Flash diffusor

[bigtel]

Hi,

I love using my flash at night during an event or wedding. I use a SB-900 and have a SB-700 as a back up. I usually pull out the white bounce card and point it 45 degrees to the left and behind me.

This seems to of worked so far, but I'm seeing more photographers with the diffusors - something like this - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gary-Fong-...qid=1544348406&sr=8-7&keywords=flash+diffuser

Are they better than the bounce card? The only issue I have so far in my current set up is, on the SB-900 it won't swivel 360 degrees so if I shoot in portrait I can't put the flash where I would like to, yet the cheaper SB-700 rotates further.

Thanks

 

[Garry Edwards]

The Fong diffuser is IMO one of those pieces of overpriced junk that I warn about in my e-book. It sort of works, but only because (in some conditions) it bounces light off of whatever reflective surfaces happen to be present. As a diffuser, it does virtually nothing because for a diffuser to work, it needs to be
1. Considerably larger than the light source that it is supposed to be diffusing
2. Very close indeed to the subject.

Therefore, any small diffuser (including small softboxes) rely on slick marketing and (often) fake videos to sell them to a gullible public.

 

[HoppyUK]

There's a ton of misinformation and economy of truth in this sector. Almost all of these things work in the same basic way by blasting the majority of the output up to the ceiling for bounced light with a small portion going directly to the subject to lift shadows under the eyes and chin and put a sparkle in the eyes. It's actually a good combination but totally dependent on the environment and some suitable surfaces to bounce off, and it's the same technique as using a bounce-card or the little pull-out highlight panel, or using a simple diffuser cap, eg Stofen.

For a significant improvement, the direct light source needs to be much bigger to have any real softening effect (like 30-40cm, rather than 10cm) and you need some way of adjusting the bounce-fill ratio according to circumstances.

IMHO the best accessory for most social situations is the Lumiquest QuikBounce. It's fast and easy, you can adjust bounce-fill ratio by zooming the flash head, it works for horizontal or vertical framing, doesn't waste precious light out of the back, can be used outdoors with some benefit if you're close, and it folds away flat https://lumiquest.com/collections/bounce-devices/products/lumiquest-quik-bounce

Better still is the Black Foamie Thing pioneered by Neil van Niekerk. It's a DIY device that costs pennies, but does need suitable bounce surfaces nearby and some knowledge of how it's working for best results https://neilvn.com/tangents/the-black-foamie-thing/

 

[Mr Badger]

So what do @Garry Edwards and @HoppyUK think about a someone who uses a Fong diffuser regularly, even outdoors for fill-in type flash? Would either of you say that a person who uses one is showing their ignorance about photography by doing so, and is consequently unlikely to have much success as a photographer in the professional realm?

 

[HoppyUK]

So what do @Garry Edwards and @HoppyUK think about a someone who uses a Fong diffuser regularly, even outdoors for fill-in type flash? Would either of you say that a person who uses one is showing their ignorance about photography by doing so and is consequently unlikely to have much success as a photographer in the professional realm?

If you even mention the Fong word on some photo forums (eg POTN or DPR) you'll be met with a barrage of derision and abuse. I try to be less judgemental, and while Mr F is guilty of some shameful advertising (he's not alone!) and there are better devices about IMHO, the Fong does actually work pretty well in most situations, including outdoors. The problem outdoors is it's massively wasteful of light but if you still have enough left with a decent gun used close, then fine. Same goes for a Stofen, but press photographers often use one of those for absolutely everything. It does the job and both the Fong and Stofen are fairly foolproof.

The problem with on-camera flash and social situations is the options are massively limited. There is almost always a much better way of doing things - if only you had the time, the knowledge, the equipment, the working room, an assistant etc etc. It's no help being snooty about those things, they're real problems and you just have to make the best of a bad job. I have a mobile rig that does a much better job, but it includes two flashguns mounted on an adjustable bracket and a small softbox. It's a kind of studio on legs and it works great, but weighs a ton, it won't go through a door without great care, looks ridiculous, and despite my best intentions I never use it - just grab the LQ QuikBounce instead

 

[supergeeman]

I use a similar diffuser than the Fong, but was £5 had some great results

 

[HoppyUK]

I use a similar diffuser than the Fong, but was £5 had some great results

There are lots of Fong clones and lookalikes around on Amazon/ebay for a fraction of the cost, eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/SHOOT-Lamb...GCTAGDDQ6B8&psc=1&refRID=WRN16MGKFGCTAGDDQ6B8

You can also make one for free in two minutes with a plastic milk bottle - just cut off the top, turn it upside-down, and shove it over the flashgun. Not hard to improve both performance and versatility with a few simple mods such as lining the back with cooking foil, and putting a duct-tape hinge on the base of the bottle to flip it out of the way and so put more light up to the ceiling. Using a really big bottle works even better

 

[Deleted member 49428]

UHH I really hate those things. Rather go with bounce and the BFT if at all possible.

 

[Graham W]

There are lots of Fong clones and lookalikes around on Amazon/ebay for a fraction of the cost, eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/SHOOT-Lamb...GCTAGDDQ6B8&psc=1&refRID=WRN16MGKFGCTAGDDQ6B8

You can also make one for free in two minutes with a plastic milk bottle - just cut off the top, turn it upside-down, and shove it over the flashgun. Not hard to improve both performance and versatility with a few simple mods such as lining the back with cooking foil, and putting a duct-tape hinge on the base of the bottle to flip it out of the way and so put more light up to the ceiling. Using a really big bottle works even better

I'll second the milk bottle idea...but for me no expense was spared and I used an Aldi own brand hot chocolate drink container. (More structural integrity and better diffusion. )

 

[Phil V]

So what do @Garry Edwards and @HoppyUK think about a someone who uses a Fong diffuser regularly, even outdoors for fill-in type flash? Would either of you say that a person who uses one is showing their ignorance about photography by doing so, and is consequently unlikely to have much success as a photographer in the professional realm?

Not at all, they may be well aware how much valuable light they’re wasting but choose convenience over practicality.

IMHO it’s daft to use a Fong Dong, but I also think it’s daft to bank with Barclays, drive a Vauxhall etc etc (lots of things that people do)

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

If you even mention the Fong word on some photo forums (eg POTN or DPR) you'll be met with a barrage of derision and abuse. I try to be less judgemental, and while Mr F is guilty of some shameful advertising (he's not alone!) and there are better devices about IMHO, the Fong does actually work pretty well in most situations, including outdoors. The problem outdoors is it's massively wasteful of light but if you still have enough left with a decent gun used close, then fine. Same goes for a Stofen, but press photographers often use one of those for absolutely everything. It does the job and both the Fong and Stofen are fairly foolproof.

Thanks Hoppy, I'm glad I got an objective answer from you. It seems the very mention of some photographic items instantly divides forum opinion into two camps, with personal likes or dislikes sometimes being banded about as fact, rather than (subjective) opinion, so thanks for not adding to my fears.

The photographer I was referring to wasn't Mr F, it was Martin Parr (for anyone unfamiliar with the name, Mr P has had a career spanning over 40 years, with around 40 solo photo books to his name, joined Magnum Photos in 1994 and is one of the best known documentary style photographers on the planet); and I believe he's regularly used a Fong type dome diffuser for the last few years.

Before I bought and tried a similar product it baffled me why such an eminent and frequently published Magnum photographer would be using a product that was so disliked by some on the forum? I wonder if this could perhaps be down to some people never actually trying the product (or trying it only briefly and not exploring it to the full) but forming a dislike of it all the same; and others trying it and not liking the results (or ergonomics) for their own particular style of photography. The latter one is fine, we don't all get on with everything and at least you gave it a go - nothing ventured, nothing gained and I'm sure everyone will be pleased that you found something that better suited your needs.

Anyway, in an effort to help the OP... After reading some reviews I took a cautious approach and decided to gamble £9 including postage on one of these: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Phot-R-P...h=item3ce6358181:g:tJ0AAOSwkLhaBhza:rk:4:pf:0

It's not a collapsible version, but it does come with 3 insets that clip on reasonably firmly (I've not had one fall off yet). The 'chrome' coating on the silver plastic inset wasn't wonderful on the one I was sent, but for the price I couldn't complain - overall, it was better than I expected for £9 inc postage! It fits my Canon 580 EXII flash better than it fits the smaller 430 EX II, but putting a wide elastic band round the flash head before fitting it gives it more to grip against (if I can remember to carry one!). However, this budget version did enable me to try the general principles of the product without it costing me around £60 for the well known equivalent.

To be honest, and at the risk of ridicule from some, I actually like the results it gives. Yes, if not using it pointed forwards with the top dish pointing at the subject (one of the ways it can be used), it will 'waste' light (but less so if using the chrome lid with back reflector plate when using it in the vertical position). But it seems to give a nice, even light within its range and doesn't cast harsh shadows like direct flash. It's also more compact and less like a sail or flag than some of the large 'bendy plastic cloth' type flash modifier equivalents. Yes, the bendy type modifiers may do a similar job, and may be able to aim/direct light better (if that's what you need), but ergonomics and bulk can also be important factors to consider.

My review would be, don't expect it to be right for everything, or to be the universal answer; it's on-camera flash we're talking about, not a portable lighting studio. However, I've found that it's quite easy to use, it doesn't seem to get in the way too much if working in and around groups of people and I've liked the results it gives (within its range limitations). Will it suit the style of photography you do? Well, I paid £9 to find out.

Potentially, this approach could leave you lots of you £58 left to buy a 'budget' bendy plastic cloth type modifier and try that too? You can then make up your own mind and go from there before investing in a de-lux, high-quality version of the one you prefer; keeping the cheap 'trial' ones as spares or for off-camera, multi flash use, or pass them on to someone else via the classified ads on the forum or eBay and get some of your 'trial investment' money back? Hope this is useful and best of luck finding something that suits.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Interesting. When I was at Lencarta we supplied a local press agency with portable lighting - basically whenever they took on a new photographer they were sent to us to be kitted out..
Most of them didn't have a clue when it came to using flash, there were constant queries/complaints because of complete beginner mistakes, for example there must be something wrong with the flash because it's not showing in these shots - taken with the shutter at 1/8000th, or the flash didn't produce any light on this shot of someone who was 150 metres away, or the flash fired on the first shot but not on the rest of the shots from that burst. And this isn't atypical, but it doesn't matter because what all of these people can do is to be in the right place at the right time, identify their target and get shots that are always good enough - the small details don't matter.

As for Martin Parr, whether or not his bit of plastic actually helps him or not, he has proved himself. Also, I would be very surprised if he actually had to pay for it.

Personally, I respect Gary Fong for managing to monetise a bit of plastic and convince people to pay ridiculous prices for it.. Before him, people always made their own odds and sods, often using Tuppperware, but it was GF turned that idea into a business. My own belief is that his gadget is overpriced junk and that it's much better to go the DIY route, but that's probably just the reaction of a Welshman who lives in Yorkshire and hates spending money

 

[HoppyUK]

I think most of the objections to the Fong are less about the product itself and more about the magical marketing claims made for it and the fact that he has made a small fortune by, frankly, telling porkies. It works the same as almost all of these diffusion accessories, ie by blasting light up and all around. The result is dependent on the environment and the proximity of ceiling and walls to bounce off - that's where the magic is. The Fong in particular wastes a lot of light from the back and sides, in fact most of it. Bouncing light like this is inherently inefficient to start with, so you may well run out of power or at least have to put up with lengthy recycle times and miss opportunities as a result.

If you want to find out what any of these devices do on their own, then take them outside at night away from surroundings, and see what you get.

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

As for Martin Parr, whether or not his bit of plastic actually helps him or not, he has proved himself. Also, I would be very surprised if he actually had to pay for it.

From what limited amount I've seen of Martin Parr I get the impression that he probably regards his camera kit as just a tool for the job; it's the results he's looking for, not the latest kit for the sake of wearing it. I get the impression that unless something noticeably better or more convenient came along I doubt he'd be particularly interested in using it. As for getting freebies, I wouldn't know, but I've not seen much evidence of any 'product placement'. When watching a YouTube short video about him doing an advertising shoot for Farah clothing earlier this year, I noticed that Mr P appeared to be still using a 580 EXII Speedlite on his EOS 5D iv. I assume this was because he was used to it, and it did what he wanted and needed it to do. Whether or not that was the case, it hardly gave me the impression he was into freebies and/or using the latest kit just for the sake of it, not that it would be any of my business either way.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think that Richard has summed it up very nicely.
We've all heard the old quote, Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. . .
Actually that's a misquote derived from:
"if a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.— Ralph Waldo Emerson" and it's total nonsense!
Emerson was a clergyman who obviously knew about as much about the realities of marketing as I do about being a clergyman. The reality is that it doesn't matter how good a product may be, unless it's both very well marketed and very easy to get hold of, it will always fail.
And it doesn't matter how bad it is either, if it's expertly marketed then it will sell.
And, with the marketing opportunities today, even the most overpriced, useless junk will sell to the gullible, especially when endorsed by 'celebrities'.

That's what happens all the time on YouTube (among other places) - bloggers recommend products and sales go through the roof. New regulations have now been brought in, requiring them to make it clear that they are being paid to lie, this has stopped some of them but not all, and there are plenty of photographic products that are still being promoted without proper disclosure. In bigger fields, such as cosmetics, the bloggers have now changed their approach and instead of praising the item that they are being paid to promote, they diss competitors products, which doesn't require disclosure.

All very dishonest of course, but just about legal. What always amazes me is the number of the buying public who fall for it.

 

[Mr Badger]

I quite agree about hype and marketing of products being annoying; after all, you are talking to a person that bought the £9 version! For that price I've been happy enough with what it does for what I need it for. You'll also note I'm still using a 580 EXII Speedlite (which I bought second-hand); so left to me I think the marketing men would have a pretty thin time of it!

 

[HoppyUK]

I quite agree about hype and marketing of products being annoying; after all, you are talking to a person that bought the £9 version! For that price I've been happy enough with what it does for what I need it for. You'll also note I'm still using a 580 EXII Speedlite (which I bought second-hand); so left to me I think the marketing men would have a pretty thin time of it!

Just because you didn't buy an original Fong doesn't mean you weren't taken in by the marketing. It just means that you're also complicit in the illegal Chinese rip-off cloning business.

Just making a gentle point, not a judgement. It's hard to avoid, unwittingly or otherwise

 

[Ed Sutton]

For £250 you can have your portrait taken by Martin Parr and see what his studio set up is like.

https://www.martinparrfoundation.org/events/martin-parr/
.

 

[Mr Badger]

Just because you didn't buy an original Fong doesn't mean you weren't taken in by the marketing. It just means that you're also complicit in the illegal Chinese rip-off cloning business.

Just making a gentle point, not a judgement. It's hard to avoid, unwittingly or otherwise

How can I have been taken in by marketing I didn't take any notice of? Also, can someone else's design of an allegedly widely established concept be 'cloning', wouldn't Mr F have pointed a legal team at the seller if a breech of a patented design had occurred? I'm glad to see you take such things seriously though, and I take it your backpack contains nothing other than a genuine Thermos flask?

 

[landwomble]

I have a Rogue Flashbender and it's great. Bendy, big velcro attachment that does soft diffuse, can be rolled into a snoot etc. Those Fong things are rubbish.

 

[HoppyUK]

Off topic, but...

How can I have been taken in by marketing I didn't take any notice of?

But you did. Think about it

Also, can someone else's design of an allegedly widely established concept be 'cloning', wouldn't Mr F have pointed a legal team at the seller if a breech of a patented design had occurred?

Chinese manufacturers don't take any notice of patents or other intellectual property rights and laws passed in the west are unenforceable. It's a major problem for most original designers and manufacturers. Ask Mr Trump.

I'm glad to see you take such things seriously though, and I take it your backpack contains nothing other than a genuine Thermos flask?

In my bag you'd find genuine items, cloned stuff, some grey imports etc etc, the usual mix just like most folks. I gave up trying to 'do the right thing' and pointlessly swimming against the tide some time ago. If the government and HMRC can't be arsed to do anything about it, then neither can I.

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Off topic, but...

But you did. Think about it

No I didn't. Get over it

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... As I said in post #11, I believe the OP has the option to try various types of flash modifier for comparatively little money, before choosing the one/s they prefer and, if they wish, investing in the best quality version of that they can find that suits their individual photographic style and requirements.

 

[RustySnapper]

Snip:

No I didn't. Get over it

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... As I said in post #11, I believe the OP has the option to try various types of flash modifier for comparatively little money, before choosing the one/s they prefer and, if they wish, investing in the best quality version of that they can find that suits their individual photographic style and requirements.

Having been in a position to try many of these at no cost to myself I have to agree with Mr Badger..

 

[Garry Edwards]

Snip:

From what limited amount I've seen of Martin Parr I get the impression that he probably regards his camera kit as just a tool for the job; it's the results he's looking for, not the latest kit for the sake of wearing it. I get the impression that unless something noticeably better or more convenient came along I doubt he'd be particularly interested in using it. As for getting freebies, I wouldn't know, but I've not seen much evidence of any 'product placement'. When watching a YouTube short video about him doing an advertising shoot for Farah clothing earlier this year, I noticed that Mr P appeared to be still using a 580 EXII Speedlite on his EOS 5D iv. I assume this was because he was used to it, and it did what he wanted and needed it to do. Whether or not that was the case, it hardly gave me the impression he was into freebies and/or using the latest kit just for the sake of it, not that it would be any of my business either way.

Mr Parr may not have benefitted from freebies, but the simple fact of the matter is that manufacturers fall over themselves to provide equipment - usually on "Indefinite loan" to well known photographers.

 

[HoppyUK]

Having been in a position to try many of these at no cost to myself I have to agree with Mr Badger..

Care to share about one or two of your favourites? There's always a lot of interest in these things.

And welcome to TP

 

[RustySnapper]

Care to share about one or two of your favourites? There's always a lot of interest in these things.

And welcome to TP

Thank you.

All went in the trash I'm afraid, It was just a matter of firing off a few shots when I got the chance. As expected the results were variable and very dependent on the surroundings as has already been mentioned in the thread but for my requirements the bounce-card method is the best. I very rarely use flash but my go-to device still is simply cut from a 2L white plastic milk bottle, shaped in the form of an inverted wide-stemmed T with the crossbar cut and duct taped to fit aroung the flashgun whilst the stem (reflector part) can be cut to any shape you want and bent to any angle. Cheap and cheerful - what more could I ask for.

 

[sk66]

Not at all, they may be well aware how much valuable light they’re wasting but choose convenience over practicality.

This is about as generous as I can be... and IMHO, it's a stretch.
Martin Parr is not a technical photographer... he just shoots in P mode and adjusts ISO based upon image review/chimping.
I don't really have an issue with that as it's more of "an artist" type approach rather than "a photographer." But simply using what he uses, because he uses it, isn't going to get you anywhere near to where he is. Because he is primarily going off of "a vision" and not "the how or why" he gets there. I've looked at a bunch of his images and I would say his work is more/less social commentary, not any kind of great example of "photography/technique."

 

[Phil V]

This is about as generous as I can be... and IMHO, it's a stretch.
Martin Parr is not a technical photographer... he just shoots in P mode and adjusts ISO based upon image review/chimping.
I don't really have an issue with that as it's more of "an artist" type approach rather than "a photographer." But simply using what he uses, because he uses it, isn't going to get you anywhere near to where he is. Because he is primarily going off of "a vision" and not "the how or why" he gets there. I've looked at a bunch of his images and I would say his work is more/less social commentary, not any kind of great example of "photography/technique."

When I wrote the above, I could have guessed at Martin Parr, but it wasn’t apparent.

You’re absolutely correct though, Martin is an artist who happens to use a camera, rather than a photographer. His ‘look’ is something that’s not particularly suitable for the aims most pro photographers.

 

[Mr Badger]

This is about as generous as I can be... and IMHO, it's a stretch.
Martin Parr is not a technical photographer... he just shoots in P mode and adjusts ISO based upon image review/chimping.
I don't really have an issue with that as it's more of "an artist" type approach rather than "a photographer." But simply using what he uses, because he uses it, isn't going to get you anywhere near to where he is. Because he is primarily going off of "a vision" and not "the how or why" he gets there. I've looked at a bunch of his images and I would say his work is more/less social commentary, not any kind of great example of "photography/technique."

Who said anything about being a technical photographer? It makes me laugh at times, I think photography is about the photograph - the result, how it looks, what it says and how it makes people feel, and not about how it got there. Oooh, gear, we must use exactly the right equipment (whatever that is!) and learn every possible permutation of how to use it. Oh no, it's not perfectly sharp all the way into the corners and there's some slight pincushioning - it's ruined! That's not being a photographer, that's being a technician! Ok, that's an over-simplification, but I hope you'll understand my point of view here. Plus, if you have a good look at some of the less 'typical' work Martin Parr has done you might find he's a bit more technically adept than you perhaps think.

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

You’re absolutely correct though, Martin is an artist who happens to use a camera, rather than a photographer.

Phil, sorry but that's total rubbish! Now go and stand in the corner and think about what you've just said!

 

[sk66]

I think photography is about the photograph - the result, how it looks, what it says and how it makes people feel, and not about how it got there.

Of course it's about the result, and no an image does not have to be technically perfect... in fact, that might be detrimental.
But if you don't know how it got there, then you don't know how to get there intentionally, and you're just running around in the dark...

 

[Mr Badger]

Of course it's about the result, and no an image does not have to be technically perfect... in fact, that might be detrimental.
But if you don't know how it got there, then you don't know how to get there intentionally, and you're just running around in the dark...

I fully agree, but I'm sure MP knows exactly how he got there, as is evidenced by him being able to replicate the 'seaside postcard' type colour pallet and saturation whenever he wants or needs to for the style of photograph he's shooting. However, if you have a look at some of his other work then I think you'll realise he's very much a photographer. If, indeed, what actually constitutes a 'photographer' can be defined!

 

[swanseamale47]

I was given one of the Gary Fong ones a while back. Used it a few times playing, it sort of worked, but not much different to the little ones (sofens?) results. It was ok-ish close up but hit's hell out of the power. and it was a bit akward and kept knocking things, but that might just be me.
I either use the little one (home made hand sanitiser) or a bit of card covered in reflective number plate stuff which has lasted me decades.
You can often find a wall or even a white shirt if your pushed. A mate carries a cheapy big ebay reflector (like a lastolight) cost about a tenner with about 6 colours and bounces off the white or silver side of that if there isn't a wall or anything.

 

[sk66]

However, if you have a look at some of his other work then I think you'll realise he's very much a photographer.

Maybe... if so I haven't been able to find anything with a few basic searches.
But that doesn't change the fact that IMHO his work does not show any great benefit from the diffuser being used, nor anything I personally would want to replicate.

 

[Phil V]

Snip:
Phil, sorry but that's total rubbish! Now go and stand in the corner and think about what you've just said!

Well I saw his exhibition in an art gallery... I’m confused if you don’t think he’s an artist

 

[Mr Badger]

Well I saw his exhibition in an art gallery... I’m confused if you don’t think he’s an artist

Right, that's it. No beer for you for a week now! And if you keep on, I'll write to Father Christmas and tell him what you've really been like!

 

[Phil V]

Right, that's it. No beer for you for a week now! And if you keep on, I'll write to Father Christmas and tell him what you've really been like!

This sounds a lot like some emails I’ve been receiving