What type of diffuser..if any?

[night_day]

So after two weeks of taking over 1200 shots, I have a good feeling of my needs. After narrowing down to flash vs telephoto, with the help of POTN, I deciede on the flash. Its in the mail now, so I was wondering if I need a diffuser. My primary use of the flash will be indoor shots of my infant daughter (8 weeks!) Any suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks!

[SkipD]

I highly recommend the LumiQuest Promax System (http://www.lumiquest.com/lq931.htm) package rather than any of the "tupperware" diffusers.

The plastic diffusers all really require nearby (preferably white) reflective surfaces for them to do well. In my opinion, they are virtually useless except very close in when either outdoors or in large venues with no nearby reflective surfaces. In that sort of situation they waste a lot of the light, causing the batteries to be depleted far sooner than necessary.

The Promax System can be set up in several ways including bouncing 80% of the light off a nearby ceiling.

Getting the light source higher above the camera is usually beneficial for indoor 'people' shots, as it puts any shadows behind them lower on the background and making them less noticeable. Any of the diffusers which have the flash pointing up will do this. The Promax System gets the light source a little higher than most of the plastic diffusers.

[ekie]

im not flash expert but i have shot alot of 'kids' indoors with flash and best thing to do is bouncing. so familiarize yourself on how to bounce the flash and adding an index card to the flash also helps.

you can also create your own bounce card (www.abetterbouncecard.com (http://www.abetterbouncecard.com)) .. another option i have myself is the Demb Flip-It card. works pretty good for me, i get good results from it.

heres a good site to learn to get started using flash
http://www.planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html

have fun :D

[TMR Design]

I generally use my flash for outdoor fill lighting so I don't use diffusers on the 580EX but from everything I read, and the posts from some people around here that I respect quite a bit it seems that the Lumiquest Pro Max system gets a lot of praise. Certainly the Better Bounce Card works well and can be customized for your needs but if you are not a DIY kind of person or feel that the you want something that has more of a professional look with different attachments andinserts the Lumiquest Pro Max seem to be a very good choice.

There's lots of debate about methods of diffusion and the tupperware comes up every time. It's not for every one and it's not the most generic multi-purpose device, so unless you're going to carry a bag with specialty diffusers and 'lightspheres' I think that the Pro Max makes a lot more sense.

[JohnnyG]

After a couple thousand flash pictures, I'm very satisfied with my Sto-Fen! I guess some call it Tupperware or something else but it sure works well! I have no complaints and it's pretty inexpensive too!

[Curtis N]

The various devices out there all have their pros and cons. Before you start spending money, I suggest keeping things simple while you learn how to use your flash to control light.

I own a few of the aforementioned devices, but to be honest, I use a simple bounce card (index card w/ rubber band) as much as anything. It's cheap, compact and versatile. The key to effective bounced flash that many people never realize is that you need to control the ratio of light that hits the ceiling vs. the light illuminates your subject straight from the "diffuser". With a simple card you can do this by sliding it up and down on your flash head.

Keep it simple. :D

[night_day]

Yes, I just read through the abetterbounce site, it seems fairly straightfoward. I will see how it goes. I'll also take a million shots with the flash to get a feel for it and see if I can borrow a friends Stro-fen to see if it's good. That's what I was leaning towards, but the LumiQuest does seem interesting as well. Decisions!

[picturecrazy]

Why don't you just bounce off ceilings and walls instead of buying diffusers straight away?

[TMR Design]

Hi Lloyd,

My guess would be that the OP does not always have ceilings and walls to bounce off and doesn't want to have to count on that.

[bieber]

I use a bottle of Isopropyl Alcohol with the top cut off, works like a charm when I can't bounce off anything. When bouncing, I just use the white card that's built into my 580EX.

[night_day]

Thanks TMR, pretty much that reason. Specically, our main family room on the main floor is one of those rooms that goes to the roof (2 stories, about 19/20 ft) which I think is not good for bounce - is that correct? In the bedroom the ceiling will probably be fine...

[bieber]

With a high ISO and wide aperture, it might be possible. I'd feel better trying it with the 580EX, but you can give it a shot with the 430.

[lostdoggy]

I use the Stofen its compact and it could stay on theflash and remove easily when necessary. The betterbounce card is also nice and its a inexpensive experiment, about $0.40 for material which is available at Walmart. I have also tred Index cards as well and they work too. I thought about buying the lumiquest but can't justify the cost.

[Titus213]

I would suggest that before you start investing in diffusers you take a look at how they work in both landscape and portrait orientation. Unless you want to shoot landscape and crop to portrait all the time.

[TMR Design]

I tried a few things including the Lightsphere and ended up using my own Better Bounce Card. It's simple and cheap. I took some 4 x 6 photo paper, cut it to shape and used velcro to hold it tightly without gluing or attaching velcro to the flash itself. The card extends down far enough and allows me to raise it up and down under the velcro band for greater control. So far, for my needs it works quite well and it's a perfect example of not needing to spend $30 to $60 for devices to do what I can do so easily for a fraction of that. I carry about a half dozen of those cards already cut to shape in my bag and they take up zero space.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123098&d=1163085731

And here it is attached to the flash

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123099&d=1163085731

[Curtis N]

Bouncing flash in rooms with high ceilings can be a challenge. Putting a piece of plastic on your flash won't make it less of a challenge. Generally speaking, you need high ISO settings and relatively wide apertures to make this work.

Flash diffusers work by making the apparent size of the light source larger. This is done by bouncing some of the light off nearby walls & ceilings. To a lesser extent, it can help if the diffuser itself is larger than the flash lens. Without a surface to bounce off, the Sto-Fen does nothing but waste light. The Fong Lightsphere might be a little better, but probably not to a noticeable degree.

The Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer or Lumiquest Softbox will make the apparent light source at least twice as wide and twice as high as the flash lens itself. Devices like these are what I usually resort to in big rooms, and they help. But it will still have that "direct flash" look.

[night_day]

Thanks for all of the tips, hints and suggestions, man I love this place! I'll see how things go, look out for some horribly flashed shots showing up next week on this board! :D

[Titus213]

I tried a few things including the Lightsphere and ended up using my own Better Bounce Card. It's simple and cheap. I took some 4 x 6 photo paper, cut it to shape and used velcro to hold it tightly without gluing or attaching velcro to the flash itself. The card extends down far enough and allows me to raise it up and down under the velcro band for greater control. So far, for my needs it works quite well and it's a perfect example of not needing to spend $30 to $60 for devices to do what I can do so easily for a fraction of that. I carry about a half dozen of those cards already cut to shape in my bag and they take up zero space.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123098&d=1163085731

And here it is attached to the flash

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=123099&d=1163085731
Hmm, does this not fly in the face of your stand on PWs?:lol::lol:

[TMR Design]

Hi Dave,

Nope :D Not at all :cool:

[Thomas Hopkins]

I have 10 month old twins so I take a lot of indoor shots and bouncing is not option as I have high ceilings throughout the house and most of the walls are painted gold... Except for the nursery which is a bright glowing green which really makes a nice goblin like color cast when bouncing! So thanks for discussing some other options, the answer given 99% of the time is to bounce off walls and ceilings and that's simply not an option for some people.

[Tish]

I love my Demb diffuser http://www.dembflashproducts.com/diffuser/

The adjustable card makes it easy to compensate for higher ceilings & the diffuser panel softens the light a bit.

[Curtis N]

bouncing is not option as I have high ceilings throughout the house.How high?

I have bounced flash in church sanctuaries, large dance studios, reception halls, and big metal storage buildings.

Yes, you need to crank up the ISO. But as long as you aren't afraid of a little noise, bouncing in big rooms can sometimes be a better option than direct flash.

[Thomas Hopkins]

How high?

I have bounced flash in church sanctuaries, large dance studios, reception halls, and big metal storage buildings.

Yes, you need to crank up the ISO. But as long as you aren't afraid of a little noise, bouncing in big rooms can sometimes be a better option than direct flash.

The main room is 20ft. I've tried but they're always under-exposed. The lighting in that room and most of house is awful. I'm shooting with an XTi and anything above ISO 400 is terribly grainy. I've wondered if that's all XTis or just mine but that's another thread.. :)

[captiankirk28]

I highly recommend the LumiQuest Promax System (http://www.lumiquest.com/lq931.htm) package rather than any of the "tupperware" diffusers.

The plastic diffusers all really require nearby (preferably white) reflective surfaces for them to do well. In my opinion, they are virtually useless except very close in when either outdoors or in large venues with no nearby reflective surfaces. In that sort of situation they waste a lot of the light, causing the batteries to be depleted far sooner than necessary.

The Promax System can be set up in several ways including bouncing 80% of the light off a nearby ceiling.

Getting the light source higher above the camera is usually beneficial for indoor 'people' shots, as it puts any shadows behind them lower on the background and making them less noticeable. Any of the diffusers which have the flash pointing up will do this. The Promax System gets the light source a little higher than most of the plastic diffusers.

Just got a promax system and love it (better quality than i thought it was going to be) and folds flat to fit into any bag.

[LightInspire]

I have 10 month old twins so I take a lot of indoor shots and bouncing is not option as I have high ceilings throughout the house and most of the walls are painted gold... Except for the nursery which is a bright glowing green which really makes a nice goblin like color cast when bouncing! So thanks for discussing some other options, the answer given 99% of the time is to bounce off walls and ceilings and that's simply not an option for some people.

Try a Lightsphere with the dome on..that diffuses the light before it gets there...I've found that using the chrome dome with my diffuser works great with colored ceilings..but if you shoot RAW it wouldn't matter what you used..you can color correct easily..(but I shoot jpeg)

[LightInspire]

The main room is 20ft. I've tried but they're always under-exposed. The lighting in that room and most of house is awful. I'm shooting with an XTi and anything above ISO 400 is terribly grainy. I've wondered if that's all XTis or just mine but that's another thread.. :)


I had an XTI and returned it 2 days later..EVERY shot was underexposed by 1 stop..I read reviews on the net and everyone who sent in a review said the same thing...I'm back with my XT's and love them.

[thekid24]

I use this, found the template on here somewhere, very inexpensive to make. Maybe a whole $4 and I was able to make 2 for that price. The foam is whats limiting. I have enough velcro for at least 8 more. Ill have to post some example tomorrow.

Sure its big but it gets the job done. ;)
Its a "Better Looking" "Better Bounce Card"

[night_day]

The main room is 20ft. I've tried but they're always under-exposed. The lighting in that room and most of house is awful. I'm shooting with an XTi and anything above ISO 400 is terribly grainy. I've wondered if that's all XTis or just mine but that's another thread.. :)

I'm using an XTI, I don't find every shot above 400 grainy, while not as sharp as I'd like, it's not horrible. The deep blacks are no good at 800+ I find, but other than that, not too bad.

[jrsforums]

I use this, found the template on here somewhere, very inexpensive to make. Maybe a whole $4 and I was able to make 2 for that price. The foam is whats limiting. I have enough velcro for at least 8 more. Ill have to post some example tomorrow.

Sure its big but it gets the job done. ;)
Its a "Better Looking" "Better Bounce Card"

I don't know if Chuck originate it, or just built off of other designs, but the first time I saw it was here: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/

It looks as if you used glue instead of the staples Chuck used....same as I did when I built mine.

BTW...Chuck's other tutorials are a worthwhile read. http://super.nova.org/DPR/#TOC

[TMR Design]

Hi John,

That was one of the first tutorial sites I found way back when I was first looking for help with lighting that had good useful information presented in a way that made sense. Since then I have continued to read many different things written by Chuck Gardner and found them all to be of good quality.

[thekid24]

I don't know if Chuck originate it, or just built off of other designs, but the first time I saw it was here: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/

It looks as if you used glue instead of the staples Chuck used....same as I did when I built mine.

BTW...Chuck's other tutorials are a worthwhile read. http://super.nova.org/DPR/#TOC
There was no glue used. I used velcro that had adhesive backing.

[Wilt]

Let's talk about basic principles, so you can filter the replies you are getting to this topic...

Light from the flash can go upward, or it can go forward. (I won't address the light that goes all over the place to be wasted, like Fong or Stoffen!)

If you use the Stoffen, or the card shown by TMR, *most* of the light goes upward, and only a small component goes forward. The SIZE of the forward component is not much bigger than the flash lens, so the forward component of light is NO BETTER THAN DIRECT FLASH in terms of softness of light.

If there is a high ceiling (which there is, in the case of the OP's later comments) the upward light component will tax the output of the flash (consuming batteries & prolonging recycle times!) In other circumstances, the upward component would bias color balance if the ceiling and walss are a non-neutral tone, as someone else in the thread mentions.

For the circumstance defined by the OP, the best alternatives are a product like the Lumiquest that SkipD mentioned, or a minisoftbox type product (Wescott, Photoflex, Lumiquest all have them) of even what theKid24 built, because this type can direct the majority of its light forward, yet also substantially increase the surface area so that the effective light source size is multiple times larger than the native flash lens. Thus, softer than direct flash unmodified.

If you are not using a flash bracket, the light modifier you use can end up on the side of the camera while it is in portrait position, and that is not conducive to nice photos, as light projected forward (from the side-positioned flash) results in side shadows next to the subjects. While indirect sources (Stoffen, TMR card, Tupperware of other forms) use the bounce light from the ceiling to overcome the issue of side shadow, they would nevertheless be best served when used on a flash bracket that keeps the flash above the lens -- just like the direct light sources (softboxes, Lumiquest Promax)

[00silvergt]

I'm with Picturecrazy, bounce the flash off the ceiling would work nice as a diffuser. There is more to the flash than just a flash, however, I recommend getting the video for the Canon Speedlite 430EX and 580EX, Something-Hawk productions made it and it only cost ~$20. I think that would make for a better investment at this point of time. Then, when you get more familiar with your flash you will be able to determine which diffuser if needed, if any. Afterall, you can get a Sto-Fen-like diffuser on eBay for $2 + shipping. But, again, I wouldn't worry about that yet, get to know your stuff first.

[TMR Design]

Let's talk about basic principles, so you can filter the replies you are getting to this topic...

Light from the flash can go upward, or it can go forward. (I won't address the light that goes all over the place to be wasted, like Fong or Stoffen!)

If you use the Stoffen, or the card shown by TMR, *most* of the light goes upward, and only a small component goes forward. The SIZE of the forward component is not much bigger than the flash lens, so the forward component of light is NO BETTER THAN DIRECT FLASH in terms of softness of light.

If there is a high ceiling (which there is, in the case of the OP's later comments) the upward light component will tax the output of the flash (consuming batteries & prolonging recycle times!) In other circumstances, the upward component would bias color balance if the ceiling and walss are a non-neutral tone, as someone else in the thread mentions.

For the circumstance defined by the OP, the best alternatives are a product like the Lumiquest that SkipD mentioned, or a minisoftbox type product (Wescott, Photoflex, Lumiquest all have them) of even what theKid24 built, because this type can direct the majority of its light forward, yet also substantially increase the surface area so that the effective light source size is multiple times larger than the native flash lens. Thus, softer than direct flash unmodified.

If you are not using a flash bracket, the light modifier you use can end up on the side of the camera while it is in portrait position, and that is not conducive to nice photos, as light projected forward (from the side-positioned flash) results in side shadows next to the subjects. While indirect sources (Stoffen, TMR card, Tupperware of other forms) use the bounce light from the ceiling to overcome the issue of side shadow, they would nevertheless be best served when used on a flash bracket that keeps the flash above the lens -- just like the direct light sources (softboxes, Lumiquest Promax)

Hi Wilt. Of course you are correct and I'm glad you're pointing this out. When I posted my version of the bounce card it was simply to show that if ABBC is what you're after then it can be done for pennies and that was my take on the down and dirty ABBC.

I also know through my own experimention that without the resonably low white ceiling it does not perform or serve a purpose and in a small room it is terrible because of the obvious shadow behind and to the side of the subject when in portrait orientation. This is overcome by having a much larger distance between the subject and background but once again, you can't count on this or have it the way you need it all the time.

If I were using my flash for more than nature and outdoor fill I would surely be thinking in terms of the Lumiquest of one of the mentioned mini softboxes in addition to a flash bracket.

When conditions are right then devices like the Lightshpere and others work very nicely but not universally.

[Wilt]

Robert, I know you once made a take-off on the Fong product out of a won ton plastic container and posted examples on POTN, so I know you can make very inexpensive versions of commercially offered, higher priced products! With all the same benefits and limitations! ;)

Lumiquest once had a product that everyone referred to as the 'Flying Nun', since it resembled the headgear that Sally Fields wore in her TV series all too long ago! Do you have a cheap version of that, too? ;)

[TMR Design]

Ah yes Wilt... the SoupSphere

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=132969&d=1166998046 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=132970&d=1166998046

I've never seen the Lumiquest Flying Nun so there are no plans on the drawing board for a Nun Knock Off.

[night_day]

Let's talk about basic principles, so you can filter the replies you are getting to this topic...

Light from the flash can go upward, or it can go forward. (I won't address the light that goes all over the place to be wasted, like Fong or Stoffen!)

If you use the Stoffen, or the card shown by TMR, *most* of the light goes upward, and only a small component goes forward. The SIZE of the forward component is not much bigger than the flash lens, so the forward component of light is NO BETTER THAN DIRECT FLASH in terms of softness of light.

If there is a high ceiling (which there is, in the case of the OP's later comments) the upward light component will tax the output of the flash (consuming batteries & prolonging recycle times!) In other circumstances, the upward component would bias color balance if the ceiling and walss are a non-neutral tone, as someone else in the thread mentions.

For the circumstance defined by the OP, the best alternatives are a product like the Lumiquest that SkipD mentioned, or a minisoftbox type product (Wescott, Photoflex, Lumiquest all have them) of even what theKid24 built, because this type can direct the majority of its light forward, yet also substantially increase the surface area so that the effective light source size is multiple times larger than the native flash lens. Thus, softer than direct flash unmodified.

If you are not using a flash bracket, the light modifier you use can end up on the side of the camera while it is in portrait position, and that is not conducive to nice photos, as light projected forward (from the side-positioned flash) results in side shadows next to the subjects. While indirect sources (Stoffen, TMR card, Tupperware of other forms) use the bounce light from the ceiling to overcome the issue of side shadow, they would nevertheless be best served when used on a flash bracket that keeps the flash above the lens -- just like the direct light sources (softboxes, Lumiquest Promax)

Thanks for this fantastic summary Wilt! I was tracking early responses in a word doc, but this sums it up well for me! So much to learn, so little time! I am looking forward to figuring all of this out!