TCGirl asked the obvious: for samples of that Gary Fong diffuser in action. It's late, so I don't have a live subject, but here are a couple still-life samples (with the top "dome" in place for minimum bounced light). I think the difference is amazing for an add-on you hardly feel is there.
Notice that this LightSphere Cloud also warms up the light a bit, which is great. (If it were me, I'd make flash light a compromise between daylight and indoor light, because it usually seems too cold.)
With direct flash:
With bounced flash:
With diffuser:
With direct flash:
With bounced flash:
With diffuser:
I've also ordered his "amber dome", for when you want to mix flash with indoor light and you want even warmer flash light than this.
I must say that I believe that most on-camera flash photography is pointless without a diffuser. If I sold flashguns, I would include one, or perhaps sell a kit cheaply. It would cost very little extra, and the customers would be delighted with the difference.
Update: the question was raised whether the LightSphere and similar solutions have a large enough surface to make for softer light when there are no walls to provide bounced light. Good point. Well, the front of my flash is about 6x3 cm, 18 cm2, and my bouncer is about 7x9 cm, 63 cm2, so there's some difference in area. I went out in the dark, braving the potential paranoia of my neighbors if anybody saw me, and took a couple flash photos under the sky, lo below. I would say that without any walls, you do get the shadows, but they are softer.
(There are two different phenomena: the contrast between the shadows and light, meaning how dark are the shadows. And the sharpness of the edge between the shadows and light. The former comes from ambient light (like bounced light), and the latter from the surface area of the light source (like the flash head or the diffusing device).)
With direct flash:
With diffuser:
So I would say that clearly you get nicer light if you have nearby near-white walls to help, but that goes for any hand-held solution I have heard of.
------
Ray said:
Just wondering - has anyone tried making their own using ordinary household plastic bottles? Some of those have a 'milky' opacity similar to that diffuser. (Cheap, nasty, and available at any grocery store!)
Yes, I think that should work if you're handy with a knife to cut out (part of) the bottom (for the bounce light) and to make it fit the flash. It's even larger than the LightSphere so should be softer.
8 comments:
While I understand that you like your Fong diffuser, I've compared a number of flash gadgets
http://lightdescription.blogspot.com/search/label/gadgets
(but not the Fong) and sincerely believe that a simple bounce with a white reflector card is the best option (and certainly the least expensive). Try it!
Diffusers diffuse light they don't make it soft. If you look at the last two examples you will see the shadows have a hard edge transfer. Most people mistake a low contrast shadow as soft light.
Soft light is created when the light source is large relative to the subject. Think overcast day (soft) versus a clear sky (hard).
Fong and the like will not work outside, in open interiors, nor in a room with dark walls. They fill in the shadows by spreading the light out everywhere. The light will also pick up a color cast from the walls and ceiling it bounces off of. Can make your subjects look sick if there is a green wall near by.
I just love "pro" shooters who bounce their diffused flashes off of the clear sky (not that clouds would help).
I should have the wife order some Chinese take-out soup so I can get me one of the fong lights to play with.
Eolake said...
"I've also ordered his "amber dome", for when you want to mix flash with indoor light and you want even warmer flash light than this."
I look forward to seeing the results of that.
"I must say that I believe that most on-camera flash photography is pointless without a diffuser."
It's definitely not as nice looking, that's for sure! Thanks for showing the variations. It turns out that light is quite FUN to play with, I'm finding, myself! :-)
Yes, I'm finding a bit of a renaissance in this myself.
And indeed photography is "painting with light", and many of the most striking photos in the world has striking light in them.
Your plants urgently need a haircut!
A diffuser does not solve that problem.
All the best for 2010
Chris
EO, thanks for doing this series. I find the three with the teddy bear in it interesting. I'm looking at the shadow below the monitor.
With direct flash, it's very obvious where the light source is due to the shadow.
With bounced light, there's a shadow there, but it's hard to tell where it's coming from.
With difused light, more of the shadow from above came back.
I would have expected the bounced and difused to be exactly the opposite, shadow wise.
(It's because the diffuser is quite high over the lens.)
Try also looking at the bear's belly and the eye-sockets of the Buddha, they are quite dark with bounced light.
Gee, EO it looks like you're right. In portriat work, I can see this setup work could be quite critical. Not so good if there's any kind of movement in the subject (aka. a car driving down the street).
Post a Comment