Why do the pro's do that on TV

Just a sidenote...some hollywood red-carpet events pay people to attend and flash away, never intending to use the pictures, but just because it looks good to have a crowd there snapping photos.

ootsk wrote in post #2464005
Just a sidenote...some hollywood red-carpet events pay people to attend and flash away, never intending to use the pictures, but just because it looks good to have a crowd there snapping photos.

I would have never known that, makes sense though. Thanks to all especially the King, makes a little more sense now. I wont be racing out to use this "Pro" trick anytime soon.

Just glancing at the tabloids in the store, I can't say that those photos on the front cover of Enquire are the greatest examples of flash photography. They just need direct flash as it's better than a dark subject. It might be just for a little fill, and I think mainly the subject.

A photo always looks better with a great subject, usually. I think if I were at a red-carpet event, I'd be too worried about missing any shot or anything along the lings since my career might be at stake if I missed that shot of Britney bending over and you know what. Better to get the shot than miss it??? I don't think they are going for quality with direct flash, with a StoFen or not.

sboerup wrote in post #2466662
Just glancing at the tabloids in the store, I can't say that those photos on the front cover of Enquire are the greatest examples of flash photography. They just need direct flash as it's better than a dark subject. It might be just for a little fill, and I think mainly the subject.

A photo always looks better with a great subject, usually. I think if I were at a red-carpet event, I'd be too worried about missing any shot or anything along the lings since my career might be at stake if I missed that shot of Britney bending over and you know what. Better to get the shot than miss it??? I don't think they are going for quality with direct flash, with a StoFen or not.

Very good point!

sboerup wrote in post #2466662
Just glancing at the tabloids in the store, I can't say that those photos on the front cover of Enquire are the greatest examples of flash photography. They just need direct flash as it's better than a dark subject. It might be just for a little fill, and I think mainly the subject.

A photo always looks better with a great subject, usually. I think if I were at a red-carpet event, I'd be too worried about missing any shot or anything along the lings since my career might be at stake if I missed that shot of Britney bending over and you know what. Better to get the shot than miss it??? I don't think they are going for quality with direct flash, with a StoFen or not.

yeah that is a very good point. i dont think these guys set out to get the best shots they can, just as long as they get THE shot.
unlike us, most of the time we have all the time in the world to get a good, properly exposed and posed subject.
i could just imagine me taking shots at a red carpet event,

"hey britney, any chance you could do that for us again,looking at my LCD ive noticed that there's a harsh shadow created with direct flash, i need to bounce it and bring it down a couple of stops"

I have had one of these for little over a year and use it almost everytime I put my 580 on.It only cost me $20,so if I didn't like it it wasn't a big loss.It is very small and dosen't get in the way.The Lumiquest looks like it would get in the way and make it difficult to flip the camera vertical.With the Omni I put the head down,turn it to the right about 45 degrees and flip the camera to shot vertical.It only adds about 1" to flash head.Even with my kit lens without a hood ,I have never had light get into the lens.When my wife shoots snapshots I put it on and set my 20D to full auto.Most shots are really pretty good.It would be safe to say that you could send out almost anyone with a 1 series camera and a 580 w/ an Omnibounce.Set it on full auto and get a card full of tabloid quality shots.I think that type of photography relies on you being there to get the shot more than anything else.Also the abilty to keep shooting lots of frames(huge cards).You never see those guys with light meters,reflectors,expo​disc,or anything else that would make you think that they really care about image quality.However,they use what works.Fact is,this is a simple device that is cheap,easy to use,and gets the job done.

If you notice, most of the time when it is used outdoors and straight on, it is being used at a very short distance. The flash has a minimum distance it can work at and not overexpose even with ETTL. When you put on the omnibounce and use it straight on, you are getting the ability to work closer without blowing out the subject.

ibkev wrote in post #2470880
IThe Lumiquest looks like it would get in the way and make it difficult to flip the camera vertical.With the Omni I put the head down,turn it to the right about 45 degrees and flip the camera to shot vertical.It only adds about 1" to flash head..

With a flash bracket that positions the light OVER the lens and keeps it there regardless of the camera orientation (flash rotater or camera rotater), products like Lumiquest Promax are not a problem at all. Another advantage of the light over the lens is that ANY light which is direct from the flash to the subject (not off the ceiling) casts no shadows that are visible to the lens!

I find it amusing that some want to slam the pro's for using the omni bounce. Out doors or indoors.

If the omni didn't work the pros wouldn't be earning the big bucks from selling these images. I'm sure they wouldn't use them if they didn't create better images than a non diffused flash.

I personally always use the omni. inside and out. It certainly softens the light. and seems to give the light a greater width or area.

If you're using flash the way the papparazzi do - that is you have a huge potato masher flash with an external battery pack, then the light wasting effects of the Omni-Bounce will be simply overcome with power. At reasonable distances with this sort of equipment, you won't lack for power or recycle time, and it won't make the pictures any worse.

If you have this sort of equipment overkill, you can leave your Omni-Bounce on your flash, even outdoors if you like, for convenience' sake if nothing else.

ibkev wrote in post #2470880
card full of tabloid quality shots

BWAHAHA! I didn't realise the words tabloid and quality went together!

scottbergerphoto wrote in post #2477314
If you notice, most of the time when it is used outdoors and straight on, it is being used at a very short distance. The flash has a minimum distance it can work at and not overexpose even with ETTL. When you put on the omnibounce and use it straight on, you are getting the ability to work closer without blowing out the subject.

I heard from a friend (a freelance photographer) about using a flash on camera with a diffuser like the StoFen with thru the lens flash metering.

He used the flash for fill light to open up the shadows and put a little highlight in the eyes. Just to add to the available light...
Thats almost a direct quote.

Curtis N wrote in post #2479524
If you're using flash the way the papparazzi do - that is you have a huge potato masher flash with an external battery pack, then the light wasting effects of the Omni-Bounce will be simply overcome with power. At reasonable distances with this sort of equipment, you won't lack for power or recycle time, and it won't make the pictures any worse.

If you have this sort of equipment overkill, you can leave your Omni-Bounce on your flash, even outdoors if you like, for convenience' sake if nothing else.

NiMh batteries will give you over 100 shots with an omni on. I agree the omni uses more juice, but I'd prefer to carry an extra set of batteries for a better diffused light.

byso wrote in post #2485220
I agree the omni uses more juice, but I'd prefer to carry an extra set of batteries for a better diffused light.

I will happy waste power and "diffuse" my flash whenever it can improve my pictures. But it can only improve pictures if there is some other surface to bounce some of the wasted light back into the field of view, thus creating a larger effective light source.

Without something to bounce off, the wasted light is just that. A 1 1/4 x 2 1/2 inch light source with a piece of translucent plastic on it is still a 1 1/4 x 2 1/2 inch light source. Sending some of the photons out of your field of view will not make your pictures better.

Now if you truly believe that using the Omni-Bounce outdoors will make better pictures, I encourage you to take some comparison shots and post them here. You'll want to make sure you are close enough to get a flash confirmation light, ensuring that any difference between the shots is caused by light quality, not quantity. You might want to conduct such an experiment outdoors at night, so any differences in the lighting will be readily apparent.

I have issued this challenge several times. The one person who actually accepted it reached the conclusion that I was right.

Curtis N wrote in post #2486068
I will happy waste power and "diffuse" my flash whenever it can improve my pictures. But it can only improve pictures if there is some other surface to bounce some of the wasted light back into the field of view, thus creating a larger effective light source.

Without something to bounce off, the wasted light is just that. A 1 1/4 x 2 1/2 inch light source with a piece of translucent plastic on it is still a 1 1/4 x 2 1/2 inch light source. Sending some of the photons out of your field of view will not make your pictures better.

Now if you truly believe that using the Omni-Bounce outdoors will make better pictures, I encourage you to take some comparison shots and post them here. You'll want to make sure you are close enough to get a flash confirmation light, ensuring that any difference between the shots is caused by light quality, not quantity. You might want to conduct such an experiment outdoors at night, so any differences in the lighting will be readily apparent.

I have issued this challenge several times. The one person who actually accepted it reached the conclusion that I was right.

I'm with the king on this, I think it's just folks who really believe the devices are helping them in an outdoor setting but it's just a false sense of security. I would bet on actual test shots proving his point.