bhursey wrote in post #17353971
It is something that I pull out of my kit
- if I have a dark celling or nothing to bounce light off of.. Or
- if Im out side and need a bigger light source and don't have time. Or
- if I need a bare bulb type of light.
For me it is a limited use.. I mainly just bounce when I have serfices to do it. For example I had to use the fong during a wedding when I went where the bride was getting ready and the roof was black.. LOL You can not bounce of a black ceiling and i did not have time to get out umbrellas and stands.
Is 'it' the Stofen?!
Look at the lens (face) of your flash, measure it and compute the square inches of area it presents to the subjects. Measure the Stofen and compute the square inches of area it presents to the subjects. It does a little to reduce the harshness of light cast on the subject, but it does NOTHING to increase the 'apparent size' to soften light. Look at the shadow edges in this test...
Wilt wrote in post #16077920 windpig wrote in post #16076088
I must have missed something in between the beginning of the thread and here. I thought the original question was regarding the Stofen softening the light, not whether bouncing it or anything else would soften the light.
you did miss something...the original thread question was 'Which way to point the flashhead with Stofen when no suitable ceiling?'
It does not matter, it wastes a similar amount of light pointed straight up (light going backward) or pointed forward (light going down to the floor) and maybe a bit less waste when pointed at 45 degrees since the frontal area seen by subject is larger (by about 1.707x) at 45 degrees.
Then the discussion about ceiling bounce with flash only (in spite of the fact that the OP stated 'when no suitable ceiling'). This is where the thread got onto side tracks.
- It has some advantage over bare flashhead pointed up...it provides catchlights.
- SMALL does not soften light; only larger apparent size 'softens'. So if there is no ceiling, there is near-zero benefit to softening from a Stofen.
native flashhead only, or
via use of a 'diffusing' surface no larger than original lens (example at 3') a la Stofen, minor changes in penumbra (shadow edge transition), and little effect on shadow contrast. Remember, these examples were shot from 3' to emphasize differences...but the changes would be minimal from 10-20'
larger area modifier (5" x 7") at 3'
We are now in the weeds (what happened to 'no suitable ceiling' condition of the OP), why even the debate?!
With differing opinions: Which is 'better'?...
- Ceiling bounce only:
Facial 'modelling' due to shadows, no shadows cast on surfaces behind things; but somewhat darkish eye sockets and under chin, no catchlights
- Softbox or some form of forward bounce component:
Catchlights, nice eye sockets and under-chin, less evident shadows cast on surfaces behind things; but little facial modeling due to absence of shadowing
...each individual chooses which Con's to ignore because of the Pro's. Different strokes for different folks.
This link was to demonstrate flash for synchro sun fill, but the hardness of shadows presented with or without a Stofen sized device applies even if there is no sun
So purpose #1 and #2 both have little benefit from use of the Stofen in those situations.
CAPhotog wrote in post #17353915
I heard Feta II is coming in 2015 so don't waste your money on Feta I.
(every equipment discussion is not complete without this comment)
So as to not have my massive revenue stream from the Feta I interrupted suddenly by this rumor (thereby ruining my dreams of ownership of a 14' Laser, and forcing me to console myself with my bathtub boat), let me officially state that the upgrade to Feta I is the Ice Cream I already shown in Post 2 of this thread, and not the Feta II!