Exposure Comparison

troutfisher

troutfisher

Messages
2,919
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been experimenting with a honeycomb to try and get a a bit more creative with lighting as distinct from this

p185577359-4.jpg

These are all taken with the same set up
10% Honeycomb about 2 feet from the back and level with subject. fill flash slightly off centre on the camera and level with the lens, manual flash 1/60th at various f stops

f5.6
p195850402-4.jpg


f6.4
p21894663-4.jpg


f8
p499757082-4.jpg

All are SOOC and any thoughts would be appreciated

Thanks

Chris
 
Faldrax said:
Personally the shot at f/5.6 is my favourite of the set - I like that you can see the surface the statue is standing on, rather than having it just 'float' in space.
The smaller apertures make it too dark for me.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well put. Ditto from me.

Well done Chris. Which do you like best?
 
Out of those it's the F5.6. My personal taste would be a bit lighter again, somewhere between the original and the 5.6 version.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
double diffusion would help with your specular highlights a lot
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't; it would only reduce the exposure overall. If the secondary diffusion was also significantly closer then it would reduce the power and diffuse the highlights more; but it is primarily the shorter distance that causes it.
 
troutfisher said:
All are SOOC and any thoughts would be appreciated
Click to expand...
I see no real qualitative difference in the lighting... this is the 5.6 image adjusted with a simple exposure curve compared to the f/8 image (I didn't try to make them exact).

Untitled-1.jpg

If you want to see qualitative differences then you need to change something more than "exposure." Something like w/ grid vs without; but I'm not sure why you chose to use a grid for this subject.
Or more substantially, move the modifier closer to the subject and reduce the power; that will increase the rate of falloff (contrast) and reduce the intensity of the highlights (making them more translucent).
 
Last edited:
troutfisher said:
Because I am experimenting and trying to determine what difference they make
Click to expand...
Then you need to compare with vs without at the same exposures and distances...

The way I like to explain it is that diffusion doesn't make your light source larger; what it does is break your light source up into a larger number of light sources... i.e. each point on the diffusion is a separate light source with its' own light spread. The honeycomb is then like a bunch of small barn doors for a bunch of smaller/harder lights... they reduce the spill/wrap from each area. So the effect you would expect is "harder" light (more specular). But because you are combining a bunch of smaller harder lights into a larger (and therefore softer) light source, the effect is generally subtle and only effective at a limited distance... i.e. get anywhere near the distance where the light source would already be becoming hard and the grid effect will be lost.

Also, the use of fill flash probably masks some of the differences... i.e. work with one light at a time to build up the desired lighting.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
No, it wouldn't; it would only reduce the exposure overall. If the secondary diffusion was also significantly closer then it would reduce the power and diffuse the highlights more; but it is primarily the shorter distance that causes it.
Click to expand...
Is this even for real? Give it a go first perhaps. I wonder why all product photographers including myself are "wasting" money on this
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Give it a go first perhaps.
Click to expand...
I have; that and so much more...

LongLensPhotography said:
I wonder why all product photographers including myself are "wasting" money on this
Click to expand...
If all you are doing is adding a second layer of diffusion, then I wonder why too... what exactly do you think a second layer of diffusion is doing other than blocking more light?
But the web is full of nonsense like that... where's that rotolight video?
 
sk66 said:
I see no real qualitative difference in the lighting... this is the 5.6 image adjusted with a simple exposure curve compared to the f/8 image (I didn't try to make them exact).

View attachment 423800

If you want to see qualitative differences then you need to change something more than "exposure." Something like w/ grid vs without; but I'm not sure why you chose to use a grid for this subject.
Or more substantially, move the modifier closer to the subject and reduce the power; that will increase the rate of falloff (contrast) and reduce the intensity of the highlights (making them more translucent).
Click to expand...
This.
Good on you for experimenting, that's how most of us learn, but too few of us do enough of it.
But changing the exposure, by adjusting power output, or lens aperture or ISO only really changes the appearance In terms of brightness, and the only real benefit is in perception of what looks best, which is entirely subjective..

Regardless of the modifier type, we really need to change one thing at a time. Changing the angle of incidence (which will also change the angle of reflectance in equal measure) will make a huge distance, changing the distance from light to subject will change the softness/hardness/light coverage and adding extra diffusion will absorb some light.

And changing any modifier to any other modifier will make another massive difference.

And adding a second light, in this case a fill light, just complicates matters and should be avoided, at least for now.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I have; that and so much more...


If all you are doing is adding a second layer of diffusion, then I wonder why too... what exactly do you think a second layer of diffusion is doing other than blocking more light?
But the web is full of nonsense like that... where's that rotolight video?
Click to expand...
Difference is crystal clear unless you are putting wrong diffusion and in the wrong place

There is always spec savers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top