lightsphere II truly replaces the need for a Flash Bracket?

[Harry Settle]

Here are a couple of shots from this weekend using the Lightsphere II. I am impressed with the even lighting and the absence of shadows.

[Harry Settle]

Here's a couple of others.

[pradeep1]

Nice photos in terms of lighting, but too much JPG compression. Post less compressed versions please so we can appreciate your photography. :)

[Harry Settle]

Thanks for the kind comment, but I only took the shots for an experiment with the lightsphere. I'll eventually get around to putting a few shots in the People section that aren't so rough.

[drisley]

I agree, very nice lighting, and cute pictures, but the jpg compression really ruins the pictures.
Thanks for sharing with us. I am going to google that piece of equipment now.

[tim]

That does do a good job, it's on my list of things to get sooner or later :)

[drisley]

Some guy in another forum made one on the cheap with a plastic cup.

[scottbergerphoto]

I appear to be alone in this opinion, but I don't like the results from the lightsphere. It looks flat and directionless. No catchlights. No highs. Just my 2c.
Scott

[Harry Settle]

You can make a similar accessory out of a plastic milk container, but how cool would that look at a wedding?

"You paid that guy HOW MUCH to shoot this wedding with a plastic milk bottle?"

I had to chuckle a little at that Bloo. I took a real ribbing, while shooting some candids at a wedding reception of one of my kids friends, when I fashioned a flash bounce out of a paper plate and a rubber band.

[markubig]

I've heard the term "looks flat" a few times, but I don't quite understand what it means . . . could someone elaborate a little bit for me?

I took this shot yesterday at a 90th birthday party I did for my friend's grandmother (i shot the party as a present to the grandmother . . . she is the one on the left). This photo was taken with my Lightsphere II on a 550ex and taken with my Drebel & Tamron 28-75.

I really like the results that the Lightsphere is giving me. Is this light considered flat? Thanks for en-"lightnening" me http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gifhttp://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

[Barb42]

I think it looks great! I just got mine and can't wait to try it out. Appreciate the samples.

[tim]

I'd love to see more images taken of people with a lighsphere, and if there were photos of the same person with and without the lightsphere that'd be even better :)

[drisley]

I think I understand what Scott means by flat.
The lighting is very even, without much shadow depth.
I kind of thought the same thing.
Although not ideal, in most situations this still beats a direct flash when you dont have a ceiling, or the ceiling is too high to bounce.

[scottbergerphoto]

Flat lighting is :
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Flatlighting
It's a matter of taste. I like lighting with dimensions to it. I'm used to looking at pictures with shadows and highlights. The lightspere gives you flat lighting. Just not for me. When I bounce an Omnibounce off a white surface I still get light with direction and catchlights in the eyes. I prefer that.
Scott

[Toogy]

I just came across the website for the lightsphere II flash diffuser and it states that if you use this diffuser, you won't get the nasty cross shadows typical of portrait orientation shots with the flash on the camera.
Does anybody know if this claim is true? Will using the lightsphere II be enough to not have to worry about buying a flash bracket for doing wedding photography?

Thanks

[markubig]

I just came across the website for the lightsphere II flash diffuser and it states that if you use this diffuser, you won't get the nasty cross shadows typical of portrait orientation shots with the flash on the camera.
Does anybody know if this claim is true? Will using the lightsphere II be enough to not have to worry about buying a flash bracket for doing wedding photography?
with my experience so far, you get a nice evenly-spread light when in the vertical position, but if you have a wall behind your subject, a shadow will still cast on the right side behind your subject.

Here is an example i posted a while back (notice the shadow in vertical shots):
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62913&highlight=LightSphere+II

But here is an example where i was in vertical and got nice results without a flash bracket:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63419&highlight=mother

[markubig]

Flat lighting is :
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Flatlighting
It's a matter of taste. I like lighting with dimensions to it. I'm used to looking at pictures with shadows and highlights. The lightspere gives you flat lighting. Just not for me. When I bounce an Omnibounce off a white surface I still get light with direction and catchlights in the eyes. I prefer that.
Scott

Scott, thanks for the clarification.

In the case you're in a banquet hall-type room and don't have white walls or low ceilings to bounce off of, how do you get lighting with dimensions?

[scottbergerphoto]

I would use a bracket mounted flash with a Lumiquest Pocket Bounce or a Q Flash T2D with diffuser panel.
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

I just came across the website for the lightsphere II flash diffuser and it states that if you use this diffuser, you won't get the nasty cross shadows typical of portrait orientation shots with the flash on the camera.
Does anybody know if this claim is true? Will using the lightsphere II be enough to not have to worry about buying a flash bracket for doing wedding photography?

Thanks


Did you see the part about rotating your flash head sideways so by using the tilt aspect of the head you can keep the Lightsphere facing the correct way? It looks logical to me,. but I don't have the unit myself... ;) (yet :) )

[Todd Jacobsen]

One of the problems I've been noticing about the posts on Lightsphere II is that there are no comparative photos being conducted to show differences between the LS II and any othe similar product. Individual shots, utilizing one device only, only shows that particular device can create good pictures. Individual shots, utilizing one device only, cannot provide comparative value (ie making statements like LS II better than Omni-bounce are just not valid unless there is a side-by-side comparison - utilizing controlled environments - same subject/time/scenario..etc...

Examples:

1) Utilizing the LS II compared to the Omni-bounce on same subject. Each device utilizes a different technique on getting the light to the subject. The LS II can be utilized in a bounce technique as well (with lid off).

2) Utilizing the LS II compared to the 80-20(Lumiquest) or Promax System(Lumiquest)

3) Utilizing the LSII compared to a Lumiquest SoftBox flash attachment.

I just purchased and have the LSII but I cannot verify whether it's better than the other systems available until I see comparative results.

[mbze430]

When you first purchased the LSII, the information page has 3 pictures of a girl. One with direct flash, 2nd with an omni-bounce, than a LSII.

http://secure.mycart.net/catalogs/catalog.asp?prodid=3354218&showprevnext=1

I personally also have a Photoflex Xtra small softbox. But for the size of the LSII verses the softbox, I rather carry the LSII

[Harry Settle]

I carry the Lightsphere, omnibounce and two sizes of Lumiquest pocket bounces. They all have a place in the toolbox.