Gary Fong diffuser during the day

[DScience]

Interesting.

Do you have the top dome on the GF, or do you not have it on there and just have it open?

I keep the top dome on all the time.

Ok.

If you're outside and don't have walls around... and you're pointing the GF directly at the subject with the dome on... then I imagine the results would be about the same as using a $10 StoFen defuser. The surface area is a little larger on the GF's dome (which if you're outside is the only thing firing light at your subject).

I have both products, I'll have to do some tests from a tripod - side by side - to see what the results are.

Seriously try this out, I am very curious. If you do, post results of course. :thumbup:

 

[Big Mike]

Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted. Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces. Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.

The softness of a light source is a result of the size of the source and the proximity to the subject. If your light is 10 feet away from the subject, and you only increase it's size a little bit (say from the size of a bare flash to the size of a Lightsphere)...it won't make much difference (but it will waste a lot of light/power). But if you are very close to the subject, especially a smaller subject, the slight increase in size can be much more significant. And of course, as the light bounces around and back to the subject, it gives the effect of softer light.

 

[SlimPaul]

I really like the first one! Great shot!

 

[DScience]

Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted. Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces. Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.

The softness of a light source is a result of the size of the source and the proximity to the subject. If your light is 10 feet away from the subject, and you only increase it's size a little bit (say from the size of a bare flash to the size of a Lightsphere)...it won't make much difference (but it will waste a lot of light/power). But if you are very close to the subject, especially a smaller subject, the slight increase in size can be much more significant. And of course, as the light bounces around and back to the subject, it gives the effect of softer light.

I just disagree with you because I have tried many things to compare, and I think the GF does a great job in daylight, for what I used it for.

I have to ask, have you ever actually used the GF Lightsphere 2 and experimented with it? Because it seems as though you are just using generalities about light in general with no real world applications. Anyway, I don't get what your talking about because I wasn't 10 feet away from any subject. This to me is a sign of old thinking. People in all fields who have been in the field for a long time, tend to disregard new uses and techniques. That's fine. Let me show you other examples of how I'm using the GF in bright daylight because there is no way you can refute these.

Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

DScience, why do you bother?
Why try convincing people of anything?

What you are doing works for you. Keep doing it.

 

[KmH]

Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.

True, but there are far less expensive ways to create the same effect than using the Fong gizmo.

 

[Kcc]

Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted. Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces. Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.

The softness of a light source is a result of the size of the source and the proximity to the subject. If your light is 10 feet away from the subject, and you only increase it's size a little bit (say from the size of a bare flash to the size of a Lightsphere)...it won't make much difference (but it will waste a lot of light/power). But if you are very close to the subject, especially a smaller subject, the slight increase in size can be much more significant. And of course, as the light bounces around and back to the subject, it gives the effect of softer light.

I just disagree with you because I have tried many things to compare, and I think the GF does a great job in daylight, for what I used it for.

I think you misusderstanded what Big Mike is trying to say, photo shooting portraits with GF's sphere outdoor gives you different power output than macro or close-up photo taking.

Portraits - the flash will be farer away from your object, therefore you will need more flash output power. You lose some light from using GF's sphere because it is a 360 degree defuser.

Macro or close-up - the flash will be or could be closer to your object, therefore you will not need as much flash output power. You are still using a 360 degree defuser for the close-up, but with the flash closer distance to the subject, which the GF is more help at close-up than outdoor portraits because you gets some of the lost light you loss on the background (light up the background from the 360 degree sphere).

Nothing wrong of what you are doing with GF's sphere outdoor or close-up, some people thread here are trying to share some of their ideas or experience of using defuser or light. I am a beginner also, which I am into strobe too, I am using a Lumiquest softbox III for outdoor portrait. I found that the softbox uses less power to light up the whole body of the subject than using a Stofen defuser.

 

[DScience]

Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.

True, but there are far less expensive ways to create the same effect than using the Fong gizmo.

Yea, Ok. One thing I think is funny is how you all talk like you know but show no real examples.

 

[DScience]

DScience, why do you bother?
Why try convincing people of anything?

What you are doing works for you. Keep doing it.

It's called argument. It's a philosophical technique, try it sometime! )

Also, I like to correct the pros.

 

[inTempus]

Here's a quick test, I forgot to do this earlier.

Conditions: 7:30pm - completely dark outside - outdoors, no walls or other objects to reflect light. House is about 5 feet to the rear of camera.

Camera: Canon 1DMk3
Lens: Canon 50mm f/1.2L
Aperture: f/1.4
Mode: AV
ISO: 100
Setup: Tripod mounted, remote trigger

These are uncropped, unedited, resized and posted.

#1: Bare flash (pointed directly at subject)

#2: Sto-Fen (pointed directly at subject)

#3: Gary Fong Cloud (pointed directly at subject, dome in place)

I chose the 50mm and f/1.4 because that seems to be the most popular combo used by Dscience.

I wish I had some potted plants or something more interesting to shoot tonight - sorry.

I should have manually set the WB, it would appear the GF jacked with the WB, or the camera freaked out.

 

[inTempus]

Looking at the images, there really isn't much difference between the Sto-Fen and the GF defusers. The GF seems to make the light come from a slightly different angle even though it's not.

I should also mention that the flash is a Canon 580EXII mounted on the hot shoe mount.

 

[musicaleCA]

Is it possible that the house caused a slight cast that farked with your WB when using the GF?

 

[Derrel]

Here's a web page ranking a dozen different diffuser units for portable speedlights. It's hard to pick a winner because they are all...wait for it...about the SAME in terms of performance.

The Best Flash Diffuser @ PHOTO-TIPS-ONLINE.com

I've looked at quite a few of DScience's photos and examined the EXIF information for many of his shots. I maintain that all the Fong Diffuser is doing for him is providing very subtle fill lighting; many of his shots are done outdoors in bright light conditions, with shutter speeds as high as 1/2500 second and usually at an aperture of f/1.4...the Fong Diffuser is making a very minimal contribution to his lighting, but it *is* filling in shadows and thus reducing the contrast ratio of his shots, most of which were shot using a D90 with the standard tone curve.

 

[musicaleCA]

Regarding that site, note how low the GF diffuser is. :greenpbl:

I think the Vertex should get a higher rating, simply because of it's flexibility, but that's just me.

 

[Derrel]

Vertex, schmertex...how about the simple DiffuseiT, which retails for $14.50 and scores almost as high as any of the other products DiffuseiT flash reflector review: first impression @ PHOTO-TIPS-ONLINE.com

...it is based upon the diffuser me and my college PJ buddies used back in the 1980's....we called it the "three by five index card"...Velcro wasn't nearly as common then as it is now, so we resorted to the high-tech 1980's style MacGuyver fix-it-all solution, the high-technology, oh-so-good-for-your-health blue colored asparagus rubber band. Some radicals resorted to gaffer's tape, but I went with the crowd...played it safe...

Yup, we'd go to the grocery store and buy asparagus bunches, which came bundled with these pretty good quality,strong blue rubber bands. We'd bend the index card a bit,leaving about 1.5 inches on the flash head for a good grip, and pop a rubber band or two around the expensive 3 cent index card. On that you could pencil in a few exposures and distances and precise f/stops. Which you measured ahead of time with your then-cool Minolta AutoMeter III-F, which was tres chic at the time.

The DiffuseiT is the equivalent of a 3x5 index card, which worked 25 years ago remarkably well.