Will the 600 EX accept flash diffusers (gary fong, etc)?

[saabstorey]

Originally Posted by gonzogolf

If you are using it for macro work it might make a minor difference. But it would still be a poor substitute for a modifier that actually increases the size of the light source. Using it outside in any other circumstance is a total wasted effort.

True. And it's a quite noticeable difference in macro work with something shiny like a frog or salamander. I just forgot to mention that they are cheap and rainproof. The literature available on omnibounces state that they are really only effective at very short range, when and were there is not a better option like a wall to bounce or light stands with powerful strobes inside of carefully chosen light modifiers. Why don't we all stick to talking about what we have experience with? If you've never shot shiny, shy and highly mobile subjects at night in the rain, then don't try to tell me how much of a difference one piece of gear will or will not make.

Yes, softboxes are the ticket, but let me reiterate their downsides. They're larger, when sometimes you need to stay as small and inconspicuous as possible. They can get wet. They are more expensive. You should use the right tool for the job, but sometimes, you have to use the best tool you can, given the parameters of the job (and your budget).

Also, I never said anything about using an omnibounce outside in any other situation.
AND, in my original message, I didn't say I tried bouncing WITH the omnibounce, I used a slash, which means "or".

[gonzogolf]

Originally Posted by saabstorey

True. And it's a quite noticeable difference in macro work with something shiny like a frog or salamander. I just forgot to mention that they are cheap and rainproof. The literature available on omnibounces state that they are really only effective at very short range, when and were there is not a better option like a wall to bounce or light stands with powerful strobes inside of carefully chosen light modifiers. Why don't we all stick to talking about what we have experience with? If you've never shot shiny, shy and highly mobile subjects at night in the rain, then don't try to tell me how much of a difference one piece of gear will or will not make.

Yes, softboxes are the ticket, but let me reiterate their downsides. They're larger, when sometimes you need to stay as small and inconspicuous as possible. They can get wet. They are more expensive. You should use the right tool for the job, but sometimes, you have to use the best tool you can, given the parameters of the job (and your budget).

Also, I never said anything about using an omnibounce outside in any other situation.
AND, in my original message, I didn't say I tried bouncing WITH the omnibounce, I used a slash, which means "or".

Sorry I touched a nerve. But you are using the product in a very specialized manner in a discussion that was originally about their general usage. I was not trying to discredit you in any way, but to point out to others, who might not understand that distinction, that the product generally doesnt work as advertised. As long as your subject is smaller than your light source its effective, but those are few.

[CxThree]

Originally Posted by Colorblinded

I always laugh when I see people doing this.

I use to think that too. However, actually trying it, showed me differently. For outdoor portraits, where I can be close to my subject, an omnibounce on my flash pointing straight up does provide some nice soft light as fill flash. It effectively softened or removed shadows.

I know this is a personal taste issue and there are other ways to do it, but it does work. In a simple test, just put your camera on P mode and try it 5 - 10 feet fro myour subject. Just make sure the flash is pointed straight up in the air with a dome on it. I was actually surprised to see how it worked.

For the OPs question, Sto-Fen does now have one listed on their website. I have it ordered.

[saabstorey]

Originally Posted by gonzogolf

Sorry I touched a nerve. But you are using the product in a very specialized manner in a discussion that was originally about their general usage. I was not trying to discredit you in any way, but to point out to others, who might not understand that distinction, that the product generally doesnt work as advertised. As long as your subject is smaller than your light source its effective, but those are few.

Thanks for your clarification there, no harm no foul. I just strongly dislike the trend of folks on the board talking beyond their experience with a certain attitude. Have a good week bro.

[HughR]

I have a Stofen for my 430EX, and I find it useful for only two things:
1. If I want to spread light across a background from close by to make a high key portrait, I put it on.
2. When I use my Lumiquest Softbox III, having the Stofen inside on the flash does make the light a bit smoother. However, I would never use the Stofen in any other circumstances. Same goes for the Fong.

[Wilt]

Read this old thread

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...56#post2441956

and particularly note the example illustrations in Post 16, and followup discussion of the results in post 17

[gonzogolf]

Originally Posted by saabstorey

Thanks for your clarification there, no harm no foul. I just strongly dislike the trend of folks on the board talking beyond their experience with a certain attitude. Have a good week bro.

I hope you arent implying that I was talking beyond my experience. Read Wilt's link.

[saabstorey]

Originally Posted by gonzogolf

I hope you arent implying that I was talking beyond my experience. Read Wilt's link.

no no, I meant on the board in general...I know better than to AssUMe....

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by CxThree

I use to think that too. However, actually trying it, showed me differently. For outdoor portraits, where I can be close to my subject, an omnibounce on my flash pointing straight up does provide some nice soft light as fill flash. It effectively softened or removed shadows.

A flash pointed straight at your subject and set to a very low power will work the same. Look at it from the subject's point of view. In both cases they're seeing a small rectangle that is putting out a small amount of light.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by CxThree

I use to think that too. However, actually trying it, showed me differently. For outdoor portraits, where I can be close to my subject, an omnibounce on my flash pointing straight up does provide some nice soft light as fill flash. It effectively softened or removed shadows.

Removing some of the contrast of shadows (vs. highlight areas) can be done with any size light source. Here is a series of shots, from left to right, no flash fill then with flash fill using flash lens only then flash fill with Stoffen-sized modifier.



However, it takes a large increase in area for a source to become 'softer'...with less harsh shadow edge transitions (penumbra) on shadows created by that light source.

Here is an illustration of what changing the flash lens from about 4 sq.in. to 4 sq.in. Stoffen-like modifier to a tiny softbox of 35 sq.in. does, a ninefold increase in area...

Flash lens, no modifier at 5'


Flash lens with Stoffen-sized modifier at 5'


5x7" mini softbox modifier at 5' from object



But the apparent size of any modifier decreases with distance. This shows native flash lens at 20' vs. 5x7" modifier at 20'

Native flash lens at 20'......................................5x7" softbox at 20'




...so just imagine how little effect would be obtained at 20' using a 4 sq.in. Stoffen-sized modifier and no ceiling to serve as a bounce source!

[CxThree]

Those outside shots are in the bright sun. Why would I shoot in that spot? I would never shoot there. I use the method I described for fill flash outdoors but I don't shoot in the sunlight. LIke I said, there are many ways to do it. However, the domes do work if used correctly. If you don't like them, thats your choice.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by CxThree

Those outside shots are in the bright sun. Why would I shoot in that spot? I would never shoot there. I use the method I described for fill flash outdoors but I don't shoot in the sunlight. LIke I said, there are many ways to do it. However, the domes do work if used correctly. If you don't like them, thats your choice.

Those outside shots are similar to shooting portraiture outside (e.g. outside wedding) and the shadows are those created by the sun in the eye sockets and under the chin, where the use of flash fill helps to reduce the contrastiness of the sunlight by filling in the shadows with supplemental light from the fill flash. Many times the photographer has no choice, but to shoot there! So contrast reduction is highly beneficial to improving the shot.

If you go to weddings and events, you often see the 'pro' outside with LightSphere/Omnibounce simply because they had it on the flash for the interior shots at the same event, so they leave it in place (rather than remove it and later replace it). So by leaving it in place, it reduces the intensity of the light getting to the subject, as seen in the rightmost example of the first photo triplet that I posted in Post 40. Outside, one should remove the Tupperware, as -- unless one were shooting from 5' away -- the softening is minimal (second triplet of examples in Post 40) and the contrast reduction is itself less effective.

[CxThree]

Completely understand. I think we are saying the same thing. Its not a solution everywhere, but it does work in the right situation.

[Colorblinded]

Mostly what you're doing with a stofen/fong outside is wasting light. Even a 5x7 softbox on the flash would be a better approach although it's still pretty small.

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by CxThree

Completely understand. I think we are saying the same thing. Its not a solution everywhere, but it does work in the right situation.

^^^ There are, in fact, few 'universal' solutions. One needs to understand when it is most advantageous to use one over another (or none at all).

And there are many cheaper, equally effective alternatives to use, which will provide the same results. This person concluded that for himself!
http://friedmanarchives.com/Writings...user/index.htm