Speedlite difuser

[potn_momma2]

Feel stupid, but how do you use the pull out diffuser on the 430EX??

The manual does not say much about it and I cant really find any other useful information

[350D_Noob]

Just pull on it.

[D_CeLiRaToR]

pull it out till it stops and let it drop down over the flash. the only time i've used it was for close up stuff where the barrel of the lens would cause shadows from the direct flash. since then i've bought a stofen diffuser and i always bounce the flash off something. works much better than using the built in diffuser.

[Wilt]

BTW that is not a 'diffuser', it merely widens the coverage angle of the flash to a wider FL coverage. A 'diffuser' makes the apparent size of the light source to be larger, and might have no effect on the coverage area size!

For example, with a studio flash head, I might have a 5" reflector, a 11" reflector, or a 24" beauty dish, and all of them might only cover a 100 degree angle of coverage! The SIZE is different, the coverage angle is identical.

[tim]

The best "diffuser" is a wall or the ceiling. As Wilt said it's the size of the apparent light source that's important.

[PacAce]

BTW that is not a 'diffuser', it merely widens the coverage angle of the flash to a wider FL coverage. A 'diffuser' makes the apparent size of the light source to be larger, and might have no effect on the coverage area size!

For example, with a studio flash head, I might have a 5" reflector, a 11" reflector, or a 24" beauty dish, and all of them might only cover a 100 degree angle of coverage! The SIZE is different, the coverage angle is identical.

I've always wondered where people came up with the idea that the wide panel or the catchlight panel is called a diffuser because I don't think that term is used anywhere in the flash manual. :confused:

[Zansho]

I've always wondered where people came up with the idea that the wide panel or the catchlight panel is called a diffuser because I don't think that term is used anywhere in the flash manual. :confused:


You'd be amazed at how many people think that. I've had my friends tell me to pull out my diffuser on my flash to help soften the light. I usually have to correct them, and they're usually adamant that they're in the right.

Nowhere in the flash's manual does it say that it's a diffuser of any sort. I wouldn't want to use a diffuser on my 580 EX II anyway, it's either a bounce card or bouncing it off a wall or ceiling.

[potn_momma2]

lol no i realize you just pull it out... i know how to pull it out but I didn't realize what it was for...

I'm not really sure where I got the word "diffuser" from... someone said it so I went with it...

So it widens the flash coverage?? So when you're bouncing off the wall or somesuch it just expands the coverage of the flash?

[Hermes]

BTW that is not a 'diffuser', it merely widens the coverage angle of the flash to a wider FL coverage. A 'diffuser' makes the apparent size of the light source to be larger, and might have no effect on the coverage area size!

For example, with a studio flash head, I might have a 5" reflector, a 11" reflector, or a 24" beauty dish, and all of them might only cover a 100 degree angle of coverage! The SIZE is different, the coverage angle is identical.

I don't think that's totally accurate - if something is designed to scatter light waves, sound waves, e.t.c. it is a diffuser.

Creating a large light source is the key to softer lighting. It is not inherently necessary to 'diffuse' light in order to do so, using diffusion material just happens to be the best/easiest way of generating a large effective light source when using small strobes. Something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce is your best bet if you want to soften a speedlight with any real effectiveness.

[Wilt]

I don't think that's totally accurate - if something is designed to scatter light waves, sound waves, e.t.c. it is a diffuser.

Creating a large light source is the key to softer lighting. It is not inherently necessary to 'diffuse' light in order to do so, using diffusion material just happens to be the best/easiest way of generating a large effective light source when using small strobes. Something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce is your best bet if you want to soften a speedlight with any real effectiveness.

By your definition, perhaps, but not by convention of the photographic world.
A 'diffuse' source, vs. a 'specular' or 'point' source of light in photography pertains to the relative size of the source. Clear sky sunlight is a specular source, overcast is a diffuse source.

Webster simply defines verb 'diffuse' as "To spread (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spread) over or through as in air (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/air), water (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/water), or other matter, especially by fluid (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluid) motion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motion) or passive (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/passive) means. " adjective is "Everywhere or throughout everything; not focused (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/focus) or concentrated (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concentrate). " The 'not focused' is the key.

[Hermes]

By your definition, perhaps, but not by convention of the photographic world.
A 'diffuse' source, vs. a 'specular' or 'point' source of light in photography pertains to the relative size of the source. Clear sky sunlight is a specular source, overcast is a diffuse source.

Webster simply defines verb 'diffuse' as "To spread (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spread) over or through as in air (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/air), water (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/water), or other matter, especially by fluid (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluid) motion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motion) or passive (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/passive) means. " adjective is "Everywhere or throughout everything; not focused (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/focus) or concentrated (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concentrate). " The 'not focused' is the key.

By convention of the photographic world and by proper definition, 'diffuse' means to spread - In a lighting context, it has nothing to do with the size of a light source. Even if in your experience, photographers have mistakenly confused the concept of diffusing a light source with enlarging it, this doesn't make it a convention (none of the photographers and lighting directors I've worked with, assistants I've had, books I've read, e.t.c. have ever confused the two, and the only place I've ever seen any ambiguity on this matter is on internet forums). I can't see any good reason to pass on misinformation or misapplication of simple terminology to new or inexperienced photographers - diffusion has everything to do with coverage and little to do with size.

For example, if you're standing on earth, the sun will produce a harsh, directional light. If you were standing a few feet away from it (with sunglasses and a very good apron), it would produce an even, flattering light due to the relative increase in its size - in neither case would it be diffused. I've worked on film sets where there have been large numbers of lights set up in a tightly-packed bank to produce a soft, directional light - clearly not 'diffused' but still a large, effective light source. At a pinch I've used mirrors lying around the location I've been shooting in as mid-sized reflectors - again, the light they reflected was directional rather than diffused but they still constituted a bigger light source than the bare-bulb of the strobe they were reflecting.

You can diffuse a light source without enlarging it and you can enlarge a light source without diffusing it - the fact that diffusion and enlargement are often combined to make one large, diffused light source (softbox, diffusion panel, broad cloud cover, foamcore reflector, e.t.c.) doesn't make the two terms interchangeable.

[PacAce]

Let me just throw this into the discussion. According to the authors of "Light Science & Magic", i.e. Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua, direct transmission of light is described as light passing through a material in a predictable path. And diffuse transmission is described as light passing through a material, such as white glass or thin paper, where the light rays are scattered in many random and unpredictable directions. The wide panel of the EX flash does not scatter light in random directions. The panel is a clear plastic with micro prisms on the surface to direct light in one direction or another but not randomly. So, by the above definitions, although the wide panel does scatter light, it really cannot be called a diffuser. Now, if the white panel were thin enough to let light pass through it, then that could be considered as a diffuser. :)

[PacAce]

Let me just throw this into the discussion. According to the authors of "Light Science & Magic", i.e. Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua, direct transmission of light is described as light passing through a material in a predictable path. And diffuse transmission is described as light passing through a material, such as white glass or thin paper, where the light rays are scattered in many random and unpredictable directions. The wide panel of the EX flash does not scatter light in random directions. The panel is a clear plastic with micro prisms on the surface to direct light in one direction or another but not randomly. So, by the above definitions, although the wide panel does scatter light, it really cannot be called a diffuser. Now, if the white panel were thin enough to let light pass through it, then that could be considered as a diffuser. :)

[Hermes]

Let me just throw this into the discussion. According to the authors of "Light Science & Magic", i.e. Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua, direct transmission of light is described as light passing through a material in a predictable path. And diffuse transmission is described as light passing through a material, such as white glass or thin paper, where the light rays are scattered in many random and unpredictable directions. The wide panel of the EX flash does not scatter light in random directions. The panel is a clear plastic with micro prisms on the surface to direct light in one direction or another but not randomly. So, by the above definitions, although the wide panel does scatter light, it really cannot be called a diffuser. Now, if the white panel were thin enough to let light pass through it, then that could be considered as a diffuser. :)

It's a good book but I wouldn't put too much store in that particular definition - no diffuser, including paper and white glass, scatters light in an 'unpredictable' way as you can always calculate the likely spread and area of coverage based on the properties of the diffusion material. The wide panel of a flash doesn't seem unique in this sense.

Maybe the point they're trying to make is that if you were to fire a single light wave/particle through a pane of glass or into a mirror you'd be able to accurately predict where it would end up as it would have a straight trajectory, whereas if you fired it through a diffuser there are a number of directions in which it could end up travelling. You could predict the rough area it would end up in by averaging the results of millions upon millions of waves/particles emitted from a light source but practically speaking (i.e. without an electron microscope and a lot of time on your hands) there would be no way of predicting the path each one would take.

Either way, the main point is that diffusion refers to the direction of light, not the size of the light source. If the OP wants their speedlite to act as a larger and softer light source then one of the bigger accessory softboxes would be the most convenient solution (there is a good one other than the Lumiquest Big Bounce but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called atm). If all they want to do is diffuse it then a Stofen Omnibounce or similar will do so for very little cost but I'm guessing that this isn't what they're looking for.

[PacAce]

It's a good book but I wouldn't put too much store in that particular definition - no diffuser, including paper and white glass, scatters light in an 'unpredictable' way as you can always calculate the likely spread and area of coverage based on the properties of the diffusion material. The wide panel of a flash doesn't seem unique in this sense.

Maybe the point they're trying to make is that if you were to fire a single light wave/particle through a pane of glass or into a mirror you'd be able to accurately predict where it would end up as it would have a straight trajectory, whereas if you fired it through a diffuser there are a number of directions in which it could end up travelling. You could predict the rough area it would end up in by averaging the results of millions upon millions of waves/particles emitted from a light source but practically speaking (i.e. without an electron microscope and a lot of time on your hands) there would be no way of predicting the path each one would take.

Either way, the main point is that diffusion refers to the direction of light, not the size of the light source. If the OP wants their speedlite to act as a larger and softer light source then one of the bigger accessory softboxes would be the most convenient solution (there is a good one other than the Lumiquest Big Bounce but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called atm). If all they want to do is diffuse it then a Stofen Omnibounce or similar will do so for very little cost but I'm guessing that this isn't what they're looking for.
That is exactly my point. Light path through a diffusing material would be unpredictable. However, light path through the wide panel of the flash would be just like it is through a lens and, hence, it's not technically a diffuser. That's the only point I was trying to make. I do agree with your other points, though.

[Wilt]

This illustrates my point about size affecting shadow presence. First photo is flash lens only, second lens has a diffusing paper (bond) in front and exactly the same size as the lens, and the third has a 5x7" softbox in front.


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

[Hermes]

That is exactly my point. Light path through a diffusing material would be unpredictable. However, light path through the wide panel of the flash would be just like it is through a lens and, hence, it's not technically a diffuser. That's the only point I was trying to make. I do agree with your other points, though.

I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see how light passes through a wide panel any more or less predictably than a white piece of paper or frosted glass. In all cases there will be a broad area in which the light rays will land and a maximum angle of spread but within that, which ray lands where is, for all practical purposes, random. Fire a single light ray into that wide panel and it could be redirected anywhere within an angle of around 114 degrees. Without analysing the wide panel at a microscopic level, there's no way to predict where specifically it will land.

I should say that the above isn't really my point - just trying to interpret what the authors wrote.

[PacAce]

I understand what you're getting at, I just don't see how light passes through a wide panel any more or less predictably than a white piece of paper or frosted glass. In all cases there will be a broad area in which the light rays will land and a maximum angle of spread but within that, which ray lands where is, for all practical purposes, random. Fire a single light ray into that wide panel and it could be redirected anywhere within an angle of around 114 degrees. Without analysing the wide panel at a microscopic level, there's no way to predict where specifically it will land.

I should say that the above isn't really my point - just trying to interpret what the authors wrote.

Based on your post here, I can only suspect that you do not have an EX flash with a wide panel on it. If you actually saw what it looks like, I'm sure you'll have a different opinion about it. :)

[Hermes]

Based on your post here, I can only suspect that you do not have an EX flash with a wide panel on it. If you actually saw what it looks like, I'm sure you'll have a different opinion about it. :)

Believe it or not I have 3. In fact, I actually got my 430 out of my camera bag and double checked that I wasn't remembering it wrongly when I read this. :)

My point is that if a single light wave or a thin laser pointer were fired through a pane of glass it would go (more or less) straight through, in which case you'd say its path was predictable. The same can be said for a mirror. If you fired it through a wide panel, depending on the exact point it strikes, it could go anywhere. If it hits a shallow point in between four micro-prisms it will go roughly straight, if it hits a prism at its peak it will be redirected sharply up, down, left or right depending on which side it strikes, and every in-between scenario is also possible.

Are you honestly telling me that if I put you in a square room with a laser set up pointing through a wide panel, you'd be able to mark the exact spot on the wall that the laser would end up hitting when turned on, and be able to keep doing it accurately as the laser was moved a few millimetres down, sideways, e.t.c.? - if its output was predictable, surely you'd be able to. The user manual for my 540EZ actually recommends pulling the wide panel out when bouncing the flash upwards to produce a catchlight in the subject's eyes - to me that's a pretty clear indication from Canon that it's designed to diffuse light.

[PacAce]

Believe it or not I have 3. In fact, I actually got my 430 out of my camera bag and double checked that I wasn't remembering it wrongly when I read this. :)

My point is that if a single light wave or a thin laser pointer were fired through a pane of glass it would go (more or less) straight through, in which case you'd say its path was predictable. The same can be said for a mirror. If you fired it through a wide panel, depending on the exact point it strikes, it could go anywhere. If it hits a shallow point in between four micro-prisms it will go roughly straight, if it hits a prism at its peak it will be redirected sharply up, down, left or right depending on which side it strikes, and every in-between scenario is also possible.

Are you honestly telling me that if I put you in a square room with a laser set up pointing through a wide panel, you'd be able to mark the exact spot on the wall that the laser would end up hitting when turned on, and be able to keep doing it accurately as the laser was moved a few millimetres down, sideways, e.t.c.? - if its output was predictable, surely you'd be able to. The user manual for my 540EZ actually recommends pulling the wide panel out when bouncing the flash upwards to produce a catchlight in the subject's eyes - to me that's a pretty clear indication from Canon that it's designed to diffuse light.
Yes, I am. The behavior of prisms, like optical glass, can be predicted and, hence, so can the path of the light traveling through it. Why do you supposed prisms are used in SLR cameras and binoculars. And how about their use on focusing screens in the form of ring microprisms and split prism focusing aids? :|

BTW, the flash manual tells you to pull out the white panel for the catch light, not the wide panel. Yes, the white panel could be considered as a diffuser although it's rightly a reflector since light isnt' really passing through it. But the wide panel is not.

I think we've taken this thread way off topic so this will be my last post on the subject. :)

[Hermes]

Yes, I am. The behavior of prisms, like optical glass, can be predicted and, hence, so can the path of the light traveling through it. Why do you supposed prisms are used in SLR cameras and binoculars. And how about their use on focusing screens in the form of ring microprisms and split prism focusing aids? :|

BTW, the flash manual tells you to pull out the white panel for the catch light, not the wide panel. Yes, the white panel could be considered as a diffuser although it's rightly a reflector since light isnt' really passing through it. But the wide panel is not.

I think we've taken this thread way off topic so this will be my last post on the subject. :)

It can't tell me to pull out the white panel as there is no white panel on the 540EZ, only a wide panel which acts as a diffuser :) Have a look at page 23 if you don't believe me - http://66.49.230.119/flashes_meters/canon_540ez.pdf

Anyway, I agree that we're probably getting into an endless debate and that the OP's question about the practical effect of the wide panel and of diffusion has been answered. One of them 'agree to disagree' ones.

[Wilt]

It can't tell me to pull out the white panel as there is no white panel on the 540EZ, only a wide panel which acts as a diffuser :) Have a look at page 23 if you don't believe me - http://66.49.230.119/flashes_meters/canon_540ez.pdf

Anyway, I agree that we're probably getting into an endless debate and that the OP's question about the practical effect of the wide panel and of diffusion has been answered. One of them 'agree to disagree' ones.

Hermes, I don't understand why you insist that any lens that throws the light to a FOCUSED area which happens to be wide enough to cover 14mm lens is a 'diffuser' Q: What is the difference of a 14mm focused area and a 105mm focused area? A: The area of focus.

The point of a diffuser is that at each and every point on the diffusers's area, rays of light go out at random angles. The diffusion pertains to the directionality of light at each point...a frosted surface provides diffusion, the wide lens provides focused light within a wide area (there may be some diffusion effect, but the light is primarily directed by the lens system).

[Hermes]

Hermes, I don't understand why you insist that any lens that throws the light to a FOCUSED area which happens to be wide enough to cover 14mm lens is a 'diffuser' Q: What is the difference of a 14mm focused area and a 105mm focused area? A: The area of focus.

The point of a diffuser is that at each and every point on the diffusers's area, rays of light go out at random angles. The diffusion pertains to the directionality of light at each point...a frosted surface provides diffusion, the wide lens provides focused light within a wide area (there may be some diffusion effect, but the light is primarily directed by the lens system).

Wilt, if you read back you'll see that I am questioning the notion that diffusion is inherently 'unpredictable' and 'random'.

A wide panel will produce a pool of light which is consistent in its coverage and angle of spread and so will a piece of paper or a sheet of tough spun. If you fire a flash through any of them, the results you get will be consistent and repeatable. I therefore don't see how you could say that a wide panel is more predictable or consistent than materials which are accepted to be diffusers (e.g. commercially available diffusion filters), and so a definition of 'diffusion' which rests on the notion of unpredictability or randomness (such as the one PacAce highlighted) is inadequate. By their definition, nothing would be classified as a diffuser as you can always analyse a material and calculate what effect it will have on light passing through it.

My original point wasn't about finding a detailed definition of 'diffusion' but simply to point out to the OP that diffusion was not, as you and some other posters stated, concerned with with the size of a light source but concerned with with its coverage, as I felt that the advice they were getting was inaccurate and misleading. Now that has been established, I tend to agree with PacAce that debating this further would pull the thread even more off-topic so this is the last you'll hear from me on the subject :)

[Wilt]

Wilt, if you read back you'll see that I am questioning the notion that diffusion is inherently 'unpredictable' and 'random'.

A wide panel will produce a pool of light which is consistent in its coverage and angle of spread and so will a piece of paper or a sheet of tough spun. If you fire a flash through any of them, the results you get will be consistent and repeatable. I therefore don't see how you could say that a wide panel is more predictable or consistent than materials which are accepted to be diffusers (e.g. commercially available diffusion filters), and so a definition of 'diffusion' which rests on the notion of unpredictability or randomness (such as the one PacAce highlighted) is inadequate. By their definition, nothing would be classified as a diffuser as you can always analyse a material and calculate what effect it will have on light passing through it.

My original point wasn't about finding a detailed definition of 'diffusion' but simply to point out to the OP that diffusion was not, as you and some other posters stated, concerned with with the size of a light source but concerned with with its coverage, as I felt that the advice they were getting was inaccurate and misleading. Now that has been established, I tend to agree with PacAce that debating this further would pull the thread even more off-topic so this is the last you'll hear from me on the subject :)

Hermes,
Look at my illustration of effect of a lens (photo 1) vs. effect of diffusion (photo2) ...the diffusion offered by the paper softens the edges of the shadow. If you had put the wide lens over the flash, the total area of illumination changes but the shadow edge is fundamentally the same as without the wide lens, because it is still focused.

The diffusion effect of the paper is that (if you treat the paper as a grid of 10000 light emitting points) from each of the points on the surface of the paper, light is going out in all directions. That is the 'random' nature. Diffusion in liquid says that a dye would randomly disperse if you dropped a single drop into the water...and after enough time it is 'in all directions'

[FergusonFotos]

I don't want to step into heated territory, or unwelcome territory, but I do have a question about diffusers and since that is the discussion here, and you all seem to be more knowledgeable than I am, I figured I'd pick this discussion to ask my question. :) I am a fairly inexperienced photographer, I usually shoot in manual without a flash. I have never used a diffuser. I do have a Canon 430EX flash. I have used it and am comfortable using it, I just don't use it much. I am taking classes twice a week, I am up to advanced photography and getting ready to start Creative Portraiture classes, and then Studio Lighting classes. My friend from class says she thinks that if I use a diffuser at my next wedding, which is next week, that I'll be able to lower my ISO to get better quality pictures, but she wasn't sure. We are going to ask our instructor tonight, but I wanted to get some input from POTN members as well.

Is that true? Attached is a picture of what she told me a diffuser was, I want to make sure I am talking about the correct item! lol

[PacAce]

I don't want to step into heated territory, or unwelcome territory, but I do have a question about diffusers and since that is the discussion here, and you all seem to be more knowledgeable than I am, I figured I'd pick this discussion to ask my question. :) I am a fairly inexperienced photographer, I usually shoot in manual without a flash. I have never used a diffuser. I do have a Canon 430EX flash. I have used it and am comfortable using it, I just don't use it much. I am taking classes twice a week, I am up to advanced photography and getting ready to start Creative Portraiture classes, and then Studio Lighting classes. My friend from class says she thinks that if I use a diffuser at my next wedding, which is next week, that I'll be able to lower my ISO to get better quality pictures, but she wasn't sure. We are going to ask our instructor tonight, but I wanted to get some input from POTN members as well.

Is that true? Attached is a picture of what she told me a diffuser was, I want to make sure I am talking about the correct item! lol
On the contrary, if you use a diffuser such as that shown in the link you provided, you'll actually end up having to increase the ISO. This is because you lose light intensity when the light has to pass through the diffuser material and you also loose light intensity per unit area because the light is spead out over a larger area than without it. But, if it's used indoors, you may get better quality pictures compared to shooting the flash straight on at the subject because the increase in the apparent size of the flash softens the shadow areas and lessens the overall contrast of the picture.

[FergusonFotos]

Thanks! That answers my question!

[Wilt]

Linda,
Use of a diffuser does not permit lower ISO...if anything, the absorbtion of light by the diffuser might force you to use a high ISO to offset the loss of light caused by the diffuser!
The 'diffuser' shown in the photo does 'scatter light in all directions'...the light that goes up to the ceiling or adjacent walls and bounces back to the subject turns those surfaces into 'large apparent light source' and thereby softening shadow edges and reducing shadow contrast. But what goes off in other directions (which is most of the light, when you are outdoors!) is wasted light that provides no illumination of your subject. You depict what a lot of us will disparage as 'Tupperware' because the 'photographic diffuser' costs a lot more but is not more effective photographically than simply using a piece of Tupperware from the kitchen!

[FergusonFotos]

Thank you! That helps alot! ;)