A flash diffuser...

[ShutterMomma]

Can someone tell me why you use a flash diffuser, on a 580EX II (that's my flash). What exactly does it do. Does it "dim" the flash, or change the light? What does it do to the light?

[david888lee]

like its called, it diffuses the light, so you don't see those white spots on people when you take a picture. basically, it evens the light among the whole picture.hope that helps.

[sapearl]

It softens the light to a degree ShutterMomma, given subjects a less harsh appearance. It is also less likely to blow out highlights when used properly and produce an image or print with less contrast.

[HighLife]

you know, after getting my first flash today....i really noticed you need a diffuser or some type of bounce card. These put out SOO much light its almost to harsh when you face it forward.

So now, which is probably what you going to do soon, im trying to figure out which to buy....get a bag, a lightsphere type, a sto-fen type, light box type...ohh my......

[ShutterMomma]

Thanks guys. I was tryint to DIY one but I couldn't seem to see much difference exept it dimming the light. maybe I didn't succeed the DIY project. lol

[sapearl]

Keep plugging away and experimenting - you'll see the difference. A lot will depend too upon how close the surrounding walls and ceiling are, how light they are .... this all affects how the light bounces around and impacts the exposure.

[fastdiablo]

i found the following link to be an outstanding tutorial about flash/light, diffusing flash, bouncing flash and using flash in general. i think i found the link in curtis' signature.
i think this will answer all your questions, questions you didn't know you had, and then some... cheers


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

[Wilt]

Thanks guys. I was tryint to DIY one but I couldn't seem to see much difference exept it dimming the light. maybe I didn't succeed the DIY project. lol


First of all, ignore photgraphic lights, and learn from what you see in life every day...

Sun is out shining brightly and the sky is blue...shadows are very dark, and edges of shadows are very sharply defined.

Other days, sky is partly cloudy and the sun ducks behind one for a half minute...shadows are paler and edges are rather softly defined

Other days, sky is overcast and you can't see where the sun is...shadows are absent or barely there, and edges are scarcely evident.

In other words, BIGGER LIGHT = SOFTER LIGHT. A bounced flash turns a ceiling into a fairly big light light source. An umbrella makes for a moderate sized light source. Flash lens makes for tiny light source. Shadow quality parallels nature and its overcast, partly cloudy, or sunny clear day.

[MT Stringer]

Here ya go, Shuttermomma. Check out the link below. This is something you can do right now in less than 5 minutes. I bet you already have all the parts needed.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=443488
Mike

[seanq]

Thanks fastdiablo, that planet neil link was a great read!

[Curtis N]

There are many devices that one might refer to as a "diffuser".
The term, with regard to hotshoe flash, usually refers to a tupperware-type piece of translucent plastic to stick over the lens of the flash head.

They change the direction the photons travel after they leave the flash. This is not necessarily a good thing. A light that sends photons in all directions is difficult to control.

These are the most oversold, overused and misused devices in the entire photographic industry. While they do have some legitimate uses, they mostly just waste light, reduce battery life, extend recycle times and reduce your effective range.

If flash units "needed" diffusers, they would come as standard equipment with every unit sold.

[jrsforums]

If flash units "needed" diffusers, they would come as standard equipment with every unit sold.

I would put that in the same bucket as, "If man were intended to fly he would have been born with wings" :lol::lol::lol:

I agree that many of the devices that are sold are intended to separate us from our money.

That does not mean that "modifiers" (diffusers, bounce cards, umbrellas softboxes) are not valuable to get different "looks" that we may want from our flash images.

[Wilt]

I side with Curtis that the Tupperware is the least valuable of all the various 'diffusers', because those who do not understand think they will always help. They CAN be useful, when the ceiling is 8' and white and the walls are nearby and white. Otherwise there is little benefit from bounce effect, due to distance and or tainted light due to color on the walls/ceiling. But no 8' white ceiling and 8' white walls nearby, and you might as well have thrown $20-50 into the toilet (at least the Stoffen is priced reasonably).

'Diffuse' is a terribly misunderstood term. Many think it means 'to scatter light in all directions'. That is the dictionary definition. Photographically it means to not have a specular source of light illuminate the scene, and that translates into 'larger'. Tupperware is still a small and specular source that becomes diffuse only after the emitted light bounces from other large surfaces (ceiling, walls). The Stoffen does not increase the size of the flash, the Lightsphere scarce increases it in size. And that is why they are valueless when the ceiling and walls are not nearby and white.

[jrsforums]

I side with Curtis that the Tupperware is the least valuable of all the various 'diffusers', because those who do not understand think they will always help. They CAN be useful, when the ceiling is 8' and white and the walls are nearby and white. Otherwise there is little benefit from bounce effect, due to distance and or tainted light due to color on the walls/ceiling. But no 8' white ceiling and 8' white walls nearby, and you might as well have thrown $20-50 into the toilet (at least the Stoffen is priced reasonably).

'Diffuse' is a terribly misunderstood term. Many think it means 'to scatter light in all directions'. That is the dictionary definition. Photographically it means to not have a specular source of light illuminate the scene, and that translates into 'larger'. Tupperware is still a small and specular source that becomes diffuse only after the emitted light bounces from other large surfaces (ceiling, walls). The Stoffen does not increase the size of the flash, the Lightsphere scarce increases it in size. And that is why they are valueless when the ceiling and walls are not nearby and white.


Hey, Wilt....

I am not sure if you were "piling on" to my statement. If you were, please note that I was not promoting "diffusers". In fact, I carefully used the word "modifier" and lumped the "plastic diffusers" referenced in Curtis' post with other light "modifiers".

All of our light sources are specular, whether a flash, strobe, or hot lights. How we "modify" them to "diffuse", soften, or broaden coverage may be different and, based on our experience of what works better for us will make one method "worthwhile" and the other "junk".

I do not disagree with you (relative to the "tupperware") that "...those who do not understand think they will always help..." and , as I said, many of them are heavily marketed to inexperienced.....but then, so are a lot of the other "modifiers" such as Lumiquests, etc.

If you want to "light up a room" you are not going to do it with a mini-softbox. Whether a piece of "tupperware" does better than bouncing with or without the built in catch light is a cost/benefit decision we all need to make.

I disagree with your statement, "...they are valueless when the ceiling and walls are not nearby and white". They can still work...you just may need more power and/or PP considerations to deal with.

BTW....the Nikon SB-800 ships with a "diffuser", which they call a a "wide Angle Adapter" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=product.jsp&A=kitInfo&Q=&sku=247098&is=REG

[Wilt]

I disagree with your statement, "...they are valueless when the ceiling and walls are not nearby and white". They can still work...you just may need more power and/or PP considerations to deal with.

In the above statement, 'they' refers to the Tupperware. A product like Lumiquest Pro or one of several mini softboxes do increase the surface area of the flash so that they are indeed effective even outdoors (no ceiling, no walls). A Stoffen increases surface area scarcely at all, the big LightSphere does increase surface area (as seen by the subject) but also scatters light in all the directions 'NOT toward the subject' (in addition to 'toward the subject'. That is NOT softening the light at all!

[jrsforums]

In the above statement, 'they' refers to the Tupperware. A product like Lumiquest Pro or one of several mini softboxes do increase the surface area of the flash so that they are indeed effective even outdoors (no ceiling, no walls). A Stoffen increases surface area scarcely at all, the big LightSphere does increase surface area (as seen by the subject) but also scatters light in all the directions 'NOT toward the subject' (in addition to 'toward the subject'. That is NOT softening the light at all!

In my post, I said:
If you want to "light up a room" you are not going to do it with a mini-softbox. Whether a piece of "tupperware" does better than bouncing with or without the built in catch light is a cost/benefit decision we all need to make.

I disagree with your statement, "...they are valueless when the ceiling and walls are not nearby and white". They can still work...you just may need more power and/or PP considerations to deal with.

I giuess it was not clear that my disagreement with your statement referred to the prior paragraph, since it followed directly.

I was referring to a room with walls that were "not nearby and white".

I was not referring to outdoors.

Quite frankly, at ~12 feet, a Lumiquest Pro is going to approximate a point source and be no better than direct flash. This is assuming no walls/ceiling to bounce off of, as the Lumiquest, by nature of the bounce off of it, will also be acting somewhat as a "diffuser", not just a larger surface itself.

Outdoors, in my opinion, unless you are really close, you do just as well with direct flash with -FEC. If it is daylight, there is plenty of light around, one just needs to be aware of the type, ie. full sun, cloudy, shade...which changes the nature of that light. If dark, dual key/fill flashes will give an effect of soft lighting and contours without the need for large SBs or reflectors.

[Wilt]

Quite frankly, at ~12 feet, a Lumiquest Pro is going to approximate a point source and be no better than direct flash. This is assuming no walls/ceiling to bounce off of, as the Lumiquest, by nature of the bounce off of it, will also be acting somewhat as a "diffuser", not just a larger surface itself..

Not quite that description...

normal lens on flash

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Lensonly.jpg


then paper same size as lens over lens

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Papercover.jpg


then Wescott Micro Apollo (5" x 7") over flash head shooting forward

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/sofbox.jpg


Then Micro Apollo from 10' back

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/10footsoftboxb.jpg

[ShutterMomma]

Hey that was awesome! Thanks for the comparison. That did help.

[jrsforums]

Not quite that description...



Wilt, I assume this was indoors with walls and ceilings.... I believe my statement was outdoors...also at ~12 feet.

However, you have clearly shown that at 10' the Micro Apollo is more specular than at the closer distance (which is not mentioned).

I would be interested in the overall setup you had for this test. Not sure what you meant by "paper same size as lens over lens" for example.

Anyway, I do not disagree that the MA SB provides softer light than direct flash. Have you done similar tests with The Lumiquest Pro, which has a much smaller area than the 5x7 MA (and therefore will/should be less effective at 10' or 12', which is what my statement was)? Or with "tupperware" (with walls and ceilings, of course)?

[Wilt]

I don't recall the close distance that my test was done at, as that test was some years ago. Gotta see if I can find the thread and see what I wrote about the distance. I know 10' was used for the 'far' test with the Wescott due to the filename I used for that photo. "paper the same size as the lens"...I measured the lens on the flash and cut some translucent paper the same size because I could not find my Rosco frosted filter at the time and I was in a hurry to get the test complete.

Sorry, no test with Lumiquest or tupperware. If somebody want to mail me theirs long enough for a test, I be willing to recreate my entire test.

[Shooting]

Question. I have to shoot a wedding in a few month at this church, would I use direct flash? I was going to use a lightsphere or a flipit...maybe a lumiquest soft box?? Your opinions please.

I just so happen to go to church here also.

[sapearl]

Shooting, what sort of flash will you be using?

Dark churches, halls and other dim venues are always a photographic lighting challenge. The first thing I usually do is decide just how little light I have. Once that decision is made I choose my ISO. If things are just dim with some window light and overhead lamps I will usually start at ISO 400. If it’s fairly dim I will go at least ISO 800. I use flash with both of these settings.

I have a 580ex that I use with the off shoe cord and a Newton Camera Rotator Flash Bracket. Normally I’ll have the flash tilted straight up, or perhaps just a little forward depending upon how dark it is. The little white card will also be extended, or I may even have a larger diffuser like the Lumiquest Pocket Bounce or the 80/20 attached the flash.

Any time I’m in a dim venue I will set the camera on Manual, but run the flash on AUTO-ETTL. Shutter speed will be manually set around 1/30 – 1/50 and aperture manually set from f/5.6 – f/8 depending upon how much I want the ambient light to impact. By “dragging” the shutter slow at 1/30 or thereabouts you allow a lot of nice ambient light to creep in.

If it’s really dark I will have the flash aimed head on, with the clear plastic diffuser clicked into place, at the couples as they come done the aisle during the processional. The same goes for the recessional. (Wilt, I hope I'm calling that flip down lens by the right name :D) If there’s a modest amount of light I will bounce the flash, maybe tilting the head at a 45, or a little steeper, again with the white card extended.

As you can see I come from the old “analog” flash school of photography. Certainly if there’s enough light and you have fast lenses with a nice high ISO camera, you can forego using a flash. But I still like to use mine a lot and have been very pleased with the results. - Stu

[Shooting]

Well, I have a 580EX II flash and I have a stroboframe flip bracket. I thought of shooting manual and maybe do a custom WB with all that tungsten in there. I don't like my images to be too warm. It looks like bouncing will not be an option because of the dark wood in the ceiling and wide open place over the altar. I thought that clear plastic panel on the 580ex II was a wide angle panel instead of diffuser..I'd rather do anything other than direct flash but I will if I have to for the processional. I'll have a 2nd. camera on a tripod in the back for the ceremony available light shots. Trouble is my fastest lens is a 3.5..I know I need faster better glass and I'm working toward that goal now but for now that is what I have to work with. and I'd rather stick with 400 ISO. I do have a 35mm f/2.0 lens..which would be 50mm view..

[sapearl]

Actually that tripod is an excellent idea - I used one myself for many years before IS, digital, and high ISO came along ;)

Most of my own wedding work is done with the 24-105 and that only has f/4 - it's been just fine for my uses. And I understand your concern about direct flash as it can be a little harsh if not used ideally.

When I'm in really dark situations and have to go that route, I'll definately use ISO 800, 1/30 second, f/5.6 or 6.3 and maybe a little FEC- after a few quick chimps to see how the sensor is reading off the black tuxedos or other clothing. There is a slight amount of trial and error when things are that dark, but you can usually analyze it pretty quickly.

[Shooting]

you mean 800 using flash? I do have a 28-105....but for a group shot of the brides maids, men and entire wedding party..with my XT at 28 that equals to a view of maybe a 42mm...I'd have to back up pretty far away to get all of them..I was thinking maybe just the kit lens of 18-55 around my neck with flash with the one on the tripod in the back with a 70-300 for closeup ceremony shots..probably at 1600. my main concern is the flash of the processional and some of the ceremony or their expressions watching her come down the aisle but will definitely have to do a custom WB.

[sapearl]

As for the WB, shoot everything RAW - and before the action starts, get some some "test" shots around the sanctuary with the white/gray card in it using the flash. You can then "eyedropper" it later on in ACR or your preferred application. This will get you quite close to proper WB.

Yes, if it's that dark I'd use ISO 800 even with the flash, which can then get you useful apertures around f/7.1 for decent DOF. On my 5D the 24 = 24 but I see where you're coming from. You will have to back up a bit or see what sort of results you get with the 18-55. Everything you describe though is do-able with a bit of planning and practice. Scope the place out ahead of time if you can and I'm sure things will come out just fine.

[Shooting]

Ok..since I go to church there, lots of chances for test shooting. The image I posted I shot in raw but to tell you the truth I hate raw. Shot it for 2 years until cs3 came out cause cs3 will let you process jpeg in the raw editor. Even shooting raw that day at the church I had so much trouble with that white balance. The activity room had flourescent but raw was no help with the white balance. I still had to use the picture filters in CS3 to get the right color. Hate to admit this but I don't have a white/gray card, have had to buy lots of other things and that is on the list. Found out that the pre-flash I used in the raw images doesn't even register. Even shooting manual the girl wearing a black sweater, blew her white face out. I thought when shooting manual the ettl II would not affect exposure or flash out put. Apparently it ignored my pre flash on her face and read her black sweater. Which is why I shoot jpeg...it is processed according to camera settings you set, nothing is ignored..easier to process in my book. I supposed I could use a regular auto flash that is more powerful and isn't affected but such readings coming thru the lens. I tried an auto flash once at a reception as a second shooter with a lightsphere and my goodness, it was so powerful it lit up the entire room and it was high ceilings and walls were far away. No FEC needed as I do with ettl II.

[jrsforums]

Ok..since I go to church there, lots of chances for test shooting. The image I posted I shot in raw but to tell you the truth I hate raw. Shot it for 2 years until cs3 came out cause cs3 will let you process jpeg in the raw editor. Even shooting raw that day at the church I had so much trouble with that white balance. The activity room had flourescent but raw was no help with the white balance. I still had to use the picture filters in CS3 to get the right color. Hate to admit this but I don't have a white/gray card, have had to buy lots of other things and that is on the list.

While I would normally suggest a Whibal...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/472226-REG/WhiBal_WB6SK_G6_Pocket_White_Balance.html

If $$s are a concern a grey card can be had quite cheaply...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/231564-REG/Delta__Gray_Card_4.html

Found out that the pre-flash I used in the raw images doesn't even register.

I am not sure what problem you are having. If by "pre-flash", you mean FEL...all that FEL is doing is locking the flash metering to the area inside the viewfinder circle at the time of the flash. There is no info that needs to be passed to the raw converter to handle that. I suggest you shoot a few RAW+JPEG and see how they are different. Put the jpegs on "neutral" with the sat., etc. sliders on the defaults.....or 'off'. If you see major differences, it probably is your converter settings.

Even shooting manual the girl wearing a black sweater, blew her white face out. I thought when shooting manual the ettl II would not affect exposure or flash out put. Apparently it ignored my pre flash on her face and read her black sweater. Which is why I shoot jpeg...it is processed according to camera settings you set, nothing is ignored..easier to process in my book. I supposed I could use a regular auto flash that is more powerful and isn't affected but such readings coming thru the lens. I tried an auto flash once at a reception as a second shooter with a lightsphere and my goodness, it was so powerful it lit up the entire room and it was high ceilings and walls were far away. No FEC needed as I do with ettl II.

I suggest you reconsider and shoot RAW. Also, ETTL-II can be very powerful if you understand how it works and how to adjust for it in different circumstances. I suggest your read the following....

http://super.nova.org/DPR/#Canon

Specifically...
http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/TTL/
http://super.nova.org/DPR/Canon/Exposure/
http://super.nova.org/DPR/ZoneSystem/WhiteTowelMethod.pdf

Generally, if you understand how ETTL works, you will have limited need for FEL...and will avoid blown highlights.

[Shooting]

Hey, that is some good reading..thank you. That would work good when doing an event that stays in the same room but when doing a wedding and the event moves to another room or outside for the receiving line or extra pictures, then back into the sanctuary, look at all the changing you have to do for the different conditions. You will miss some good shots while changing all those settings. Sorry but yes I was referring to FEL. It works fine when shooting jpeg but raw looks like it ignores it. I can do a FEL on a face when shooting jpeg and it is exposed perfectly with no adjustments needed. Shoot the same person in raw and the FEL is ignored. Shooting someone in a black sweater and white face is a good example. Shooting jpeg with FEL on the face it is great exposure..switch to raw and the face is totally blown out..that is using direct flash because no way of bouncing. Much of that reading is really too technical for me to understand.

[jrsforums]

Hey, that is some good reading..thank you. That would work good when doing an event that stays in the same room but when doing a wedding and the event moves to another room or outside for the receiving line or extra pictures, then back into the sanctuary, look at all the changing you have to do for the different conditions. You will miss some good shots while changing all those settings. Sorry but yes I was referring to FEL. It works fine when shooting jpeg but raw looks like it ignores it. I can do a FEL on a face when shooting jpeg and it is exposed perfectly with no adjustments needed. Shoot the same person in raw and the FEL is ignored. Shooting someone in a black sweater and white face is a good example. Shooting jpeg with FEL on the face it is great exposure..switch to raw and the face is totally blown out..that is using direct flash because no way of bouncing. Much of that reading is really too technical for me to understand.

Changing what settings....set ambient exposure to manual....f/5.6 to 8.0, shutter and ISO based on how much ambient you want....and fire away with ETTL managing the flash. You may want/need a little +/- FEC, but that should be it.

If you are in constant lighting conditions with changing people...such as one in white shirt, the next in black sweater, etc.....shoot with manual flash as shot to shot the images will be more consistent than ETTL.

I don't know what your problem is with RAW. You should actually, assuming ACR CS3, have better (chance of) recovery from blow outs than jpeg. Solving that is a whole different subject. However, as I suggested, your best place to start is saving RAW+jpeg, so you can compare identical representations of the same image.

[Shooting]

Ok I think I'm getting it..but if I change my flash to manual that means finding the right power setting then changing all that when we change rooms to the reception, etc or go outside...then if back inside changing back again....I think ETTL II is a step backwards in technology. Automatic flashes never had this problem..it put the power out there and cut it off when the sensor thinks it was right..it wasn't based on what is coming thru the lens. ETTL II underexposes too much, isn't that accurate..if Canon thought ett II was great why then when you shoot different scenes it is so inconsistent from one scene to another. You don't see Nikon users having this problem. Question. Why should I shoot raw when about everything in the camera is ignored and you have to do all that stuff in post processing when I can shoot jpeg and do FEL and each image is perfectly exposed. As far as CS3 goes, if you've never worked in the raw editor on jpegs then you have got to try it. RAW is too much post processing..jpeg is more accurately processed but that is another thread we won't get into here. My entire gripe about the situation is to how to get consistently correctly exposed wedding shots there without having to do lots of changes that when we move outside I have to redo everything. I'm tempted to shoot shutter priority.

[jrsforums]

Ok I think I'm getting it..but if I change my flash to manual that means finding the right power setting then changing all that when we change rooms to the reception, etc or go outside...then if back inside changing back again....I think ETTL II is a step backwards in technology. Automatic flashes never had this problem..it put the power out there and cut it off when the sensor thinks it was right..it wasn't based on what is coming thru the lens. ETTL II underexposes too much, isn't that accurate..if Canon thought ett II was great why then when you shoot different scenes it is so inconsistent from one scene to another. You don't see Nikon users having this problem. Question. Why should I shoot raw when about everything in the camera is ignored and you have to do all that stuff in post processing when I can shoot jpeg and do FEL and each image is perfectly exposed. As far as CS3 goes, if you've never worked in the raw editor on jpegs then you have got to try it. RAW is too much post processing..jpeg is more accurately processed but that is another thread we won't get into here. My entire gripe about the situation is to how to get consistently correctly exposed wedding shots there without having to do lots of changes that when we move outside I have to redo everything. I'm tempted to shoot shutter priority.


Of course automatic (tyristor) flashes had problems...just different ones...but you learned what they were and adjusted for them.

ETTL is actually better technology, since it is metering just what the lens sees, not the entire scene...or what ever the tyristor sensor sees. You apparently have not been able to learn how best to use it.

BTW...you are naive to think Nikon flashes are without similar, though different, problems.

There is no flash or ambient metering system than can determine when you are shooting mostly black or mostly white. YOU, as the photographer, need to know your system and know when to adjust it....FEC is your friend :lol:

On manual flash, I clearly stated that is was for consistent lighting. Differing lighting is what ETTL was designed for and it does a great job, if you understand it.

If you really think thyristor is better, I suggest you switch to a Metz (though I have no personal experience with it). Nikon, of course, is also an option. But you will need to understand either of these to be able to use them properly.

[Shooting]

I have a promaster 5950 with standard auto module for thyristor and it is very powerful. May put a metz on my list of many expensive things to get. Maybe technology will come to the point where when the camera sees white dress and black suites together it will average the flash or light output to expose both properly or a very close average. That is why I loved the spot metering of the T-90. You could take 5 or more spot readings and it would average them all together for a correct or average reading that would expose the scene properly and it never failed me at any time. If I could find a place to give me great scanned film images but not break the bank in charges I'd go back to film any day.

[Wilt]

Of course automatic (tyristor) flashes had problems...just different ones...but you learned what they were and adjusted for them.

ETTL is unpredictably inconsistent. Auto flash (nonTTL photosensor) may have been in need of adjustment, but at least it was more predicable in that need!


ETTL is actually better technology, since it is metering just what the lens sees, not the entire scene...or what ever the tyristor sensor sees. You apparently have not been able to learn how best to use it.

Sorry ETTL and iTTL and all of the dSLR versions of it are all horribly inferior to film camera TTL exposure!!!



BTW...you are naive to think Nikon flashes are without similar, though different, problems.

There is no flash or ambient metering system than can determine when you are shooting mostly black or mostly white. YOU, as the photographer, need to know your system and know when to adjust it....FEC is your friend :lol:

True, Nikon dSLR shooters are plagued with flash issues, too!


If you really think thyristor is better, I suggest you switch to a Metz (though I have no personal experience with it). Nikon, of course, is also an option. But you will need to understand either of these to be able to use them properly.

You won't have to fisrt take a course in the arcane rules of good ETTL exposure before getting good Auto flash exposures with Metz!

[jrsforums]

ETTL is unpredictably inconsistent. Auto flash (nonTTL photosensor) may have been in need of adjustment, but at least it was more predicable in that need!

Sorry ETTL and iTTL and all of the dSLR versions of it are all horribly inferior to film camera TTL exposure!!!

True, Nikon dSLR shooters are plagued with flash issues, too!

You won't have to fisrt take a course in the arcane rules of good ETTL exposure before getting good Auto flash exposures with Metz!

What you know, or have bother to learn, is what is easy.

What you know and have learned is "auto" thyristor controlled flash. I will grant you that Metz makes good flash units.....but will bet that you could do just as well with Vivitars, which many of us "cut our teeth on".

A lot of people who have never owned 550/580s and an ETTL-II DSLR...or have never bother to spend the time to learn them....bad mouth the system. While over the years they spent just as much, probably more, time to learn...and practice...to properly use "auto" flash operation.

Because you like and understand something else does not mean that the other is "bad". Photographers like Neil van Niekerk seem do do very well with Canon and Nikon TTL systems http://planetneil.com/tangents/

[form]

A good Do-It-Yourself diffuser is a gallon milk or water jug with the base cut out or perforated. Alternately, I have had some good results with both the Lightsphere and an index card. There are also do-it-yourself softboxes, and I imagine some of those are very good.

[Shooting]

Neil does almost 100'% bounce on anything he can find..sure, if I want to bounce I could do a FEC of +1 or more and make any image to come out. Letting ettl II control anything is what is bad. Why should I spend my hard earned money to learn something like ettl II when it is supposedly is so advanced it is supposed to make better images? ETTL II is a step backwards..how many ETTL II people have underexposure problems? Seems like a flaw in Canon's engineering dept just like the same problem with their XTI camera. How many problems did you have with auto thryistor flashes? Hardly none...you set the ISO and to red/yellow or blue setting to what gives you your best image and shoot away..so much more easier and get better images....as soon as I can find a QUALITY film scanning service that is not "break the bank" expensive I'm going to go back to film.

[Wilt]

What you know, or have bother to learn, is what is easy.

What you know and have learned is "auto" thyristor controlled flash. I will grant you that Metz makes good flash units.....but will bet that you could do just as well with Vivitars, which many of us "cut our teeth on".

A lot of people who have never owned 550/580s and an ETTL-II DSLR...or have never bother to spend the time to learn them....bad mouth the system. While over the years they spent just as much, probably more, time to learn...and practice...to properly use "auto" flash operation.

Because you like and understand something else does not mean that the other is "bad". Photographers like Neil van Niekerk seem do do very well with Canon and Nikon TTL systems http://planetneil.com/tangents/

I learned on manual flash, shooting by Guide Number. I later progressed to Vivitar Auto flash, then went to TTL with Olympus again with Vivitar. Then on to TTL with Metz on Olympus and on Bronica. ALL were more consistent and had fewer 'rules' to learn than ETTL. Sorry, I can't agree with your assessment that I learned on Metz Auto and am biased by that!!! I have experience the same Metz unit on Auto and on ETTL, and I can tell you that Canon flash is the issue, first with underexposure on ETTL and then with underexposure on th4 580EX-II on auto!

And even Mr. Expert CurtisN is fooled by ETTL with its unpredictability now and again.

[sapearl]

Shooting, I understand your frustration but run into this all the time myself over a period of 8 - 12 hours. It's a typical wedding day and with practice, experience and more practice you will see what works and what is ineffective. Not having a white/gray card is no big deal. For a while I was even "eye-droppering" in RAW on people's white shirts, white table clothes, etc..... not the most precise technique, but in RAW it got me very much in the ballpark and I could tweak the rest to everybody's satisfaction.

BTW, I don't make a custom WB for each of those venues. I use AWB which I realize is not perfect, but it's speedy and efficient for my workflow and the WB corrections go pretty quickly later in ACR.

As for the black sweater exposure settings, it sounds like your targetting, or metering mode, or both are off. I've been there done that myself. Again, practice practice practice...;)

Hey, that is some good reading..thank you. That would work good when doing an event that stays in the same room but when doing a wedding and the event moves to another room or outside for the receiving line or extra pictures, then back into the sanctuary, look at all the changing you have to do for the different conditions. You will miss some good shots while changing all those settings. Sorry but yes I was referring to FEL. It works fine when shooting jpeg but raw looks like it ignores it. I can do a FEL on a face when shooting jpeg and it is exposed perfectly with no adjustments needed. Shoot the same person in raw and the FEL is ignored. Shooting someone in a black sweater and white face is a good example. ..........

[sapearl]

Well, I suppose that would be nice but I left scanned film negs about 2 years ago. The scanning charges at the lab were killing me and the work flow was cumbersome and time consuming.

As for auto-thyristor flashes.... I used the Metz system of those for more than 15 years. Great gear - but it turned out that the lab was doing a lot of the "photoshopping" and correction that I am doing now :lol:. No system is perfect, although the Metz potato mashers were dang powerful.

As for taking 5 or more spot meter readings on your subject during a wedding with all that action going on? Well, you're a better man than I am - things normally happen pretty fast and you have to get it on that first or second shot.:D

I have a promaster 5950 with standard auto module for thyristor and it is very powerful. May put a metz on my list of many expensive things to get. Maybe technology will come to the point where when the camera sees white dress and black suites together it will average the flash or light output to expose both properly or a very close average. That is why I loved the spot metering of the T-90. You could take 5 or more spot readings and it would average them all together for a correct or average reading that would expose the scene properly and it never failed me at any time. If I could find a place to give me great scanned film images but not break the bank in charges I'd go back to film any day.

[Shooting]

I was mainly speaking out of frustration..what I meant about all that spot reading was portraits and scenics, etc. No way would I ever attempt that during a wedding. That is why I want a simple way of shooting and getting good images instead of setting some settings, then going outside and changing settings for outdoor use..then when go inside another building reset all the previous settings..too much to do when doing things quickly. I took some images from that church I shot (raw) and worked them up in photoshop and looked pretty decent. Took them to a lab here and my goodness. 2 of them are nothing like I see on my screen. You talk about tungsten or orange tint everywhere..totally ruined it. Now I have to find a way to get my monitor see what the lab printed (yes it is calibrated) It is one thing after another it seems. the images looked great on my monitor and in photoshop but after they are printed..oh shucks...what happened. I guess I could blame it on the supposedly pro lab..I never liked them anyway. Maybe if I paid them to color correct that would solve it? It was a small order so I didn't want to use whcc a $12.00 minimum or millers 10.00 minimum...oh well, what is someone to do.

[sapearl]

If you're not going to color correct your own images - and many don't with good reason - there's NO reason NOT to have the lab do it for the few cents they charge. It is work to do your own, and I can certainly understand why some don't like to invest that time; personal preference.

Regarding the differences in color balance between inside and out - again, that's so easy to correct, and in a matter of seconds when shooting RAW.

I understand your frustration of the constant scene changes, at a wedding. But that is a wedding and there is no way around it, unless you have a one where everything happens at a single location. That does occur now and then, but not very often.

Shooting, if you want to do this correctly and become satisfied with your results, there is NO easy way out to get all the settings accurately without investing work, experimentation and practice. We'll be happy to give you the benefit of our advice as well as our mistakes, but you won't get instant results over night.;)

I was mainly speaking out of frustration..what I meant about all that spot reading was portraits and scenics, etc. No way would I ever attempt that during a wedding. That is why I want a simple way of shooting and getting good images instead of setting some settings, then going outside and changing settings for outdoor use..then when go inside another building reset all the previous settings..too much to do when doing things quickly. ......

[jrsforums]

I learned on manual flash, shooting by Guide Number. I later progressed to Vivitar Auto flash, then went to TTL with Olympus again with Vivitar. Then on to TTL with Metz on Olympus and on Bronica. ALL were more consistent and had fewer 'rules' to learn than ETTL. Sorry, I can't agree with your assessment that I learned on Metz Auto and am biased by that!!! I have experience the same Metz unit on Auto and on ETTL, and I can tell you that Canon flash is the issue, first with underexposure on ETTL and then with underexposure on th4 580EX-II on auto!

And even Mr. Expert CurtisN is fooled by ETTL with its unpredictability now and again.

How much time did you spend learning ETTL...any? Or are you just speaking from hersay?

What I said was you learned Metz "auto', not that you started with it. Your learning path was the samw as meany of us...as I said in "cutting our teeth on" Vivitar. I suspect if you spent just a small part of the years of manual/Vivitar/Metz learning, experimentation, and parctice on ETTL or iTTL,you might have a different view of it.

So...it even surprises CurtisN....no surprise...it surprises me sometimes to. Sometimes what I choose for ambient exposure or manual flash surprises me:)....sometimes the other settings I forgot to change surprise me :o No system is perfect....I am sure the Metz surprises you at times...even after all these years.

Wilt....let's just agree to disagree...OK? ;)

[jrsforums]

Neil does almost 100'% bounce on anything he can find..sure, if I want to bounce I could do a FEC of +1 or more and make any image to come out. Letting ettl II control anything is what is bad.

What do you think is controlling the flash exposure on Neil's bounce shots, if not ETTL-II?

[Wilt]

How much time did you spend learning ETTL...any? Or are you just speaking from hersay?

What I said was you learned Metz "auto', not that you started with it. Your learning path was the samw as meany of us...as I said in "cutting our teeth on" Vivitar. I suspect if you spent just a small part of the years of manual/Vivitar/Metz learning, experimentation, and parctice on ETTL or iTTL,you might have a different view of it.

So...it even surprises CurtisN....no surprise...it surprises me sometimes to. Sometimes what I choose for ambient exposure or manual flash surprises me:)....sometimes the other settings I forgot to change surprise me :o No system is perfect....I am sure the Metz surprises you at times...even after all these years.

Wilt....let's just agree to disagree...OK? ;)

You speculate too much as to the number of years I spent learning what, the amount of time I have put into trying to master ETTL in a variety of circumstances and even my continued usage of ETTL in spite of its shortcoming. It really isn't useful to debate my knowledge and background, but the efficicacy of ETTL flash!

How do you explain the fact that expert users find themselves perpetually trying to predict the outcome of ETTL and are fooled enough that chronic chimping is necessary, the fact that two consecutive shots of the 'same scene' taken with ETTL might be exposed quite differently, and the fact that unless you dial in FEC it will more than likely underexpose?!


PS In your assumption about ETTL, let me correct you in your assumptions....I use ETTL exclusively with my Canon, in spite of its flaws...years ago I bought a Metz 54MZ and dedicated module for ETTL specifically for that purpose!

[Shooting]

with LOTS of FEC no doubt..

[sapearl]

Wellll..... fair statement; I would say a modest amount under the appropriate circumstances.

I even ran into those issues when I used thyristor auto-flash with my Metz and Medium format setups. After a while you really do get the hang of it, simply by observing cause and effect. I am confident that you are sharp enough and diligent enough to get the hang of it so long as you make an honest effort.

You asked a number of pretty good questions which show at least some insight in the problematic issues. Best of luck and keep watching this forum.

with LOTS of FEC no doubt..

[Shooting]

Thank you..I checked into a lab and they will color correct for me so I'll go that route..they can color correct to their printers a lot easier and more exact than I can..thanks for all your answers and insight. I always like to learn and try new things to improve myself.

[sapearl]

Sounds like a good deal then shooter :D.... worth your while to take them up on it.

I took an all day seminar yesterday at the lab that does my work. Several times a year they hold sessions on a variety of workflow, shooting and marketting topics. The fees are quite modest, you get to meet other shooters and talk about the state of the business, and also have the opportunity to look at some of the photo-finishing gear and talk with the owners.

The point of this is part of the discussion was devoted to print & monitor calibration. One of the managers didn't understand why more folks don't let the lab color correct their files for the few extra pennies. But then he personally loathes spending a lot of screen time with PS so that's where he's coming from.

But with all the diagnoistic s/w out there, calibration sensors and monitors, it is still NOT always 100% precise. This was from the mouth of their AVP who has been in the photo business for about 47 years. The "tools" do get you in the ballpark. However there is still a percentage of "subjective perception" that goes into what is truly meant by calibration vis-a-vis a desired result.

The photographer still has to have a good technical as well as aesthetic sense of what makes a good image. I'm talking about the practical results of everyday shooting out in the real world - wedding, basketball court, race track, national park, etc.... - is there a good tonal range? Are the darks dark enough to show desirable contrast but still reveal solid shadow detail? Are the highlights sufficiently bright and white without losing all detail.

The calibration tools will get you in the neighborhood, but you still have to posess and understanding of what makes for proper exposure and how to get there.

Thank you..I checked into a lab and they will color correct for me so I'll go that route..they can color correct to their printers a lot easier and more exact than I can..thanks for all your answers and insight. I always like to learn and try new things to improve myself.

[jrsforums]

You speculate too much as to the number of years I spent learning what, the amount of time I have put into trying to master ETTL in a variety of circumstances and even my continued usage of ETTL in spite of its shortcoming. It really isn't useful to debate my knowledge and background, but the efficicacy of ETTL flash!

I only went by what you depicted as your history. Obviously I erred in my assumption

PS In your assumption about ETTL, let me correct you in your assumptions....I use ETTL exclusively with my Canon, in spite of its flaws...years ago I bought a Metz 54MZ and dedicated module for ETTL specifically for that purpose!

I am shocked....!!! You have been adamant and vocal on the faults of ETTL and the superiority of auto thyristor.

Your statement...
ETTL is unpredictably inconsistent. Auto flash (nonTTL photosensor) may have been in need of adjustment, but at least it was more predicable in that need!
...would have led me to believe that you were only using "auto"....and were suggesting that others ignore ETTL in favor of "auto".

When you speak so badly about ETTL, what message are you really trying to convey to the readers of this forum?

[Wilt]

II am shocked....!!! You have been adamant and vocal on the faults of ETTL and the superiority of auto thyristor.

Your statement...

...would have led me to believe that you were only using "auto"....and were suggesting that others ignore ETTL in favor of "auto".

When you speak so badly about ETTL, what message are you really trying to convey to the readers of this forum?

That ETTL can be frustrating to use successfully, and that it requires much more effort than one might assume to be the case, that it is less intuitive than TTL film cameras or Auto flash. I am not saying "Don't use it", but rather "...don't be surprised when your photos are not coming out all the time" and "be prepared to constantly chimp and/or shoot RAW so you can adjust out its shortfalls!"

I am not automatically an advocate of photosensor Auto flash, I much prefer film camera TTL by leaps and bounds. And while Auto may be much more consistent and predictable than ETTL, there are many circumstances where it will be easily (and predictably) fooled (e.g. shooting a subject 40' away with a tele when there are other people only 10' away) and ETTL is far better in spite of its flaws!

[sapearl]

Having used both, I would certainly agree with you this point.

........I am not automatically an advocate of Auto, ....... And while Auto may be consistent, there are many circumstances where it will be fooled (e.g. shooting a subject 40' away with a tele when there are other people only 10' away) and ETTL is far better in spite of its flaws!

[jrsforums]

That ETTL can be frustrating to use successfully, and that it requires much more effort than one might assume to be the case, that it is less intuitive than TTL film cameras or Auto flash. I am not saying "Don't use it", but rather "...don't be surprised when your photos are not coming out all the time" and "be prepared to constantly chimp and/or shoot RAW so you can adjust out its shortfalls!"

I am not automatically an advocate of photosensor Auto flash, I much prefer film camera TTL by leaps and bounds. And while Auto may be much more consistent and predictable than ETTL, there are many circumstances where it will be easily (and predictably) fooled (e.g. shooting a subject 40' away with a tele when there are other people only 10' away) and ETTL is far better in spite of its flaws!

We are in agreement...

..though I think the comparison with film TTL just "muddies" the discussion as ETTL and film TTL can not possibly be used on the same camera.

[Wilt]

We are in agreement...

..though I think the comparison with film TTL just "muddies" the discussion as ETTL and film TTL can not possibly be used on the same camera.

Agree that TTL discussion may muddy the discussion for the newbie, but for the working pro who has reluctantly changed over to digital finally, it will very often be the basis of comparison, and is quite confusing due to taking a few steps backward in predictability and correct exposure without FEC (it was for me!)

[Shooting]

I talked to one of the "printing" techs this evening on our subject and he said he has an $800.00 monitor upstairs that he cannot calibrate so don't even try to calibrate these cheap lcd monitors. Like you said, it may put it in the ball park he said but forget about accuracy. He said he just bought a 21" $1600.00 monitor and it is very precise. For only $.90 a print he will color correct what I send him and for $5.00 he will save the color corrected files on a dvd/cd as a .tiff file...

[Shooting]

To soften the harshness of direct maybe I should put the lumiquest soft box on..it shouldn't take that much fec difference than bouncing.

[sapearl]

It will certainly cut down on the harshness but at the same time reduce the flashes output probably by around 2-stops. On a dim dance floor you probably would not want to use it beyond about 8 feet. But for close up shots of couples it will likely give you some very pleasing results.

To soften the harshness of direct maybe I should put the lumiquest soft box on..it shouldn't take that much fec difference than bouncing.

[Shooting]

Ok..so that means putting it on, taking it off..putting it on, taking it off. too much trouble...

[Wilt]

It will certainly cut down on the harshness but at the same time reduce the flashes output probably by around 2-stops. On a dim dance floor you probably would not want to use it beyond about 8 feet. But for close up shots of couples it will likely give you some very pleasing results.

Let's not be too hasty in drawing that conclusion...

With 580EX, the GN at a normal lens coverage is 157(feet). If you up your ISO value on camera to ISO 200, the GN increases to about 220. So, without any light modifier you get 20' at f/11; put the softbox on the unit and reduce output by -2EV and that still is 20' at f/5.6 which is plenty fine. (Shooting 20' with a 50mm lens mounted on APS-C camera yields a nice 9' x 6' framed area, so that is a very practical distance to be using.) And with the modern low noise dSLR, using ISO 400 is a very practical way of getting f/11 back again (and helps us when dragging the shutter to capture a bit of ambient light in the background)

[Curtis N]

It will certainly cut down on the harshness but at the same time reduce the flashes output probably by around 2-stops. On a dim dance floor you probably would not want to use it beyond about 8 feet. But for close up shots of couples it will likely give you some very pleasing results.Regarding the Lumiquest Softbox or Pocket Bouncer - I certainly get more than 8 feet distance from mine, as long as I'm willing to crank up the ISO a little bit.

It is not a matter of right or wrong, but an aesthetic/artistic decision. Do you want hard light and no noise, or softer light and a little noise? I'm am convinced that being a good photographer requires knowing how to make the right compromise.

[sapearl]

I agree - if you want your pictures to be nicely exposed, come out properly and be markettable, then it is too much trouble to do it right :(.

You are looking for the easy way out here, a single magic bullet to get all your results, with the least amount of effort. Plenty of folks out there use that technique and it shows in the quality of their work. The quality of your images will correlate to the amount of effort you invest.

This craft is a combination of technology, practice, experience, art and planning. If you want the best results then you have to be flexible. This often involves changing your tools to match the situation.

Ok..so that means putting it on, taking it off..putting it on, taking it off. too much trouble...

[sapearl]

Point taken - I was being a little quick in my anecdotal measurements; math was never my strong suit. As Curtis rightfully points out, much of it is an aesthetic call, and that's what I tend to rely upon. I concede the usable range is greater than what I'd originally stated.

Let's not be too hasty in drawing that conclusion........

[jrsforums]

I agree - if you want your pictures to be nicely exposed, come out properly and be markettable, then it is too much trouble to do it right :(.

You are looking for the easy way out here, a single magic bullet to get all your results, with the least amount of effort. Plenty of folks out there use that technique and it shows in the quality of their work. The quality of your images will correlate to the amount of effort you invest.

This craft is a combination of technology, practice, experience, art and planning. If you want the best results then you have to be flexible. This often involves changing your tools to match the situation.


Well said....

[Wilt]

You are looking for the easy way out here, a single magic bullet to get all your results, with the least amount of effort. Plenty of folks out there use that technique and it shows in the quality of their work. The quality of your images will correlate to the amount of effort you invest.

Agree. We do not try to pull a trailer with a Toyota Corolla, we do not try to take 5 people in a bucket seat pickup truck (without extended cab). We do not try to drive a Phillips head screw into hard wood for the first time using a flat blade 1/8" screw driver. We change vehicles or we change tools as needed, we should change our photographic lighting equipment as needed, too. Or expect less than the best results in each case (vehicle, screwdriver, lighting)

[njmanigan]

There are many devices that one might refer to as a "diffuser".
The term, with regard to hotshoe flash, usually refers to a tupperware-type piece of translucent plastic to stick over the lens of the flash head.

They change the direction the photons travel after they leave the flash. This is not necessarily a good thing. A light that sends photons in all directions is difficult to control.

These are the most oversold, overused and misused devices in the entire photographic industry. While they do have some legitimate uses, they mostly just waste light, reduce battery life, extend recycle times and reduce your effective range.

If flash units "needed" diffusers, they would come as standard equipment with every unit sold.

That is SO true. If you really need something to diffuse light, youre better off making a DIY bounce card with white foam paper from a craft store.

[Shooting]

then you will have side shadows much of the time. Been there,tried it, trashed it. Seems to me the things that mount on the narrow end of the flash is wasting light too..only a small amount hits the card to bounce forward, the rest goes up to, Lord knows how far..talk about a waste. At least with the lightsphere the light does go out everywhere yes but it bathes the subject in soft light,bouncing off every surface around but it don't have to bounce forward to hit the subject. My best is the lumiquest soft box on bracket I've found this week. Just working on the right FEC. Had the flipit and I flipped it into the trash.

[sapearl]

That's why it's important to use either a camera rotator or flash rotator bracket. A number of us use the Newton:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=150493


The LS will also cause some slight side shadows if you are close enough to a background.

then you will have side shadows much of the time. Been there,tried it, trashed it. Seems to me the things that mount on the narrow end of the flash is wasting light too..only a small amount hits the card to bounce forward, the rest goes up to, Lord knows how far..talk about a waste. At least with the lightsphere the light does go out everywhere yes but it bathes the subject in soft light,bouncing off every surface around but it don't have to bounce forward to hit the subject. .....

[xchupacabrax]

As far as diffusers I've used the Omni then Pocket bouncer then the Demb flipit I found the flipit to be much more versatile and stuck with it, and it looks pretty nice on your flash too.

Here's mine.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/2283408076_d62ce642a1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2282622473_0afae5bc28.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/2282622507_9a857c3b06.jpg

[Trisha418]

I'm just curious..if the diffusers are in a big way sort of"useless", then what is suggested? Im not being sarcastic, just curious..I have no idea what to do with my 430 speedlite, except upgrade,LOL, so I'm just wondering what to do when outside..does it purely turn into a bounce off a building or reflector thing, and just forget the diffusers at all? BTW, I dont have one, because I havent even learned how to use my flash yet, so I didnt want to put anymore money into something I dont use.....

[sapearl]

With all due respect, I completely disagree with this statement.

Many people misuse diffusers, don't understand what they are for, and often buy the wrong ones for the wrong reasons. For those who understand their correct use, beautiful results can be achieved. They are a wonderful enhancement when properly used.

All flash work as well as basic photography takes practice. It is an artistic as well as technical craft. Many shooters expect fantastic results, immediately out of the box just because it's DIGITAL and all mistakes can be "fixed" in PS. Digital hasn't changed the basics of photography that were initiated back in 1839. It's still about proper exposure. That little LCD just allows you to see your good/bad results faster.

I'm just curious..if the diffusers are in a big way sort of"useless", then what is suggested? Im not being sarcastic, just curious..I have no idea what to do with my 430 speedlite, except upgrade,..........

[jrsforums]

With all due respect, I completely disagree with this statement.

Many people misuse diffusers, don't understand what they are for, and often buy the wrong ones for the wrong reasons. For those who understand their correct use, beautiful results can be achieved. They are a wonderful enhancement when properly used.

All flash work as well as basic photography takes practice. It is an artistic as well as technical craft. Many shooters expect fantastic results, immediately out of the box just because it's DIGITAL and all mistakes can be "fixed" in PS. Digital hasn't changed the basics of photography that were initiated back in 1839. It's still about proper exposure. That little LCD just allows you to see your good/bad results faster.

Stu....I was about to respond, hesitated, and glad I did as you said it so much better that I would have.

To Trishas' question of outdoors, I would suggest that in daylight for flash fill, that she just start with direct flash with -FEC. Often that is all that is needed to narrow the dynamic range (fill the shadows) of direct sunlight, lighten backlighted subjects, or add brightness to subjects in overcast/shadowed venues.

If you find the need (or want to try) the effects of a larger light sources, one inexpensive way to go is with a DIY "diffuser" as described here http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/ which, btw, will work outdoors as the "difuse" light is all directed forward. It can be built for about $2-3 and is not very different, and much cheaper than items such as the Lumiquest 'Big Bounce' or many of the mini softboxes.

Starting with these two should give you the experience to decide what, if anything, more you might need and to be able to evaluate the benefit to your style of shooting.

[fiveFPS]

someone post up some photos of the perfect photo with diffused flash

[sapearl]

This is NOT the perfect photo with diffused flash. I'm not sure if there IS such a thing. But it is a very good example of simple bounced/diffused light using NO extra modifiers other than what came with the flash. So I'm using the term "diffuse" perhaps a little lightly. But the point I'm making is that you don't have to spend big $$$ on huge hunks of plastic.

I shot this with a 580ex and the little white card extended, bounced off a white ceiling that is no higher than 15'. The 5D was on manual, ISO 800, 1/30 sec @ f/f.6, RAW file. This is a typical exposure for me although if it's lighter I will use either f/6.3 or 7.1 thereabouts. I did modest PP on this shot.

==>


someone post up some photos of the perfect photo with diffused flash

[sapearl]

Thanks John - very kind of you :D. I totally agree with you about using DIRECT outside. Very often when I'm doing groups and I'm at least 6' away, I will just flip down the little lens over the 580ex and fire away, keeping an eye on the -FEC.

Stu....I was about to respond, hesitated, and glad I did as you said it so much better that I would have.

To Trishas' question of outdoors, I would suggest that in daylight for flash fill, that she just start with direct flash with -FEC. Often that is all that is needed to narrow the dynamic range (fill the shadows) of direct sunlight, lighten backlighted subjects, or add brightness to subjects in overcast/shadowed venues...........

[Shooting]

Great image..except that little white card is useless in verticle position...I never thought of keeping the flash on a bracket and still bouncing with the flipit or the abbc..seems kinda impossible or very diffucult with a flip flash bracket.

[sapearl]

Thanks you shooting.... the only thing I object two are the slightl shadows in their eye sockets, but that's just a matter of personal taste.

I use that little white card as well as the Lumiquest products in the vertical position all the time with very pleasing results and NO side shadows. The better made rotating brackets - Newton - are very fast and easy to use. Takes just about a second to rotate into vertical position, shoot and reposition for landscape mode.

Great image..except that little white card is useless in verticle position...I never thought of keeping the flash on a bracket and still bouncing with the flipit or the abbc..seems kinda impossible or very diffucult with a flip flash bracket.

[Shooting]

But that is rotating the camera right? I prefer rotating the flash to make sure beyond a doubt that the flash will cover the entire viewing area.
Kinda hard to use that card with the flash flipped into verticle position, the flash would be reflected off the side.

[jrsforums]

Great image..except that little white card is useless in verticle position...I never thought of keeping the flash on a bracket and still bouncing with the flipit or the abbc..seems kinda impossible or very diffucult with a flip flash bracket.

I believe in using flash (almost) all the time...indoors or out...unless the event or circumstance dictate against it....and having the flash elevated over the lens is, in my opinion, the only way, whether it is single or as fill in multiflash.

I have both a flash rotator ("flip flash"?) and camera rotator bracket...both Newtons. Either works well, just differently.

If I know I am going to do a lot of shooting, going to work on a tripod, or have a long lens on a monopod with a 'Better Beamer', I will use the camera rotator.

The folding flash rotator is great, as it easily fits in my smaller kit bags. I got tired of not having one easily with me....I mean, why should my grandkids not have good, properly lighted pix...? :lol:

Shooting....if cost is a concern, I suggest you look at getting a Stroboframe....they are reasonably priced.....and use it....it should not be too hard. ;)

[sapearl]

Yes, I have the CAMERA rotator model. I considered getting the flash rotator - a lot of folks have and love them - but I was a little paranoid about constantly torquing the plastic foot portion of the 580. Some say it's a bit of a weak point, and to my eye it looks like it has the potential for being troublesome. Just one of my little foibles ;)

What card are you talking about - something you added on or the one that comes with the 580? I'm a little confused here.... with the 580's card it's always in the same spot, top dead center, no shadows being generated to one side or another.

As far as flash coverage goes, that's never been a problem - the 580 is designed to cover down to the 24mm end of the 24-105 which is what I use it with. John does have an excellent suggestion regarding the Strobframe. It's a pretty decent bracket for the money, and will cost a lot less than the Newton. For your minimal use it will hold up just fine.

But that is rotating the camera right? I prefer rotating the flash to make sure beyond a doubt that the flash will cover the entire viewing area.
Kinda hard to use that card with the flash flipped into verticle position, the flash would be reflected off the side.

[jrsforums]

Yes, I have the CAMERA rotator model. I considered getting the flash rotator - a lot of folks have and love them - but I was a little paranoid about constantly torquing the plastic foot portion of the 580. Some say it's a bit of a weak point, and to my eye it looks like it has the potential for being troublesome. Just one of my little foibles.

I have the same concern with an FR....but only if used by "flipping" the flash back and forth.

When I use the FR, I move the position of the flash with my left hand, while rotating the camera with my right. That way there is little stress put on the flash foot...it also never hangs at an angle, the flash is always "straight up" (on the Newton FR...some FR models by other makers position the flash "hanging" horizontal, which would really concern me)

This is actually why I use the CR when I am doing a lot of shooting and/or rapid shooting. The actions with the FR require a slight pause to change position. With the CR, my right hand is in position to focus/shoot while it is rotating the camera and my left continues under the camera to support/stabilize it for the next shot.

In addition, I can get greater height with the CR while still having the flash centered over the lens. I can do the same with the FR, but require the 2-3" extender, which, for me, reduces the compact nature of the folding FR. In most cases the height difference does not make a big difference (such as g'kid snapshots), but where important the add'l height (flash 9-12" above lens center) adds better lighting contrasts.

[sapearl]

That's really good to know John - thanks :D.

I'd seen that little extender advertised on his site and wondered what application of the bracket it would be good for. I had considered getting it for my CR model, but now see that it wouldn't make much difference.

I............ I can do the same with the FR, but require the 2-3" extender, which, for me, reduces the compact nature of the folding FR. In most cases the height difference does not make a bug difference (such as g'kid snapshots), but where important the add'l height (flash 9-12" above lens center) adds better lighting contrasts.

[jrsforums]

That's really good to know John - thanks :D.

I'd seen that little extender advertised on his site and wondered what application of the bracket it would be good for. I had considered getting it for my CR model, but now see that it wouldn't make much difference.

Yes, Stuart....for general shooting the Newton CR is just about perfect.

Some of the flash brackets make a point of having great height above the lens, which, to me, adds nothing to the image and just makes the handling of the "package" too difficult and unbalanced......but, that's why we have choices. :lol:

However, if you are talking about long distance shooting with flash, for example sport shooting such as football, you are into a whole different game. Then, to avoid red eye, you need a lot more separation. I have seen many use Wimberly extenders or examples of some, such as 'MT Stringer' and others, mount the flash lower down on their monopods.

[Shooting]

I believe in using flash (almost) all the time...indoors or out...unless the event or circumstance dictate against it....and having the flash elevated over the lens is, in my opinion, the only way, whether it is single or as fill in multiflash.

I have both a flash rotator ("flip flash"?) and camera rotator bracket...both Newtons. Either works well, just differently.

If I know I am going to do a lot of shooting, going to work on a tripod, or have a long lens on a monopod with a 'Better Beamer', I will use the camera rotator.

The folding flash rotator is great, as it easily fits in my smaller kit bags. I got tired of not having one easily with me....I mean, why should my grandkids not have good, properly lighted pix...? :lol:

Shooting....if cost is a concern, I suggest you look at getting a Stroboframe....they are reasonably priced.....and use it....it should not be too hard. ;)

I have the stroboframe flip flash and love it. I see the concerns about the strain on the hotshoe mount of rotating the flash around all the time, that is why when I have to flip the flash I do it carefully. I think I'll go back to using my lumiquest soft box with mine. I was using the flip it and lightsphere and even the ABBC all of which did not give me the results I was looking for in the different shooting situations. A straight flash with the soft box is what I see I need to do all the time.

[jrsforums]

I have the stroboframe flip flash and love it. I see the concerns about the strain on the hotshoe mount of rotating the flash around all the time, that is why when I have to flip the flash I do it carefully. I think I'll go back to using my lumiquest soft box with mine. I was using the flip it and lightsphere and even the ABBC all of which did not give me the results I was looking for in the different shooting situations. A straight flash with the soft box is what I see I need to do all the time.

It just struck me, that it is not clear which Stroboframe flip bracket you have....the Quickflip or the Stroboflip http://www.tiffen.com/userimages/Strobo_Quickflip_Stroboflip.pdf or something else.

If you have one of the "flips" which put the flash horizontal when the camera is in portrait mode, it may explain some of the problems, and usage difficulties, you are having with some of the modifiers/diffusers.

Keeping the flash unit vertical above the lens is not just better for the shoe connection, but also makes use of different attachments esier...or usable at all.

[HighLife]

i bought one of those little bag type of diffusers....it was cheap, so i figured if it didnt work well, i could use it as a cover for my 430ex =)

Like the one listed here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438067-REG/Dot_Line_DL_0190_Universal_Bounce_Diffuser.html)

[Shooting]

It just struck me, that it is not clear which Stroboframe flip bracket you have....the Quickflip or the Stroboflip http://www.tiffen.com/userimages/Strobo_Quickflip_Stroboflip.pdf or something else.

If you have one of the "flips" which put the flash horizontal when the camera is in portrait mode, it may explain some of the problems, and usage difficulties, you are having with some of the modifiers/diffusers.

Keeping the flash unit vertical above the lens is not just better for the shoe connection, but also makes use of different attachments esier...or usable at all.

I use the Stroboframe Quick Flip 350..you flip the flash verticle when you turn the camera verticle..flip the flash horizontal when you turn your camera horizontal.

[jrsforums]

I use the Stroboframe Quick Flip 350..you flip the flash verticle when you turn the camera verticle..flip the flash horizontal when you turn your camera horizontal.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but have different definitions of vertical and horizontal for the flash.

When I say the flash is vertical when the camera is horizontal (landscape mode), it is oriented in the same way as if it were on the camera's hot shoe.....i.e. the flash shoe is pointed toward the floor and the flash body/head toward the ceiling.

With the QF 350, I believe, when you turn the camera vertical (portrait mode), the flash is flip so the body is parallel to the floor. In this position, lots of tortional stress is placed on the flash hot shoe. In addition, most of the modifiers will not work unless they work off of the "narrow" end of the flash head....and will require reorienting the flash head along with flipping the flash.

I have never owned a Strobo QF, but I believe that is how it works.....and the problems it has....or may be causing you.

[Shooting]

Yep exactly...but I would rather use that than a camera flip bracket because you are rotating the camera up and down (verticle) and flash head stays side to side (horizontal) making you have a big risk of not covering the entire veritcle area the camera is rotated to.

[sapearl]

Actually I agree that's exactly what's happening - your description of the camera rotation and the head remaining in a horizontal position - but I believe in practice unless you use an UWA lens, flash coverage is not a problem in most shooting situations.

I'm not saying it's never happened, but in all my years of wedding work my flash heads have been large enough that this was not a real issue.

Yep exactly...but I would rather use that than a camera flip bracket because you are rotating the camera up and down (verticle) and flash head stays side to side (horizontal) making you have a big risk of not covering the entire veritcle area the camera is rotated to.

[jrsforums]

Actually I agree that's exactly what's happening - your description of the camera rotation and the head remaining in a horizontal position - but I believe in practice unless you use an UWA lens, flash coverage is not a problem in most shooting situations.

I'm not saying it's never happened, but in all my years of wedding work my flash heads have been large enough that this was not a real issue.

Stu....I totally agree...

Actually...Robert Newton says it well on his site, under 'Bracket Tech'

"Horizontal Flash Head - When Newton brackets rotate the flash to vertical position the flash head stays in the horizontal position even though the camera is in the vertical format. Many photographers are concerned that this will cause light fall off. Let me assure you that under normal conditions it will not make any difference. A wide angle lens might cause some fall off but not too many photographers shoot vertical customers with a wide angle lens. If you do use a wide angle lens use a diffuser or bounce flash to get the coverage you need. The advantage of leaving the flash in this position is that the head can be tilted up or bounce systems can be attached and used. Your flash was designed to be mounted in this position and not laying on its side. When laying on its side the weight of the flash with batteries will cause damage to the flash foot and contacts."

If I am ever shooting direct flash with an UWA (such as my 12-24)...and this is rare....and think I need greater flash coverage (in any orientation), I will simply pop on a Stofen Omnibounce. After all, when Nikon ships a similar product with their S-800 ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=product.jsp&A=kitInfo&Q=&sku=247098&is=REG ) they call is a 'Wide Angle Adapter'

[HighLife]

In a ebay mixup, i got one of those inflatable softboxes. Its a pretty large area...kinda looks professional when you have it connected even though its balloon-ish. It does seem to give off alot of soft light. I think for the 6$ i spent its really not a bad item. Im sure it will help alot on macro shots since it extends the alittle farther forward...now i need a off shoe cord...thats my next purchase.

Its not what i ordered, so i wrote to the person and they supposed to send me the correct item. Im no-way shipping anything back to HKong ..so for 6$, its not a total loss =)

This is what it looks like...

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1039/diffuserch6.jpg

[sapearl]

Hey, you can't beat it for $6. I'm sure it will work to a degree, although you may lose about 2+ stops depending upon the translucency of the white plastic. It should probably do reasonably well for close objects.

[HighLife]

Hey, you can't beat it for $6. I'm sure it will work to a degree, although you may lose about 2+ stops depending upon the translucency of the white plastic. It should probably do reasonably well for close objects.

Yes, i lost a tad bit of light for sure..however, its not much and i can compensate using FEC...of course to a degree...

Im lucky i guess, as i bought something totally different...however was pleasantly surprised. This is what i really ordered (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=150215672383&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=005) and got the one pictured above, however i got the 580 version i believe, due to the size...I wrote to him saying i got the wrong item...we will see if he sends me the correct one also.

[Wilt]

The one that originally was sent would be the better product, AFAIK. What you ordered is no better than the Stoffen Omnibounce...if the ceiling and walls are nearby and neutrally colored, it provides benefit via use the the walls and ceiling to increase the surface area of the light 'source' and it also provides a small direct light source for catchlight in the eyes. No ceiling, no benefit from larger, softer light.

What was sent to you is a knock-off of the Photoflex product, an inflatable version of their larger cloth softboxes. It is more versatile: With a ceiling present, just aim the head up (without the inflatable) toward the ceiling and use a 3x5 note card to serve as a source to provide catchlight in the eyes. Without ceiling, the larger surface area helps to soften the direct light.
I use my Wescott Micro Apollo, which is a softbox using conventional material rather the inflatable Photoflex (or this product), inside and outside.

[HighLife]

ya, i figured the one i have now is better...with the first one, i thought that the worse case scenario i could use it to cover up my flash when its in my bag..since i dont use the padded case....

I would of LOVED to see a velcro belt strap on the 430EX case...i thought about taking it and have it sewn on professionally. That way i can strap it outside my bag.