alone doesn't seems to be enough...am I right?
any other solution?
two flashs?

I think you might want to focus on learning off-camera flash photography than an add-on for your flash. I say this because if you did, you would know that those small devices aren't going to be very useful unless you're shooting close-up. The softness of light is related to the size of the light source relative to the subject. A direct flash head can be soft, if it's held 3" away from a bug. But it can become a point source of light if it's held 6ft away from a person.

In other words, there's no single add-on solution for what you want. I strongly recommend reading up on lighting. There are lots of good websites to check out. Besides Neil's, I'd also recommend strobist.blogspot.com. For outdoor shooting, check out the articles that talk about using camera axis direct flash for fill lighting. You can get natural-looking, soft shadow results even while using direct flash. It all comes down to how well you balance the ambient and fill light.

FWIW I bought a large bounce-card kind of reflector when I shot a wedding where I knew for the mingling among the guests shots I'd need to use on-camera flash as fill for a sunny day, as well as main light for indoors. It was about 4"x6" in size but unless I was quite close (ie: 3 ft away), it really wasn't worth using it. The ceiling was dark wood so bounce wasn't really an option, either.

larsbc

 

[Graystar]

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/1-natural-looking-flash/

It would be helpful if you listed the flash used for each image. There's a big difference between pointing an SB-900 backwards and a 400 watt Quantum backwards.

.