Party Shots

elysium wrote in post #4616691
Oh right. I not sure if I tried that. Might be worth checking out but I just tend to partially bounce now while bumping up ISO.

I never knew photography was such a science.

Ehh, I'd say it's the artistic application of science You have to know how light works, but that doesn't do you any good if you don't also know how to make it look good...

This is a little of topic,and i'm certainly no expert with flash but i'm gobsmacked how many 'pro' photogs you see in a scrum on the tv news etc that are using stofens outside

adifor wrote in post #4616891
This is a little of topic,and i'm certainly no expert with flash but i'm gobsmacked how many 'pro' photogs you see in a scrum on the tv news etc that are using stofens outside

Yep, I heard it referred to as "bouncing off the sky" once. It's understandable, though, when you consider that most working pros don't venture much into the intricacies of flash. Unless you've really studied lighting, flash can be a mighty confusing subject (I didn't even want to touch it for an awful long time...)

adifor wrote in post #4616891
This is a little of topic,and i'm certainly no expert with flash but i'm gobsmacked how many 'pro' photogs you see in a scrum on the tv news etc that are using stofens outside

Ditto. I see it all the time.

bieber wrote in post #4620076
Yep, I heard it referred to as "bouncing off the sky" once. It's understandable, though, when you consider that most working pros don't venture much into the intricacies of flash. Unless you've really studied lighting, flash can be a mighty confusing subject (I didn't even want to touch it for an awful long time...)

I fail to see why photojournalists in the field (mostly outdoors) would bother using a diffuser if it didn't make some kind of a difference. I use it to stop hotspots and glare, and I like the results it gave me. And that's enough for me to be happy.

"Bouncing off the sky" isn't nearly as funny to me as the typical big sporting event. Take the World Series, for instance. First pitch: 50,000 flash bulbs going off. Forget that the closest cameras to the action are like hundreds of feet away, and the furthest are hundreds of yards away. Last I checked, there are no nuclear-fusion powered flashes with 4 digit guide numbers.

Pete wrote in post #4620441
I fail to see why photojournalists in the field (mostly outdoors) would bother using a diffuser if it didn't make some kind of a difference. I use it to stop hotspots and glare, and I like the results it gave me. And that's enough for me to be happy.

Because everyone else uses it, and so do they. If you want, you can go to the lighting forum and read all the "WTF why don't my shots with Stofen look any different from my shots without Stofen????" threads. I remember one where the guy got so desperate as to stuff the thing with tissue paper, and still couldn't imagine why it wasn't making any difference...

Pete - firstly thank you so much for this thread, it has really helped a lot

bieber et al - I am not even going to pretend to be as well read, experienced, or knowledgeable about lighting and lighting/strobist techniques as you obviously are. I simply followed Petes advise and used a Sto-fen head on, high iso and generally exposed for ambient.

The results with the Sto-fen are obviously better than without.

Now I cant explain it. I dont know about throwing light all over the place, boucing here, there, whatnot. I can say that I have shot with high ceilings, low ceilings, no ceilings, and in all cases, the Sto-fen simply makes this technique work. From a technical standpoint, I am sure you are 100% correct. From a result/practical standpoint, I really have a hard time coming to grips with your POV, I certainly cant agree.

Bottom line, though, is that this works for me and as a result the physics are really unimportant. Thanks again Pete!

No problem, fella.

As with anything, it's sometimes easiest to go with what seems to work, regardless of the method used to get there. Yes, there may be a more technically correct way of getting there, but I just do my thing, and it works for me.

Picked up my Stofen today so going to give it a test tonighty. Would be interesting to compare the results.

Will feedback the outcome.

maxxed wrote in post #4733907
Pete - firstly thank you so much for this thread, it has really helped a lot

bieber et al - I am not even going to pretend to be as well read, experienced, or knowledgeable about lighting and lighting/strobist techniques as you obviously are. I simply followed Petes advise and used a Sto-fen head on, high iso and generally exposed for ambient.

The results with the Sto-fen are obviously better than without.

Now I cant explain it. I dont know about throwing light all over the place, boucing here, there, whatnot. I can say that I have shot with high ceilings, low ceilings, no ceilings, and in all cases, the Sto-fen simply makes this technique work. From a technical standpoint, I am sure you are 100% correct. From a result/practical standpoint, I really have a hard time coming to grips with your POV, I certainly cant agree.

Bottom line, though, is that this works for me and as a result the physics are really unimportant. Thanks again Pete!

Have any examples? More often than not, "improvements" seen with a Sto-Fen head on are purely incidental. Without a nearby ceiling or walls, the laws of physics tell us that the "diffuser" isn't doing anything but throwing light all over the place where you don't need it, and in the process wearing your battery down much faster...

bieber wrote in post #4762539
Have any examples? More often than not, "improvements" seen with a Sto-Fen head on are purely incidental. Without a nearby ceiling or walls, the laws of physics tell us that the "diffuser" isn't doing anything but throwing light all over the place where you don't need it, and in the process wearing your battery down much faster...

What I did notice is that the Stofen sits on the flash with a part of the plastic raised which means more light can be bounced in all directions.

Without the Stofen, I had to bounce @ 75 degrees for low/medium high ceiling for a decent amount of ambient exposure. High ISO was needed

With the Stofen, I am now able to shoot @ 75 degrees at a lower ISO even if the ceilings are high. I will give it a try and post up some examples if I can over the weekend.

elysium wrote in post #4762882
What I did notice is that the Stofen sits on the flash with a part of the plastic raised which means more light can be bounced in all directions.

Without the Stofen, I had to bounce @ 75 degrees for low/medium high ceiling for a decent amount of ambient exposure. High ISO was needed

With the Stofen, I am now able to shoot @ 75 degrees at a lower ISO even if the ceilings are high. I will give it a try and post up some examples if I can over the weekend.

Well, that's the purpose of the device. In that particular instance, the reason for the improved efficiency would have been that more light was reaching the subject directly from your flash, rather than bounced: you could achieve the same effect with a bounce card, even better if the card is big enough

what was the ambient light setting? (excuse me if you said, i may have read past it) I'll have to remember your settings next time I'm out with friends shooting. Looks pretty good to me.

Basically, just adjust your shutter speed so that you get as much light in the background from ambient as you'd like. Also, take note that if you let in enough ambient, it's also going to play an important role in the exposure of your subject, along with flash, which will make the subject look more natural

Great stuff! Thanks Pete