Flash diffuser advice Magmod vs Lightsphere vs Others

[Canaryboy]

I have been using one of these for event photography


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flash-Diffuser-Two-Sides-Reflector-Speedlite/dp/B074J62YX1/ref=sr_1_6?crid=1WVH5L4EAV4SZ&keywords=flash+diffuser&qid=1699262249&sprefix=flash+diffuser,aps,76&sr=8-6

but I see a lot of others using the Magmod system and wondered what everyone's thoughts were on the Magmod, the Gary Fong Lightsphere, or any other diffusers. Are any of the other options going to be significantly better than what I am getting from my cheap bounce card?

 

[Faldrax]

What you are using isn't a diffuser, it's an improved 'bounce card' - it deflects a portion of the light forward (assuming you are pointing the flash to the ceiling to provide bounced flash).
Basically a cheap version of the Rogue Flashbender.

A diffuser, such as the Gary Fong Lightsphere, just absorbs some of the light, then throws the rest all around - an incredible example of marketing persuading people to buy something that, in most situations, is a bad idea.

 

[Phil V]

As above; this is the single biggest area of BS marketing in photography.

All ‘bounce cards’ are fairly similar*, and about the best bet without making things complex.

All ‘domes’ are likewise similar, just wasteful of light and add softness in very strictly controlled circumstances**.

The bs that describes domes as ‘soft’ and tries to pretend that they do any more than double the tiny flash are ought to be illegal.

* that said, I settled on the old model lumiquest pocket bounce but it appears to have changed a lot.

** if you shoot in a small confined space with white walls and ceiling, the large dome pointing upwards will create a 360deg wrapped light source.

 

[Phil V]

Forgive the rant
And to add.

The way that all these things talk about ‘softness’ leads photographers to believe that the whole point of lighting is to remove all shadows.

When; what should be obvious is that the whole point of controlling light is to control shadows (shadows = form)

 

[swanseamale47]

I dont have the Magmod but do have a Gary Fong (given to me years back) I used it twice. Yes the light is softer than direct flash, but by heck it cut the power down. And it kept falling off.
I have the ones you show above and some small cheap "sock" types off fleabay that I prefere (smaller and easier than the ones you've shown) But if you want soft light you really need a big softbox or similar.

 

[Canaryboy]

Forgive the rant
And to add.

The way that all these things talk about ‘softness’ leads photographers to believe that the whole point of lighting is to remove all shadows.

When; what should be obvious is that the whole point of controlling light is to control shadows (shadows = form)

No problem. I think this kind of reinforces what I thought. If I need less light I can dial down the flash power.

 

[Canaryboy]

I dont have the Magmod but do have a Gary Fong (given to me years back) I used it twice. Yes the light is softer than direct flash, but by heck it cut the power down. And it kept falling off.
I have the ones you show above and some small cheap "sock" types off fleabay that I prefere (smaller and easier than the ones you've shown) But if you want soft light you really need a big softbox or similar.

I think both responses back up my initial thoughts. If I want a less harsh light I can turn down the flash power.

 

[taxboy]

Sorry to hijack but has anyone used a black foamie thing https://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/

 

[Phil V]

I think both responses back up my initial thoughts. If I want a less harsh light I can turn down the flash power.

That won’t make the light ‘less harsh’ it’ll only make it less bright.

I think what you’d really like to do is make the light ‘softer’ ie the transition from highlight to shadows ‘less harsh’, ie less ‘hard’.

To do that simply means you need a larger light source.

Now whatever the snake oil salesmen claim; none of these devices will actually do that. The only really effective way to do it is to increase the size of the light source, so bouncing, or for more control a brolly, even more control a softbox.

 

[wiltw]

I think both responses back up my initial thoughts. If I want a less harsh light I can turn down the flash power.

If you waht less harsh light, make the source LARGER!
This photo series illustrates that a 5" x 7" sofbox does little to soften shadows, even at 20' distance from light to subject.

While a 16" x 20" softbox soften shadows considerably, even a 20' distance from light-to-subject

 

[LongLensPhotography]

big translucent umbrella. dirt effective, dirt quick and dirt cheap.

Then you can buy all the fancy kit at your pace. Sure it gets definitely better when you throw money to it and know hot to use it to the full.

 

[Phil V]

While a 16" x 20" softbox soften shadows considerably, even a 20' distance from light-to-subject

My guess would be that the environment is doing a good % of the softening in this scenario. I’d never use a softbox from 20 feet away, let alone a 16 inch one. We can see the white wall to the right, my guess is the left wall and ceiling aren’t that far away.

The rule of thumb for a softbox to be soft is for the subject distance to be no more than the diagonal of the front face of the softbox.

 

[wiltw]

My guess would be that the environment is doing a good % of the softening in this scenario. I’d never use a softbox from 20 feet away, let alone a 16 inch one. We can see the white wall to the right, my guess is the left wall and ceiling aren’t that far away.

The rule of thumb for a softbox to be soft is for the subject distance to be no more than the diagonal of the front face of the softbox.

Portraiture 'soft' is different from wedding/event coverage...those of us who have covered weddings use different techniques/equipment to reduce or eliminate visible'distracting levels of shadow shadowing behind the main subjects, and we do not have the luxury of placement of sources at portraiture-close distances. Ergo, my demonstration of 20' shooting distances and how negligible the beneift of using the tiny (4x6 or 5x7) softboxes marketed commonly (in reposnse to this inquiry about using small modifiers). My shooting medium format using a Metz potato-masher style flash perched above the lens axis permitted my shooting with a 16 x 20" softbox without blockage of the lens view. So yes, 16 x 20 is certainly not 'large' in a portraiture standpoint, but it does reduce evlidence of shadowing significantly.
At about 2-3X the diagonal, a softbox starts to make a transition from being s soft (a.k.a. 'large') source, and its transition from Inverse Linear to Inverse Square rule of light intensity falloff But as my example showed, even at 9x the diagonal, there is evidence of shadows but they are quite soft in the penumbra quality...something very desirable in event coverage. We can reserve the really large sources at 1-3X diagonal for the portrait sessions, and use other tools for the event coverage (which is the reason behind this thread topic use of otherwise tiny modifiers!)

 

[Phil V]

those of us who have covered weddings use different techniques/equipment to reduce or eliminate visible'distracting levels of shadow shadowing behind the main subjects,

So my 30 years of regular weddings doesn’t count for owt?

Oh dear.

 

[Phil V]

those of us who have covered weddings use different techniques/equipment

It was you who brought up softboxes.
My response gave only relevant detail, see posts #3 and #4. From where it’s brutally clear I know more than a bit about modifiers for shooting events.

 

[wiltw]

So my 30 years of regular weddings doesn’t count for owt?

Oh dear.

I didn't intend that, you inferred it.
What I meant was that your description of the 16 x 20" softbox size was appropriate to studio style portrait where setting up a 3' x 4' box could be readily done; in event photography such a box has guests bumping it over or complaining that it blocks their view, etc. so one is forced into smaller modifier size.

 

[wiltw]

I didn't intend that that, you inferred it.
What I meant was that your description of the 16 x 20" softbox size was appropriate to studio style portrait where setting up a 3' x 4' box could be readily done; in event photography such a box has guests bumping it over or complaining that it blocks their view, etc. so one is forced into smaller modifier size.

As for your expertise, you obviously have good knowledge of photographic technical detail. For anyone who has not been a regular long term participant in this forum, your range of background is NOT so apparent, and a forum participant should not be assumed to know your background. That any pro shooter has ANY wedding coverage experience is not an assumption I would ordinarily make; I knew pros who very briefly tried weddings and quickly left it for others to do, and most others did not bother to ever do weddings.