Garbz
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Messages
- 9,713
- Reaction score
- 203
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
- Website
- www.auer.garbz.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
In response to a PM I received I decided to post this here. A quick and simple softbox for a flash and in the true DIY style a typical home will have all of these ingredients laying around somewhere.
The softbox was made out of a shoebox, and had to be small enough for quick hand held usage, hence the 20x20cm size. Yes it is small but every bit helps when making lighting softer. The box is constructed from triangle bits which have been taped together. The inside of the box was covered with glue and lined with shiny aluminium foil. This prevents wasting flash power and I gained more than a full stop in power. It also makes the specular light source wider since this now reflects off the walls. The front is covered with very thin paper. Experimentation is the key here as the paper needs to be thick enough not to let the source light through defeating the diffusing action, yet thin enough not to waste power.
The end result works remarkably well, cost $0 not including the $100 shoes, and at the expense of between 1-2 stops of light you get a significantly softer source.
Poorly exposed sample image: http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a241/Garbz01/junk/DSC_1074-1.jpg Softbox was around 2m to the left. No it's not as good as a studio softbox, but a) it helps, and b) who can argue with the price
The softbox was made out of a shoebox, and had to be small enough for quick hand held usage, hence the 20x20cm size. Yes it is small but every bit helps when making lighting softer. The box is constructed from triangle bits which have been taped together. The inside of the box was covered with glue and lined with shiny aluminium foil. This prevents wasting flash power and I gained more than a full stop in power. It also makes the specular light source wider since this now reflects off the walls. The front is covered with very thin paper. Experimentation is the key here as the paper needs to be thick enough not to let the source light through defeating the diffusing action, yet thin enough not to waste power.
The end result works remarkably well, cost $0 not including the $100 shoes, and at the expense of between 1-2 stops of light you get a significantly softer source.
Poorly exposed sample image: http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a241/Garbz01/junk/DSC_1074-1.jpg Softbox was around 2m to the left. No it's not as good as a studio softbox, but a) it helps, and b) who can argue with the price