Confusion over Omnibounce.

I also recommend the Lumiquest PocketBounce when there are no walls / ceilings to bounce the flash from.

Many thanks for all the info guys.

I think for the show I will use the bare flash and will look into the Lumiquest at a later date.

Thanks Again

Darren

I had to shoot a wedding reception with my 10D and 220EX flash. To soften the flash I used a Lumiquest mini-softbox. The results were pretty good, better than they would have been with the flash alone

I tested the flash with the mini softbox and without, it definitely softens the picture, without bouncing (the 220EX does not have a tilting flash head).


boB

cmM wrote:

Jesper wrote:
Well, I don't agree with Chris.

That thing isn't called the OmniBounce for nothing. It only works well if you have white walls or ceilings to bounce the flash off of.

I have an OmniBounce for my 420 EX flash, but I don't use it often because it doesn't do a lot to diffuse light when there is no surface to bounce on.

Better alternatives are the products from LumiQuest - I've just bought the ProMax system (and a 550 EX). (Can't tell you yet if it works well, because at this moment it's waiting for me at the post office....).

I don't know why that this is called omnibounce. When you bouce off a ceiling you need a lot of flash (omnibounce becomes an obstacle absorbing some of it), plus you have a ceiling to soften your light.
When you aim the flash towards the subject, you can afford to lose some as most of the time you won't need all the output the flash can give you.
There is no doubt that you'll get better results with an umbrella / big softbox (even that lumiquest mini softbox thing), but whoever said that you get worse results with the omnibounce than without it, please show me some pictures and proove me wrong.

It wasn't me who said that you get worse results with the OmniBounce than without it - just that, in my experience, the OmniBounce isn't great for diffusing the light to soften shadows. There are alternatives that work better.