Flash Lightsphere

strobe monkey wrote in post #6201795
Watch this

I love Gary -- he walks that fine line between saying something that is technically correct and "light folklore".

Some thoughts:

1) When he points the lightsphere at the person, he indicates that he has softened the light. While true to a degree, what he has done is change the apparent size of the light source by a magnitude of approximately 4 (the head of the lightsphere is about 4 times large than the flashhead). Many people assume that the diffusion material does the softening. He never says it does, mind you, but it feels implied.

2) Personally, the only difference in the two flash shots to me is that the naked flash feels overexposed. I have to wonder how the before and after shots would compare if he had dialed about 2 stops of compensation into the flash. I would bet they would look EXTREMELY similar.

In this video, I think Gary did two things:

1) Flash compensated with his light eating sphere

2) Created nice round catchlights, as opposed to little rectangles.

Here's an example of using directionally bounced flash in a small-ish hotel room.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0330.jpg

No modifier necessary. The ceiling & walls did a fine job.

Here's an example of using direct flash outdoors.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0742.jpg

And a large-ish group shot doing the same.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0739.jpg

M5Man
I would highly recommend checkin out the lighting 101 section on the Strobist website

Lots of good material on the site. If the reading is too much fo you you can also order a DVD set from Davis Hobby's Lighting 102 seminar. Also packed with lots of great information.

For a simple flash diffusion device David suggests a chinese soup container and/or the rubbing alcohol bottle. Give it a shot if you have the materials lying around.

The bare bulb effect that these diffusers provide best soften the light by making the apparent light source bigger (e.g bouncing off a wall or ceiling).

What bothers me about Gary Fong's lightsphere and the posted video using the overpriced tupperware outside is, as another post suggested, understanding how to balence the flash and ambient light is not a complex subject and something that you can accomplish without the plastic on your flash. Understanding this concept will have you flash photography skills soar as oppossed to putting on a lightsphere.

Best of luck,
Michael

If you want to be a Point and Shoot photographer for the rest of your life the Lightsphere is the tool for you. I started out with one and quickly found its limitations.

strobe monkey wrote in post #6201795
Watch this

I wonder if Lightroom or PP have been used to "help" one of the images look more flattering

The direct flash was definitely deliberate in over exposing to prove "his" point of harshness.

The lightsphere used as a "heavy stofen" is something I'll try. I really hate the weight of the dome though.

The LS light grenade does work but I still prefer my demb flipit. The flipit can be directed away from the subject so it can give some sort of directed light when bounced off a cieling or wall.

The only difference between the direct flash shot and the 'Sphere shot in that video is the amount of ambient he allowed into the exposure. He used a faster shutter speed in the direct flash shot than in the 'Sphere shot to exaggerate the effectiveness of the product. The 'Sphere has no real effect on the quality of the light hitting the subject...but by using a slower shutter speed for that image, he allowed more ambient light into the mix which makes it look as though the 'Sphere balanced everything out. The "weird color" he refers to in the natural no-flash shot is simply having the camera set to the incorrect white balance for the shade. Shade is something like 6000K. His camera was either set to Auto or Flash WB, the latter of which is around 5500K - the same as Daylight. Auto seldom gets shade warm enough and looks more like flash/daylight white balance...ie too cold (blue) for the shade.

Exactly my point with my recent post. I agree that the "naked" flash is a bit overexposed. I periodically get those same results when shooting black tuxedo's, until I chimp a bit, quickly re-evaluate what's really going on with the light & ETTL, and then dial in FEC- 1 or something in that neighborhood.

And I agree Matt - I'll be the before shot would have looked MUCH better had he dialed in some FEC.

I would not be surprised if he did a little flash comp with his LS. Consider this: in the BEFORE shot, the face is a little bright probably because the darker background "told" the flash AUTO ETTL to pump out a bit more light to compensate. Wouldn't the same thing have happened in the LS sample? So why isn't THAT face a little bright also?

Admittedly, I have no proof for the above speculation. But the evidence does seem to imply it.

mattograph wrote in post #6203098
I love Gary -- he walks that fine line between saying something that is technically correct and "light folklore".

.......

2) Personally, the only difference in the two flash shots to me is that the naked flash feels overexposed. I have to wonder how the before and after shots would compare if he had dialed about 2 stops of compensation into the flash. I would bet they would look EXTREMELY similar.

In this video, I think Gary did two things:

1) Flash compensated with his light eating sphere

2) Created nice round catchlights, as opposed to little rectangles.

strobe monkey wrote in post #6201822
I've used and tested my fakesphere indoors with cap on and pointing up. It works really great.

I've also tried ABBC, I also like results I get but my fakesphere is better. I get better results with them than stofen.

Fong is a genius marketer, but an idiot at photography. I looked at the video you linked later on in this thread.

The racoon eyes indoors can be cure easily with a correct bounce flash, I bet he never heard of bouncing backward.

The series of pictures he showed toward the end are all but different color temperature, and notice how he shot it within 5 feet? at that distance, my pop-up flash would have the same "quality" of light as his plasticware.

Please learn your tools & craft and do not buy into hyped up marketing schemes. You'll save a lot of money, and in the end be more efficient than the ones who think that a tuperware will help them get better pictures.

Check out this site from Neilto learn how to make flash does not look like flash.

Well said Dave - my first encounters with ETTL left me a bit mystified when I'd converted to digital. I became distracted. Then I realized that nothing had really changed regarding "basic concepts of exposure 101."

Once I started to "think" again for myself - - instead of letting the gear and gadgets make the decisions, I began cranking out very nice, conistent, predictable and REPEATABLE images.

Titus213 wrote in post #6203291
If you want to be a Point and Shoot photographer for the rest of your life the Lightsphere is the tool for you. I started out with one and quickly found its limitations.

superb examples. Very inspiring. Thanks for sharing.

I've read the book "flash, the most available light" by lumiquest. I've read it twice. Being a part of this discussion reminds me there's much to learn still.

cdifoto wrote in post #6203099
Here's an example of using directionally bounced flash in a small-ish hotel room.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0330.jpg

No modifier necessary. The ceiling & walls did a fine job.

Here's an example of using direct flash outdoors.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0742.jpg

And a large-ish group shot doing the same.

http://i14.photobucket​.com …dding/2008-06-23-0739.jpg

.... infact, i think i've guiltily denied that I too bought into fong's marketing claims. I found a few reviews of the product from seemingly qualified reviewers which praised the lightphere.

I'm still too early with flash to go take short-cuts. With this discussion, I've become reminded that I have to learn the fundamentals if I want complete control over my photographs. So I'm putting my tupperware up for auction on eBay and maybe I'll score a few bucks.

A lesson well learned. Thanks all.

Strobe Monkey - as others have said thanks for listing the video it was interesting

Michael thanks for the website link I'll have a read....

Dave - No I dont want to be a P & S photographer all my life but we all have to start somewhere

Alan - I also thought 1 looked liked it had had a bit of editing

Viet- I agree Fong is good at marketing, but I cant call his photography as Im no pro only learning

Thanks everyone for your feedback you pros help the ametures get to your level with your tips

I've been suckered into the really expensive Tupperware.
If you cut a one gallon milk jug in half, guess what you get? The Lightsphere.

I did do a test with my wife making cookies... 1 was with an umbrella, and the other with the 'sphere on. They both produced very similar looks, but the lightsphere produced a more noticeable shadow.
However, we're in a pretty small apartment with white walls, the perfect location for the Lightsphere.
Can you guess which is which? These both are completely untouched in PP.

I'll stand by the Tupperware er, uh, Lightsphere in very run and gun situations, but I hate how much light it eats up.

Both these photos are taken with the 50mm 1.4, 4.5 @ 1/60 ISO 200 with a -.3 exposure bias. Auto white balance.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Was this shot offshoe ?

strobe monkey wrote in post #6212740
Was this shot offshoe ?

Yep, forgot to mention that. It was triggered via my ST-E2. I was approximately 3 feet away from it camera left.