Shot with the Gary Fong Cloud flash diffuser

[GeneralBenson]

But here's what I just don't get - if the shadow is so harsh, especially on the insides of the model's legs, how come I'm seeing shadow detail? I see the texture of the wood behind her. In the image posted here, not just the full-sized version. It's nowhere near black, it's more of a dark gray. How can anyone call that harsh, or nasty? Do you see the shadow detail? I've been doing this long enough to know what a bad shadow looks like, and that ain't it...

Harsh doesn't mean 'no detail'. It means ugly and unsightly. While the shadows in that picture still have detail, they're still rather abrasive, have pretty hard edge lines and jump out far more than they should, IMO. Obviously this is all subjective, an it apparently doesn't bother you, so who cares, it's your image.

 

[Gabriel]

Harsh doesn't mean 'no detail'. It means ugly and unsightly. While the shadows in that picture still have detail, they're still rather abrasive, have pretty hard edge lines and jump out far more than they should, IMO. Obviously this is all subjective, an it apparently doesn't bother you, so who cares, it's your image.

You're right, but I'm just trying to understand what's so bad about it. The image as a whole isn't the greatest, but the shadows don't seem like a big deal to me at all. Again, it comes down to opinion, but I also wanted to know if my screen was completely out of whack. I could point to a thousand successful glamour and fashion images with the same kind of shadows (but maybe a better picture), and wonder if I'd get the same response.

Ah well :mrgreen: Like I said, the point was to show what I did with the Fong sphere, so people can make their own choices based partly on what they see in this thread.

 

[inTempus]

You're right, but I'm just trying to understand what's so bad about it. The image as a whole isn't the greatest, but the shadows don't seem like a big deal to me at all. Again, it comes down to opinion, but I also wanted to know if my screen was completely out of whack. I could point to a thousand successful glamour and fashion images with the same kind of shadows (but maybe a better picture), and wonder if I'd get the same response.

You can't really point to other images and say, "see what they did". All images are different and in many cases (with professional images) the shadows are part of the design from the beginning. This one it's obvious it's not intentional given the location and pose. It is distracting to me as it was the first thing I noticed. I looked right at her crotch because of the dark line I saw silhouetting it. This coupled with the low angle looking up at her really kind of detracts from the image IMHO.

But we've probably beaten this to death. If you're happy with the results that's ultimately all that matters. I've had people offer opinions on some of my images I didn't agree with and even if I had it to shoot over again I would have done the same thing.

 

[Derrel]

The shadow is not that bad. The pose looks a bit awkward, but the shadows cast by the flash are not 'nasty', nor are they excessively dark. In the beach shot the flash doesn't seem to add too much except perhaps minor fill and a small catchlight; the shot the Fong diffuser does add to is the shot on the porch, where I can see it is adding a very soft, very slight degree of specularity to her skin, which adds a bit of dimension.

Given the limitations of most d-slr cameras and the power of 'most' speedlights, like those in the Nikon SB 800 class or the Canon 580 EX-II class,
with the shutter speed limitations on flash synch at 1/200 or 1/250 and base ISO settings of 100 to 200, with most cameras, the light from a Fong diffuser is really only going to provide slight fill light, eye catchlight, or slight amounts of specularity most noticeable on darker-skinned people or those who are sweaty or wet...

I mean, the Fong in the first picture is not providing much of the exposure, so the shadow is not all that bad....it's clear that even in a shaded area, the flash shadow is so not-dense that the Fong is just a very slight, weak fill light--but it *is* adding to the ambient light. In fact, the one good thing about the FIng is that its huge loss of Guide Number means a shot with it brings the flash down to a nice Minus 2 to Minus 2.7 f/stops, which is almost exactly where you want to be to get almost-unnoticeable fill flash in sunlight. In the shade, it's a bit more-noticeable, as seen on the side view shot of the girl on the porch; there the flash effect is more clear,and I think more dramatic.

I know what you're saying--none of this are killer, portfolio shots, but they do show me what the Fong diffuser looks like in three types of shots.

 

[DScience]

Yea I think is pretty stupid that anyone who uses the GF inTempus has to come in and trump around like he knows everything, and factually claim how much of a waste it is.

Who gives a $%!# if people use GF diffusers. You say there is NO difference between it and other diffusers, and your single, very limited experiment is the example and proof of this. :thumbdown:

Well I am going to say, again, that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Seriously, I can see critiquing his photos and lighting in general, but stop with the "Oh i Know this to be the truth!" You may not like or see any difference in the GF, but maybe you just don't know how to use it correctly.

 

[inTempus]

Yea I think is pretty stupid that anyone who uses the GF inTempus has to come in and trump around like he knows everything, and factually claim how much of a waste it is.

You mean like how you come in and sing their praises because you seek affirmation? Remember when you said you knew more than the "pros" and wanted to show them up regarding the Fong? It seems to me you're hyper sensitive about the issue for some reason.

Seriously, if you don't like my opinion don't read it. Your problem is solved.

 

[bigtwinky]

Me thinks some things are better handled in a PM.

 

[inTempus]

Me thinks some things are better handled in a PM.

You mean like this post?

 

[Gabriel]

You can't really point to other images and say, "see what they did". All images are different and in many cases (with professional images) the shadows are part of the design from the beginning. This one it's obvious it's not intentional given the location and pose. It is distracting to me as it was the first thing I noticed. I looked right at her crotch because of the dark line I saw silhouetting it. This coupled with the low angle looking up at her really kind of detracts from the image IMHO.

But we've probably beaten this to death. If you're happy with the results that's ultimately all that matters. I've had people offer opinions on some of my images I didn't agree with and even if I had it to shoot over again I would have done the same thing.

We have beaten it to death, but here's another stick for that poor horse All kidding aside, I never put the images up for critique, but just to show something about the Fong, but that shadow thing started to make me wonder if something was wrong on my end. That's why I really wanted to know what everyone was seeing. Beyond that, it's really just opinion and nothing more.

Nothing personal to anyone that has responded, but the only opinions I tend to care about come from paying clients, editors, family and close friends, and photographers whose work I truly admire - and that admiration is built up over years, not a few posts. It's not that I can't take criticism, and if I think someone has a point I'll put some thought into it, but if I'm going to put something up for critique it would be, well, a very different picture. Nonetheless, I appreciate all the replies.

The shadow is not that bad. The pose looks a bit awkward, but the shadows cast by the flash are not 'nasty', nor are they excessively dark. In the beach shot the flash doesn't seem to add too much except perhaps minor fill and a small catchlight; the shot the Fong diffuser does add to is the shot on the porch, where I can see it is adding a very soft, very slight degree of specularity to her skin, which adds a bit of dimension.

Given the limitations of most d-slr cameras and the power of 'most' speedlights, like those in the Nikon SB 800 class or the Canon 580 EX-II class,
with the shutter speed limitations on flash synch at 1/200 or 1/250 and base ISO settings of 100 to 200, with most cameras, the light from a Fong diffuser is really only going to provide slight fill light, eye catchlight, or slight amounts of specularity most noticeable on darker-skinned people or those who are sweaty or wet...

I mean, the Fong in the first picture is not providing much of the exposure, so the shadow is not all that bad....it's clear that even in a shaded area, the flash shadow is so not-dense that the Fong is just a very slight, weak fill light--but it *is* adding to the ambient light. In fact, the one good thing about the FIng is that its huge loss of Guide Number means a shot with it brings the flash down to a nice Minus 2 to Minus 2.7 f/stops, which is almost exactly where you want to be to get almost-unnoticeable fill flash in sunlight. In the shade, it's a bit more-noticeable, as seen on the side view shot of the girl on the porch; there the flash effect is more clear,and I think more dramatic.

I know what you're saying--none of this are killer, portfolio shots, but they do show me what the Fong diffuser looks like in three types of shots.

Good that you get it too. I bet with a less powerful flash, the Fong would probably just about kill the effect of the strobe in the sunlight. A similar effect, outdoors, can easily be had by stopping down the flash right around where you mentioned.

Alright, let's ship this poor dead horse out to the glue factory. Now I have to go hunting for a good wide-angle for the Canon A-1, so I'm sure I'll have some questions on FD lenses soon enough

 

[ssnxp]

Well, I for one appreciate all these debates on the Fong. Still on the fence, and every bit of information or examples help..

So keep beating that horse. :lmao: Just kidding. Kind of.