Convenient modifiers for a flashgun?

Messages
4,672
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#43
Yes I've been being risky with just one body. I'll get another D750 next, then focus on upgrading to 1.4 lenses
I shoot over 95% of my Weddings on 2 D750 bodies with 35/85 combo, and my most used aperture is f2.2 - so unless you really REALLY have the cash spare and nothing better to spend it on, I'd go for the f1.8 versions, they are more than good enough :)

Dave
 
Messages
8,297
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#44
Yes I've been being risky with just one body. I'll get another D750 next, then focus on upgrading to 1.4 lenses
I have both and the difference is very little in real world shooting, if 1.8 wont do it 1.4 probably wont either, especially with modern good high iso cameras.
 
Messages
2,760
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#45
Yes I've been being risky with just one body. I'll get another D750 next, then focus on upgrading to 1.4 lenses
It depends on your budget the D750 is a very good dslr camera and can be bought used or grey market for very little money.

If you have the budget though it might be worth looking at the options available if you where to switch to a mirrorless set up.

Yes, it will absolutely be much more expensive, but it will eliminate the need to worry about lenses not being properly tuned to the body, an electronic view finder is also very useful as you can see your exposure in real time. It is very difficult to blame equipment for any errors with mirrorless systems.

This might be well over what you want to spend but for example if you where buying grey import you could go this route as an example.

Sony A7III x2 @ £1355 each
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art @ £599 or the new Sony 35mm f/1.8 @ £629
Sony 85mm f/1.8 @ £405 or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 @ £519

Just something to think about.
 
Messages
10,685
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
#46
Okay

Realistically to make the best use of natural light as a one man band wedding photographer you are going to need 2 full frame bodies with one wide and one long lens. The most popular options tend to be a 35/85 or 20 or 24/50 combos. I have used both of these combos at one time or another and both will be fine for weddings. You always have the option of swapping out a lens if needed.

.
This.

And a small but important point - you will need backups of everything that could possibly be needed, but you use two identical cameras, each fitted with two cards with the second card backing up the second, don't have the second camera as a backup.
That way, if something goes wrong with one camera and you don't know it you will still have about half of the images that you expected to have. And things do sometimes go wrong, it could be something as simple as a faulty memory card, it could be user error, a mechanical fault or just about anything else.
 
OP
OP
gilbouk
Messages
1,891
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
#47
It depends on your budget the D750 is a very good dslr camera and can be bought used or grey market for very little money.

If you have the budget though it might be worth looking at the options available if you where to switch to a mirrorless set up.

Yes, it will absolutely be much more expensive, but it will eliminate the need to worry about lenses not being properly tuned to the body, an electronic view finder is also very useful as you can see your exposure in real time. It is very difficult to blame equipment for any errors with mirrorless systems.

This might be well over what you want to spend but for example if you where buying grey import you could go this route as an example.

Sony A7III x2 @ £1355 each
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art @ £599 or the new Sony 35mm f/1.8 @ £629
Sony 85mm f/1.8 @ £405 or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 @ £519

Just something to think about.
The Sony FF option would be outside my budget - a second D750 is a stretch and won't be something I can get for a good month, and I'm considering a 24mm instead of my 20mm and also a 85mm. I will also need a holster to carry both at the same time, and new memory cards. I do have 2 x 128GB cards in my current setup - both saving in RAW
 
Messages
10,685
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
#48
The Sony FF option would be outside my budget - a second D750 is a stretch and won't be something I can get for a good month, and I'm considering a 24mm instead of my 20mm and also a 85mm. I will also need a holster to carry both at the same time, and new memory cards. I do have 2 x 128GB cards in my current setup - both saving in RAW
Yes, you need a second camera that exactly matches your first. Whether or not you need to change your lenses may be a moot point.
Whether you see it or not, you are working as a professional photographer. This means that you need to have right equipment for the work that you do but it also means that you won't make any money if you waste it on things that you don't actually need. One of the very first principles of running any kind of business is that you don't spend money unless you need to, and you don't spend it until you need to.

I know that some people love their mirrorless cameras but they seem to me to very expensive for what they bring to the party.
you need fast lenses that produce adequate quality at max aperture, but do they really need to be super fast?
Do you really need 128GB cards?
Do you really need a pair of fancy holsters when something like this will do? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Doub...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

What you really need to do is to develop better skills, this will produce much better results at minimal or zero cost, and this (edited) post sums it up pretty well.
Hi, you need to trust your equipment more, for that same shot in the car I would have shot that at f/2-f/2.8 with a 24mm or 35mm lens. I also would have shot it from the drivers seat rather than through the window and that way they would have been on the same focal plane and perfectly in focus without having to step down as much as you have done. Getting sharp photos at large apertures is partly down to technique in terms of how you handle your camera and partly down to how good the equipment is.
We've all gone a bit off topic here, you didn't ask for advice on either your business model or skillset, you asked about using flash - but I hope that the info you've been given is helpful.
 
Messages
247
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#49
Like @soeren I don't normally add modifiers to tiny flash units. The exception is when shooting macro where some cigarette papers can work very well (even folded tissue paper can work if there's nothing else to hand)
 
OP
OP
gilbouk
Messages
1,891
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
#50
Yes, you need a second camera that exactly matches your first. Whether or not you need to change your lenses may be a moot point.
Whether you see it or not, you are working as a professional photographer. This means that you need to have right equipment for the work that you do but it also means that you won't make any money if you waste it on things that you don't actually need. One of the very first principles of running any kind of business is that you don't spend money unless you need to, and you don't spend it until you need to.

I know that some people love their mirrorless cameras but they seem to me to very expensive for what they bring to the party.
you need fast lenses that produce adequate quality at max aperture, but do they really need to be super fast?
Do you really need 128GB cards?
Do you really need a pair of fancy holsters when something like this will do? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Double-Quick-Rapid-Shoulder-Sling-Belt-Neck-Strap-for-Camera-SLR-DSLR-Black/113792107781?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

What you really need to do is to develop better skills, this will produce much better results at minimal or zero cost, and this (edited) post sums it up pretty well.


We've all gone a bit off topic here, you didn't ask for advice on either your business model or skillset, you asked about using flash - but I hope that the info you've been given is helpful.
All very true - I'm glad I have had all the advice I have on this thread, it's very much appreciated from yourself and everybody who has contributed
 
Messages
5,649
Edit My Images
No
#51
as i said earlier get yourself some training on a wedding tog course
that will sort out most of your wee problems understanding depth of field and focal plane etc
wedding are a fkn nightmare not for the inexperienced tog
that's why i suggested going as a second tog for a year that would really help you
and greatly improve your portfolio and any technique problem that you have
try joining your local camera club there is a wealth of knowable people at them
 
Messages
9,484
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
as i said earlier get yourself some training on a wedding tog course
that will sort out most of your wee problems understanding depth of field and focal plane etc
wedding are a fkn nightmare not for the inexperienced tog
that's why i suggested going as a second tog for a year that would really help you
and greatly improve your portfolio and any technique problem that you have
try joining your local camera club there is a wealth of knowable people at them
He's already done 23 weddings, so I'd hardly say he's inexperienced.
There's plenty knowledgeable people on here.
Not saying a wedding tog course wouldn't be of benefit, but Gil has asked about a couple of things to do with flash/dof and hes been given some answers to work with.
 
OP
OP
gilbouk
Messages
1,891
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
as i said earlier get yourself some training on a wedding tog course
that will sort out most of your wee problems understanding depth of field and focal plane etc
wedding are a fkn nightmare not for the inexperienced tog
that's why i suggested going as a second tog for a year that would really help you
and greatly improve your portfolio and any technique problem that you have
try joining your local camera club there is a wealth of knowable people at them
Yes, I've delivered 23 weddings - have 3 I'm currently processing, and have another one on Saturday. Finding an experienced local Wedding tog who's willing to share their technique with is difficult when the market is so competitive. Most of the photographers I've met aren't of the level I would consider worthy of learning from, so it's nice to come to the forum and talk to more than one photographer, and to take away various ideas from people I respect. I find that applying what they have told me and comparing the results is the best way to learn for me.
 
Messages
4,672
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#54
Yes, I've delivered 23 weddings - have 3 I'm currently processing, and have another one on Saturday. Finding an experienced local Wedding tog who's willing to share their technique with is difficult when the market is so competitive. Most of the photographers I've met aren't of the level I would consider worthy of learning from, so it's nice to come to the forum and talk to more than one photographer, and to take away various ideas from people I respect. I find that applying what they have told me and comparing the results is the best way to learn for me.
I was winging it for about my first 50 !!!

By then I'd started to go on courses for specific things and these made a world of difference; it still took me several more years and a total gear change to really find how I wanted to shoot though

I certainly don't think Weddings are a 'fkn nightmare' as said above, and whenever someone tells me that I merely reply that they shouldn't be shooting them if that's how they feel

And I certainly don't think being a 2nd is much use unless the main really is someone you aspire to, but if you do manage to do that then work with several rather than one as you'll see more ways of doing things and cut through the BS

23 with one camera though is daft tbh - as one major cock-up/break-down and your career has ended

Have fun :)

Dave
 
Messages
5,649
Edit My Images
No
#55
AS Dave above says
By then I'd started to go on courses for specific things and these made a world of difference; it still took me several more years and a total gear change to really find how I wanted to shoot though

23 with one camera though is daft tbh - as one major cock-up/break-down and your career has ended

why not take Dave up on one or so of his training courses ?
where is your website or face book page ? advertising your photography skills so we can look at how you market yourself
and look at some of your previous weddings you have done
 
Messages
9,484
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
where is your website or face book page ? advertising your photography skills so we can look at how you market yourself
and look at some of your previous weddings you have done
You're asking Gil to do this when You don't even let folks view your profile on here?
:thinking:
 
Messages
4,672
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#57
You're asking Gil to do this when You don't even let folks view your profile on here?
:thinking:
@holty doesn't need to though as he's/she's not asking for help - but @Gil Bev that may well prove useful if you can post a link, or even to those you feel may actually be trying to help as a PM :)

Oh and my website has been officially signed off to its grave, it's too complex to update so I'll be starting afresh soon with a new domain too - what a PITA websites are :(

Dave
 
Messages
5,649
Edit My Images
No
#60
dave
i was asking the question about website to @ gil bev
to see his / her work
just goes to show how someone can read a post differently from the way it was posted !
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,641
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
#61
Would this be any good?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-cen...&s=gateway&sprefix=flash+softb,aps,135&sr=8-5

I have a couple of these but not really used in anger so can't comment but may help.

In terms of weddings, 2 bodies is better than 1 (not least because of backups). I only do a few small do's now rather than big ones but at the time I used a D750 & D700. Had a double strap harness so they were dangling down each side. One one (IIRC) my 24-70 would be almost always attached. On the other either a 16-35/20 or 50 or 85 depending on what was going on. On the D750 I would have no hesitation on using 6400 ISO - use the right ISO for the shot. At a recent party I covered I got a few good ones at that (although I do try to stay at 3200 or below). A couple were even at 12800 and while they would not be great as a 3ft canvas its finer an album.

Flash - yes, I have used at times but not that often from memory, and unless I am using it for something dramatic (or because I want a certain look) I would normally only use it if i had to. Never bothered with a tripod or monopod as too much hassle.
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#63
Snip:
I've been frustrated with attachments for my flash - I've tried the Fong dome which kept falling off which looks completely unprofessional when it does .
Have you tried putting a wide elastic band (or two) round the head of your flash gun, then putting the dome on over the top of that? The rubber band might give it something to grip onto and prevent it falling off as easily?

If the idea doesn't work you've not lost much, as it's easy enough to remove an elastic band as opposed to something like sticky Velcro, etc., which a few other diffuser/modifiers tend to use to stay in place.
 
OP
OP
gilbouk
Messages
1,891
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
#64
Snip:
Have you tried putting a wide elastic band (or two) round the head of your flash gun, then putting the dome on over the top of that? The rubber band might give it something to grip onto and prevent it falling off as easily?

If the idea doesn't work you've not lost much, as it's easy enough to remove an elastic band as opposed to something like sticky Velcro, etc., which a few other diffuser/modifiers tend to use to stay in place.
In the end I've gone with advice of reducing the use of flash and forgetting modifiers other than the integrated bounce card. I've been amazed with the results I've been able to get, and the D750 with my f35mm at f1.8 has given me some superb results. The only time I find the requirement to use flash is when doing group photos where there is time to decide how to bounce the flash, and particularly in backlit situations to avoid blowing out highlights. Currently raising funds for a second body
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,297
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#65
Snip:
Have you tried putting a wide elastic band (or two) round the head of your flash gun, then putting the dome on over the top of that? The rubber band might give it something to grip onto and prevent it falling off as easily?

If the idea doesn't work you've not lost much, as it's easy enough to remove an elastic band as opposed to something like sticky Velcro, etc., which a few other diffuser/modifiers tend to use to stay in place.
The Fong gadgets are soft-ish rubber type stuff anyway. I think the problem is A they are fairly heavy (heavier than they look) and B on mine at least (a freebe) the "neck" is quite short before it tapers out. You only really have a narrow-ish band (maybe half inch) gripping the flash head. (This is ribbed on the inside (that you cut out to fit your flash) the actual area of contact is fairly small. I have used duct tape which while working looks naff to help hold it on.
They also murder the power of the flash, at least mine does.
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#66
The Fong gadgets are soft-ish rubber type stuff anyway. I think the problem is A they are fairly heavy (heavier than they look) and B on mine at least (a freebe) the "neck" is quite short before it tapers out. You only really have a narrow-ish band (maybe half inch) gripping the flash head. (This is ribbed on the inside (that you cut out to fit your flash) the actual area of contact is fairly small. I have used duct tape which while working looks naff to help hold it on.
They also murder the power of the flash, at least mine does.
I see. I have a cheap, third-party version, which is made of softish semi-clear/translucent flexible plastic with a choice of three inserts. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Phot-R-P...04001&pg=2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1

It has 4 tabs that fit onto the sides of the flash head and an elasticated adjustable Velcro type strap to tighten the tabs. It seems to fit my Canon 580EX II flash better than the 430EX II but, touch wood, it's not fallen off either of them yet! I did think about fitting a wide rubber band round the flash head (as suggested) to give it a bit more to grip against, but I've not needed to do that yet; however, I do tend to treat my kit fairly gently and I check it's sitting securely at regular intervals.

I've been pleased enough with mine, particularly for the price I paid, but I know some people don't seem to like this style of flash modifier. I tend to use mine primarily for walk around documentary style photography rather than artistic, organised/posed shots, so the portability factor is important to me.
 
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#67
I tend to use mine primarily for walk around documentary style photography rather than artistic, organised/posed shots, so the portability factor is important to me.
If you're inside, it can be fine. If you're outside it's only wasting battery/efficiency (or rather, outside with no effective bounce surfaces around).
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#68
If you're inside, it can be fine. If you're outside it's only wasting battery/efficiency (or rather, outside with no effective bounce surfaces around).
It has its own bounce surface with the dish inserts, the chrome type one also features a back plate to reflect some more of the light forward. If you want/need some more clout then you can always turn the flash head to point forwards instead of straight up, so the dished dome of the insert (with the flash head behind it) is pointing at the subject. Outside I tend to use it more to neutralise harsh shadows and to give the colours a bit more vibrancy, a la Martin Parr.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLZCbzRogBs
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#69
Outside I tend to use it more to neutralise harsh shadows and to give the colours a bit more vibrancy, a la Martin Parr.
He probably uses it because "it works," not knowing or caring why/how it works. It's like the trick of putting tape or tissue over the pop-up flash... it works by killing the power. Negative FEC is a much better way of getting there.
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#70
He probably uses it because "it works," not knowing or caring why/how it works. It's like the trick of putting tape or tissue over the pop-up flash... it works by killing the power. Negative FEC is a much better way of getting there.
Less power won't solve a concentrated directional light issue on its own though, will it? I've found it works by delivering the light more evenly over a wider area, not just by 'killing power'. Aside from that, I believe Martin Parr is a much more accomplished and knowledgeable photographer than some people may think. Out of interest, have you seen his book 'Abandoned Morris Minors of the West of Ireland'?

However, I fully understand that not everyone likes the same things, taste differs, and different kit suits different people. So fair play if you've tried this type of diffuser and you haven't liked it for whatever reason and/or it's not best suited your particular requirements. (y)
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#71
Less power won't solve a concentrated directional light issue on its own though, will it?
The modifier is not large enough to reduce the "directional light" issue... not unless it's a macro subject at macro distances.

In this diagram I made, note that what provides the wrap/fill is the modifier being able to see around the edges of the subject (softbox close) with diffused/scattered light. Once the subject is far enough away, and/or the modifier is sufficiently small, the only light the subject sees is hard/parallel... and there is nothing to be done about that. The only good thing then is that greater distances (smaller size) don't make the light any harder/more parallel.
The general rule for wrap/softening is that the modifier diameter/diagonal must be at least equivalent to the size of area being lit, and from no greater of a distance. I.e. a 3ft modifier, for 3ft head/shoulder, from 3ft away. That formula provides no wrap at the perimeter, but plenty at the center... If you want really soft light/wrap/fill, then the apparent size of the modifier should be at least 2x the size of the area being lit. By 3-5x diameter/diagonal there is absolutely no benefit to the diffusion, no matter how critically you evaluate the results. How close to the subject would a 4" modifier have to be to be w/in 3x?

Modifiers.jpg
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#72
Thanks for taking the time to post that. I think I've seen those drawings on the forum before, and I've also seen this explained in some of the books on flash/lighting I've read over the years. However, you don't show the light dispersal pattern from a spherical/round modifier, only directional ones.

With the modifier I have (linked to in post #66), when fitted in the vertical position the flash fires upwards and the light hits the inverted dome insert fitted as a 'lid'. Depending on the type of insert, a significant amount of light is then reflected sideways towards the sides of the sphere (the percentage of light that is reflected directly downwards is reflected back up and out again). Depending on the dome insert fitted, a percentage of light also passes through the insert lid and is then reflected (bounced) off any suitable object above (such as a ceiling if indoors). If there's nothing above, then this percentage of light will escape, leaving the significant amount of light that's reflected back off the inverted dome insert to do illuminate the subject...

The reflected light then hits the striated pattern on the translucent sides of the modifier (the modifier I have is quite translucent, a bit like a patterned clear glass bathroom window, not opaque like a white plastic food mixing bowl) and is diffused. These multiple actions result in quite an even spread of light from the whole modifier, not a directional blast. It's something like comparing the pattern from an unshaded, traditional, incandescent domestic lightbulb with a wall-mounted external security light (which has a similar directional light pattern to the reflectors shown in the drawings above).

The downside is that because the light goes all over the place it's more 'lossy' than a directional beam, which concentrates most of the light in one direction. However, a powerful, modern, computer-controlled flash unit can cope with this to a point, by automatically increasing the amount of light to compensate so as to achieve the correct exposure. Yes, it will run out of clout before a directional modifier, but that's not the job I'm using it for.

As mentioned previously, I can also turn the modifier on its side and use it more like a soft box, but with more peripheral light due to light escaping from the sides of the modifier. Used within its limitations (and every flash and modifier has them) I quite like it and find it does what I need; I find it's more portable, convenient and ergonomic than flag type mods or soft boxes, and that's an important consideration to me for the type of photography I use it for. However, personal preferences and opinions will differ, that's why people's camera bags contain different items. :)
 
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#73
However, you don't show the light dispersal pattern from a spherical/round modifier, only directional ones.
I could draw them... but the result would be the same. Depending on the size of the source, after a distance the only light that reaches the subject are the rays that are parallel (or very nearly). I get the impression that you think diffused light is somehow different... it's not. Light is always "directional;" what makes the light "diffused" is that the rays of light are coming from a multitude of directions. Perhaps it would benefit you to draw the rays?

If there are reflective surfaces around that will redirect the scattered/spilled light, then some of those light rays will also reach the subject. And that's what makes a dome of any design functional in providing even/soft light. If there are no bounce surfaces, then the light going out the top/bottom/back/sides is lost.
However, depending on the specific design of the flash being used, almost all have a rather notable hotspot of the flash tube projected by the fresnel lens. And your dome is surely helping with that aspect... making it more "even." But there are other, more efficient, ways of dealing with it if necessary (like the WA screen built into some flashes).

If you like it, then continue using it. But I think it's best to actually understand what it's doing and why.
 
Messages
10,685
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
#74
As Steven says, its only about relative size - the size of the subject, the size of the modifier and the distance between the two - nothing else makes a scrap of difference (outside) and no amount of deceptive marketing hype can change the laws of physics.

Indoors, the shape of the diffuser and any associated reflective bits can create some level of bounced light - if there is something for it to bounce off of, but the immutable laws of physics remain immutable.
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#75
I do understand what its doing, and one of those things is putting out light over a wider area than something like a conventional reflector. That light appears to be quite even too (unless, of course, it is subsequently reflected unevenly by other objects). I've never been one for gimmicks, peer pressure, marketing or hype; I like to form my own opinions about things based on personal experience, a logical and enquiring thought process, and/or witnessing the results others have had. Although, I sometimes wonder how many people like to believe negative hype, or take a strong dislike to something without actually trying it themselves and exploring the strengths and weaknesses first hand? However, I'd be surprised if Garry or Steven fell into that category.

Before buying and trying, I did a bit of research, weighed up what I'd seen in a logical and level-headed way, then decided to spend £9 for a cheap version to give the basic principles and ergonomics of it a try. After doing some with-and-without comparisons, I've liked the results and found it did make a noticeable difference and was quicker and easier for me to use than conventional bounce flash with a single, unmodified, on-camera flash unit.

I know people such as Garry have decades of experience using artificial lighting, and could light a scene or object beautifully and in many different ways. However, I wanted something I could use (when necessary) while walking around with my camera to take documentary type shots. I wanted something that was as compact as possible, quick and easy to use, camera mounted, durable and easy to fit and remove. So far I've been happy enough with what I got for £9.
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,216
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#76
Outside I tend to use it more to neutralise harsh shadows and to give the colours a bit more vibrancy, a la Martin Parr.
However, you don't show the light dispersal pattern from a spherical/round modifier, only directional ones.
But outside that's irrelevant, the light going sideways, upwards and backwards never gets to the subject because there's nothing for it to bounce off. so as Steve said - it's just going to waste and has no significant effect on the subject
 
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#77
I must be really bored today :D
I do understand what its doing, and one of those things is putting out light over a wider area than something like a conventional reflector.
Coverage/area has nothing to do with softness/diffusion... like I said, a WA diffusion screen would do that for you much more efficiently (but still wasteful). Nikon SB's and others have them built in.

I decided to make the diagram showing a large (6") diffusion dome lighting a 12" sphere (i.e. a face) from only 4ft away... Photographing someone from 4ft away is generally a bad idea, and the lighting only gets harder (more parallel) as the distance increases.
I was also quite generous in the amount of light going forward from positions near the side. But that doesn't really matter because if those rays didn't fall there, the rays that start nearer the front still do (and they originate as more parallel to start).
You can position the 12" subject in any position 4ft away and the results will be the same. And you can place a second subject adjacent (i.e. chest) and the results will be the same there as well.
I did not include bounce surfaces, nor ray traces for light going away from the subject, because we are discussing the use of a diffusion dome outdoors.

dome-diffuser.gif

Edit to add: The general rule for diffused light from a diffused source (or my rule) is that; within a distance of 1x the size of the modifier, the lighting characteristics change significantly (due to large changes in falloff). Within the range of 1x-3x, the characteristics change quickly as the light transitions from diffused to hard (and reduced falloff). Beyond ~3x any changes will be very subtle or non-existent, because the light is already (primarily) hard/parallel.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,760
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#78
BTW, there may be several other things that are also affecting the results you see. For instance w/ the Nikon system; the default metering for flash is TTL-BL with distance information. But if you use spot metering it switches to standard TTL w/ distance instead. And if you tilt the flash head up, the lens distance information isn't used for the flash metering either (it's ignored). All of these can/will affect the resulting flash output and influence on the image. And flash metering is different than/separate from the image exposure metering (it always acts like CW metering IMO).
As long as the lens/flash is fully compatible, the system will behave this way (i.e. it's the same w/ my Godox V860II and current Sigma lenses).
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#79
the light going sideways, upwards and backwards never gets to the subject because there's nothing for it to bounce off. so as Steve said - it's just going to waste and has no significant effect on the subject
I wondered when you were going to turn up. :LOL: From your comment I get the impression that you're thinking of this from a portrait photography aspect. The light not hitting a single, central subject illuminates the rest of the scene within range, and fairly evenly too, so that percentage of it isn't going to waste for what I use it for.

Most of the time I'm not taking portrait shots of one single subject positioned in the centre of the frame. Outdoors I'm usually after killing the shadows in sunny weather and getting a mildly larger-than-life, slightly surreal feel without going to the Bruce Gilden side of things. With the possible exception of reducing shadows, I imagine that's the kind of look you'd be keen to avoid as a wedding or conventional portrait photographer?

Snip:
Coverage/area has nothing to do with softness/diffusion...
I'm not aware that I said it did?

like I said, a WA diffusion screen would do that for you much more efficiently (but still wasteful). Nikon SB's and others have them built in.
Both my Canon Speedlites have a built in WA diffuser, I used that before I got the modifier, but I find the modifier works better.

I did not include bounce surfaces because we are discussing the use of a diffusion dome outdoors.
No, I was discussing using it both indoors and outdoors and often alternating between the two whilst keeping faffing about with the flash and accessories to a minimum. Outdoors I find it still gives a good, even spread of light across the frame (within its range), and I can flip it forwards if I need more power, plus I can take it off and use the flash unmodified if I really needed to.

Look, I know the three of you don't like this type of modifier, but I find it works OK for what I use it for. So let's agree to disagree... or I'll start a thread on UV filters! ;)
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
BTW, there may be several other things that are also affecting the results you see. For instance w/ the Nikon system; the default metering for flash is TTL-BL with distance information. But if you use spot metering it switches to standard TTL w/ distance instead. And if you tilt the flash head up, the lens distance information isn't used for the flash metering either (it's ignored). All of these can/will affect the resulting flash output and influence on the image. And flash metering is different than/separate from the image exposure metering (it always acts like CW metering IMO).
As long as the lens/flash is fully compatible, the system will behave this way (i.e. it's the same w/ my Godox V860II and current Sigma lenses).
It depends which camera I'm using, as I also use Canon EOS film SLRs with this flash modifier, only one of which I own (EOS 30V) has the E-TTL II flash metering system that takes account of distance info from the lens. With the old E-TTL system some bias was given to the selected AF point.
 
Last edited:
Top