Battle for Macro Flash Diffusion

Deleted
Only Dalantech's ways are to be pushed here and if you stand up for yourself after explaining to him that you do not want to be like him nor want your images to be a cookie cutter version of his..then you get banned.

• It does not matter if the visible screen is cracked or broken because the diffusion sheets are behind the screen itself.
  
  
• It does not matter if the screen shows lines or bright or dark spots/areas..this does not affect the diffusion material
  

Battery test is impressive, looks to be better than my expensive Cygnustech diffuser although I'm very happy with the latter for insects so far including the usual tricky reflective ladybirds and ants.

Hi, DeepWoods. Very interesting. I have some questions, though. What properties of these diffusion sheets make them work so well? Are these sheets polarized? Why do they have to have a particular side facing out? How does their performance compare to regular white translucent plastic sheet?

racketman wrote in post #19372543
Battery test is impressive, looks to be better than my expensive Cygnustech diffuser although I'm very happy with the latter for insects so far including the usual tricky reflective ladybirds and ants.

Thanks racketman!

Archibald wrote in post #19372562
Hi, DeepWoods. Very interesting. I have some questions, though. What properties of these diffusion sheets make them work so well?

Thanks Ed!...The sheets are specifically designed for diffusion. They are what diffuses the back-light behind the screen of the TV, monitor or any such screen, even phone screens have them...So being specifically designed for the purpose of diffusion..I would say they are "qualified" for the position.

Archibald wrote in post #19372562
Are these sheets polarized? Why do they have to have a particular side facing out?

As far as I know..they are polarized and they are more reflective on one side than the other...that is why they have a particular side facing out.
They alter the light differently if flipped or turned, in my experimenting with them so far.

Archibald wrote in post #19372562
How does their performance compare to regular white translucent plastic sheet?

In my testing and use of them, they perform better than regular white translucent plastic sheet...Again, they are specifically designed for diffusion so they are something other than "regular sheets" in the way they perform.

DeepWoods wrote in post #19372571
Thanks Ed!...The sheets are specifically designed for diffusion. They are what diffuses the back-light behind the screen of the TV, monitor or any such screen, even phone screens have them...So being specifically designed for the purpose of diffusion..I would say they are "qualified" for the position.

As far as I know..they are polarized and they are more reflective on one side than the other...that is why they have a particular side facing out.
They alter the light differently if flipped or turned, in my experimenting with them so far.

In my testing and use of them, they perform better than regular white translucent plastic sheet...Again, they are specifically designed for diffusion so they are something other than "regular sheets" in the way they perform.

Very cool. What you say about them being designed for diffusion certainly makes sense, but I still wonder what the properties are that are utilized for this. In the end, it doesn't matter, only the result matters.

Being polarized might help with reflections. Orientation would matter.

They might be free, but you have to find a discarded screen! I will look out for one and would like to try the stuff out.

I see two issues with your current diffusion and the way that your light is set up.

1) There is still a hot spot in your light, and you can see it in the specular highlights -especially in the eyes of the jumping spider shot. The light is not even.

2) You are placing the flash heads almost 180 degrees apart, and the light looks almost flat.

Try to eliminate the hot spot, and set your flash heads in a key and fill configuration. Place one of them at the top of the lens, and the other off to the the side so that they are 90 degrees apart.

Would also help if your flash heads were being diffused by separate diffusers. I have never been a fan of turning a twin flash into a single light source -kinda defeats the purpose of having two flash heads. If you can separate them, and tame that hot spot, you will get a lot more texture detail and the subject will look more 3D.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nfa​Wrx

Dalantech wrote in post #19372583
I see two issues with your current diffusion and the way that your light is set up.

1) There is still a hot spot in your light, and you can see it in the specular highlights -especially in the eyes of the jumping spider shot. The light is not even.

2) You are placing the flash heads almost 180 degrees apart, and the light looks almost flat.

Try to eliminate the hot spot, and set your flash heads in a key and fill configuration. Place one of them at the top of the lens, and the other off to the the side so that they are 90 degrees apart.

Would also help if your flash heads were being diffused by separate diffusers. I have never been a fan of turning a twin flash into a single light source -kinda defeats the purpose of having two flash heads. If you can separate them, and tame that hot spot, you will get a lot more texture detail and the subject will look more 3D.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nfa​Wrx Ladybugs in Lavender by John Kimbler, on Flickr

The angle between the light, subject, and image plane will also determine how much detail you can capture. I routinely see people losing more detail to poor light quality than to diffraction.

Thanks for the insight and suggestions..will take all of it down and experiment more with the diffusion material and positioning of the light source(s).
All input from people like yourself here will only add to the usefulness and experimentation of this diffusion material..Thanks for the suggestions!

For the record....I understand the dimensional part and it needs to be there....But I do want to add that there is only one sky...if using natural light there will be one reflection of the sky (light source)..Not two..
So I am not in agreement on having two "light spots". Not for my preference anyway.

Archibald wrote in post #19372574
They might be free, but you have to find a discarded screen! I will look out for one and would like to try the stuff out.

You might look at the official recycler/refuse company electronic scrap bin.
Or go to a Thrift store.

DeepWoods wrote in post #19372588
Thanks for the insight and suggestions..will take all of it down and experiment more with the diffusion material and positioning of the light source(s).
All input from people like yourself here will only add to the usefulness and experimentation of this diffusion material..Thanks for the suggestions!

I learn new things all the time from posts like yours, so thank you for starting it!

DeepWoods wrote in post #19372588
For the record....I understand the dimensional part and it needs to be there....But I do want to add that there is only one sky...if using natural light there will be one reflection of the sky (light source)..Not two..
So I am not in agreement on having two "light spots". Not for my preference anyway.

As you walk around look at how reflected light hits the things around you. We are use to seeing multiple specular highlights, since it is really common for reflected sunlight bouncing off of one surface to create a specular highlight in another one. Also common for curved surfaces to break up a single light source into multiple specular reflections. So getting more than one specular highlight in a scene does not look unnatural. Get the two light sources close to each other, and really well diffused, and the specular highlights will blend together (depending on the reflectivity of the specular surfaces). The "there is only one sun rule" was broken by portrait photographers a very long time ago.

It is not important to make your images look natural, but since the suspension of disbelief applies to still images it is important to keep your photos from looking unnatural. You want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy the image. So black backgrounds, sharp transitions between what is in and out of focus, the absence of shadows, etc. are all a composition buzz kill.

DeepWoods wrote in post #19372589
Flies from earlier today..

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1156452 has been deleted. ]

That fly shot is a perfect example of a curved surface creating more than one specular reflection. We are use to seeing multiple specular highlights, so shooting with a single light source is not necessary...

Dalantech wrote in post #19372985
I learn new things all the time from posts like yours, so thank you for starting it!

As you walk around look at how reflected light hits the things around you. We are use to seeing multiple specular highlights, since it is really common for reflected sunlight bouncing off of one surface to create a specular highlight in another one. Also common for curved surfaces to break up a single light source into multiple specular reflections. So getting more than one specular highlight in a scene does not look unnatural. Get the two light sources close to each other, and really well diffused, and the specular highlights will blend together (depending on the reflectivity of the specular surfaces). The "there is only one sun rule" was broken by portrait photographers a very long time ago.

It is not important to make your images look natural, but since the suspension of disbelief applies to still images it is important to keep your photos from looking unnatural. You want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy the image. So black backgrounds, sharp transitions between what is in and out of focus, the absence of shadows, etc. are all a composition buzz kill.

Thanks for reading and contributing your insight and suggestions. This is how we can learn new things and take a bit from this persons experience/knowledge and a bit from another's and improve on thoughts and designs, etc.

Creatures are created different..the lion eats meats, the termite eats wood, the zebra eats grasses, the dung beetle eats crap.....they are all different, see things in different ways, so to speak. But they all serve a purpose and have their place. People are like that also....Not everyone is the "cookie cutter" same as some others...There is only one sun, that will never change...it was not broken by anyone..it still remains and that opposite concept by portrait photographers is not natural lighting the way it is in the real natural world. It is an attempt by human to create a certain look or desired outcome...and that is okay, if that is their preference.

You may choose that "It is not important to make your images look natural"...that's all good for you and who ever else likes that way.
Others prefer different ways to do things and choose the different look. I will agree that it needs to be a pleasing image and no harsh highlights or shadows...but you may look at that one way and I see that another way...I don't want you to be like me and I will not be like you...remember everyone is not cookie cutter...we are different with different "preferences" and taste...just as the lion, termite, zebra and dung beetle.

I did not post this to make others do things the way I do...but to help fellow photographers to maybe diffuse and soften the flash on their images.
Offering a discovery I found of a readily available material that may help others.
Those interested in the diffusion material can build their own diffuser setup, experiment with different designs and setups, etc.
My design/setup is my way of doing it that I came up with after a little experimenting with the diffusion material...it might work for me and some others and some will prefer to do it a different way, have a different design, etc. My hope is that the diffusion sheets will help diffuse the light source no matter what or how each person decides to use it.

Thanks again for your input

The interesting thing for me is that there is this new diffusion film. It seems to have potential. It is worth investigating.

I have lots of questions, though. Does the stuff disperse light more widely? Is less light lost? Is the transmitted light directional? You probably don't have ready answers to these questions, and that is OK.

Other questions include sources of the material. When I go rummaging in recycle dumps, should I be looking for fluorescent, LED or LCD screens? I understand some screens are back-lit and others are side-lit. Which do I need? Most likely there are dozens of different kinds of diffusion film, optimized for the different applications.

Knowing more about the technical side of how these films work might help in the selection process.

But no matter, my starting point is to find an old screen and experiment.

Archibald wrote in post #19373076
The interesting thing for me is that there is this new diffusion film. It seems to have potential. It is worth investigating.

I have lots of questions, though. Does the stuff disperse light more widely? Is less light lost? Is the transmitted light directional? You probably don't have ready answers to these questions, and that is OK.

Other questions include sources of the material. When I go rummaging in recycle dumps, should I be looking for fluorescent, LED or LCD screens? I understand some screens are back-lit and others are side-lit. Which do I need? Most likely there are dozens of different kinds of diffusion film, optimized for the different applications.

Knowing more about the technical side of how these films work might help in the selection process.

But no matter, my starting point is to find an old screen and experiment.

Thanks Ed!!..it is worth investigating just as I did... It will work for some and some it won't, but it is not expensive and worth tinkering around with..IMHO.
You are correct Ed..I don't have answers to all your questions but I will answer the ones that I can hopefully help with...

Archibald wrote in post #19373076
Does the stuff disperse light more widely?

Not sure about this...and compared to what other material?...Too many variables in play to really answer definitively.

Archibald wrote in post #19373076
Is less light lost?

There seems to be less light loss compared to some other materials that I have used in the past (tracing paper, copy paper, vellum, translucent report covers, etc.)

Archibald wrote in post #19373076
Is the transmitted light directional?

It does seem to be "directional" in a subtle way (it does contain a type of fresnal sheet and polorization)..that's why I suggested in a previous post to turn it clockwise/counterclock​wise to see what is the best orientation.

Archibald wrote in post #19373076
Other questions include sources of the material. When I go rummaging in recycle dumps, should I be looking for fluorescent, LED or LCD screens? I understand some screens are back-lit and others are side-lit. Which do I need? Most likely there are dozens of different kinds of diffusion film, optimized for the different applications.

Any of them will have diffusion layers...I can not say which would be best..But any of them will supply you with the diffusion material to investigate and tinker around with.
My sheets came from a Dell monitor with fluorescent tubes...BUT I have some more that came from an LED monitor and I can't tell much difference between the 2 kinds that I have experienced.
A guy I know is supposed to get me some LED TV's to get some out of..I will experiment with those when they become available.