My macro rig: A7RIII + Sony 90mm + TT350S (single)
Having tried different approaches for the most challenging part (diffusion!), I m currently seeing some much better results with this type of diffuser:
Having practised for some time with this specific diffuser, I wonder if I can get even better results or at least more 'keepers'
The vendor of this diffuser also offers a roof option, which sits on top of the above diffuser (with some strap support) and promises even more uniform light distribution
Now, just for reference (and for image copyright purposes..), this is the implementation for the Pope shield. But my question is vendor independent and goes to any advanced macro shooter who has experience shooting with/without a 'roof'
Does the roof really make a noticeable difference? Do you get consistently better lighting for your subjects? Vast majority of my shooting is in the 1:1 range, so really closeup, but yet again this is what those diffusers are made for - ideally you have to engulf the subject so that there's light everywhere, and very few shadows/dark areas
I m involved with macro for just over 3 years now, but still can't quite understand fully the ways of the light. If there is no roof, when the flash is firing, light that can 'hit' the diffuser is the usable one. But surely there is an amount of light (not sure if I can quantify it somehow..) which is just 'lost'. This is how I understand it. So logically at least, having a 'roof', which is basically an inner reflector should at least in theory create a 'light dome' within which light is abundant and uniform. That is why the diffuser/roof comes into different versions, to accommodate for the size of the lens and how tall the flash is. If the flash unit is too tall and cannot be tilted downwards, then there will be a lack of usable light hitting the diffuser. My TT350S tilts few degrees downwards, but still I feel that sometimes I could have more light towards the edges (diffuser part closer to the lens)
One downside of having a roof for sure - is the added bulk. Even with just the diffuser attached, sometimes I have to struggle to get close to the subject and have to manoeuvre around branches, twigs etc. Sometimes there is no room to do that - which means I either have to settle for a lesser shot - or lose a shot altogether. Adding a roof not only will make things worse in that respect but will also obstruct my view towards the subject
So for me having or not having a roof is not about the price as much as it is about practicality vs light improvement gain. So, what do you think? Does it worth it?
Having tried different approaches for the most challenging part (diffusion!), I m currently seeing some much better results with this type of diffuser:
Having practised for some time with this specific diffuser, I wonder if I can get even better results or at least more 'keepers'
The vendor of this diffuser also offers a roof option, which sits on top of the above diffuser (with some strap support) and promises even more uniform light distribution
Now, just for reference (and for image copyright purposes..), this is the implementation for the Pope shield. But my question is vendor independent and goes to any advanced macro shooter who has experience shooting with/without a 'roof'
Does the roof really make a noticeable difference? Do you get consistently better lighting for your subjects? Vast majority of my shooting is in the 1:1 range, so really closeup, but yet again this is what those diffusers are made for - ideally you have to engulf the subject so that there's light everywhere, and very few shadows/dark areas
I m involved with macro for just over 3 years now, but still can't quite understand fully the ways of the light. If there is no roof, when the flash is firing, light that can 'hit' the diffuser is the usable one. But surely there is an amount of light (not sure if I can quantify it somehow..) which is just 'lost'. This is how I understand it. So logically at least, having a 'roof', which is basically an inner reflector should at least in theory create a 'light dome' within which light is abundant and uniform. That is why the diffuser/roof comes into different versions, to accommodate for the size of the lens and how tall the flash is. If the flash unit is too tall and cannot be tilted downwards, then there will be a lack of usable light hitting the diffuser. My TT350S tilts few degrees downwards, but still I feel that sometimes I could have more light towards the edges (diffuser part closer to the lens)
One downside of having a roof for sure - is the added bulk. Even with just the diffuser attached, sometimes I have to struggle to get close to the subject and have to manoeuvre around branches, twigs etc. Sometimes there is no room to do that - which means I either have to settle for a lesser shot - or lose a shot altogether. Adding a roof not only will make things worse in that respect but will also obstruct my view towards the subject
So for me having or not having a roof is not about the price as much as it is about practicality vs light improvement gain. So, what do you think? Does it worth it?
