My response to someone else shooting a wall wasn't to suggest that's all I've done. If you find a use for the fresnel that fits your style and subject, I'm not trying to dissuade you. My subjects are people and their environment, and my apologies for wording it like my subject and workflow is objectively all that matters - I didn't intend that.
But speaking for my needs and work style it simply doesn't offer anything attractive. If I'm looking for highest efficiency, while also considering coverage and edge character, it's the bare reflector, no question. If I'm looking for broadest coverage in the case of filling a space or a modifier, it's bare bulb. The point is that while a fresnel can perform fine under a specific circumstance, unless you know that's all you'll ever shoot, it doesn't serve you to only be prepared to shoot one thing, under one set of conditions.
I haven't done comparisons of fresnel on face vs. reflector simply because it's such a narrow use and small FOV that, without context, you actually don't learn enough in comparing.
For my use, and for the sake of the articles I'm prepping, I typically frame things in a "how would I actually use this on a paid gig?" perspective; and also, generally speaking, I try to be conservative when making claims about how a light performs. The fresnel is a situation where you can make claims about the eVOLV - and any small fresnel light, like a speedlight - that outside a very narrow use case are either objectively false or at least misleading. Wherever possible I put a light inside a modifier at a distance that normalizes all the lights and gives what I feel is a more practical and useful understanding of how the light can be used.
I've got two articles in the queue already with materials for another two getting their final pass. Hope they'll be up soon. They're all going to eventually be here:
SereneSpeed wrote in post #18551457
I'm with Talley on this. Most people don't photograph living room walls. Their subjects are usually much more three dimensional
The photo below was taken with the "not worth working with" fresnel head.
There are many circumstances where packing the AD200 with fresnel head is a lot (LOT!) easier than dealing with the (delicate) bare bulb and (crushable) standard reflector. I literally carried the AD200 in my shorts pocket and rested it on a rock to take the photo below. The standard reflector would not have made the photo any nicer. I can think of a few ways to improve the photo, but the 4" reflector is not one of them.
@jlafferty, if you are writing a guide, perhaps you could evaluate the shadow edge falloff, when shooting a face. For many photographers, that matters as much, or more than the light spread/falloff on a flat wall. At a regular working distance for shooting people, neither of the heads is going to provide a soft light.
To be honest, I do use the standard reflector all the time to photograph walls. But that's only when the wall is the background for a headshot and the falloff matters.
There are reasons to choose either head. The list of pros vs. cons is not simple, or small. In my opinion, it would be a shame to not even acknowledge the benefits and uses of the fresnel head.
Just adding my two cents...
Looking forward to seeing your guide. For Adorama, I assume?IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/22Npjjf 1G6A7171C1- Family v1-Edit
by Daniel Buehler
, on Flickr
Tessa wrote in post #18551575
Fresnel works well for me. The shape of the light is nice as I wish to light the object (car), not its surroundings. And the bare bulb would last about two minutes outside in racing conditions