Flash diffuser for wedding reception?

[DaveAndHolly219]

I'm shooting my first wedding next month and I’m wondering if I should buy myself a flash diffuser for the reception. The ceremony is outdoors so it won’t be necessary. The reception is indoors so I will definitely be using my flash. I’ll be shooting with a Nikon D7100 with a 17-50mm f/2.8 lens and possibly a 50mm 1.4. I’ll be using a Yongnuo YN 565 EX flash. Do you guys think I should get a diffuser to provide softer light for portraits etc? If so, which one? Gary Fong? If so, cloud, half cloud, lightblade? Too many options, help!

 

[Designer]

Since you already know what the diffuser does, (softer light) then you should also know what effect you want.

My opinion is that you're undertaking a complicated project with little understanding of what you need to do and how to do it.

Why is the diffuser not required outdoors? Or do you mean to say the flash is not required outdoors? But then a real photographer would use a flash whenever and wherever he saw the need for flash, outdoors included.

The Gary Fong Lightsphere is how big again? Isn't it about 6 inches in diameter? (I could be wrong about that because I haven't seen one in person.) My point being that a 6" light source isn't much larger than the flash head itself, so what are you hoping to gain from it?

Good luck with your project.

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

I don't think I'll be using the flash outdoors since I will be shooting from the back with a 70-200mm. The bride does not want me walking around the crowd/near the front during the ceremony. I don't see much point in using a flash from that distance . . .

 

[tirediron]

I don't think I'll be using the flash outdoors since I will be shooting from the back with a 70-200mm. The bride does not want me walking around the crowd/near the front during the ceremony. I don't see much point in using a flash from that distance . . .

It really depends on what "that distance" is. Don't forget that there's the procession and recession; pretty much every bride in the world wants that shot of her with her father...

 

[table1349]

LumiQuest Wedding/Event Kit LQ-134 B&H Photo Video

 

[Derrel]

Indoors, you need to be inside of about 12 feet for a small-flash diffuser to be very effective, otherwise the light source becomes rather hard, and it cuts into effevtive flash power by quite a bit.

Outdoors, using the flash as fill-in lighting at Minus 2.5 EV or so, the SUN is the actual main light source, and it is a crisp, hard light source, so there really is not much need for a flash diffuser for that very slight bit of shadow-fill the flash provides; the goal is not to totally,totrally eliminate the shadows, but to give some eye-sparkle and some light in the eye sockets and in the shadows caused by the sun's light.

I generally agree with the idea that if a guy were shooting the ceremony from the back with a 70-200 on a DX camera, or "sniping" it, that fill-flash would not be needed.

 

[TCampbell]

If the wedding is outside and in sun, you probably DO want to use flash (but man religious ceremonies do not want flash "during" the ceremony but allow it before and after (walking up the aisle is the last point they allow flash until the ceremony ends and they walk back down the aisle). So check on the flash usage... but if you're doing photography in direct sun, you can get very harsh shadows. Using a flash dialed back to -1 stop worth of flash exposure compensation will help reduce the severity of the shadows. Even subjects in full shade can be problematic if the background is in bright sun.

Meanwhile back to the indoor flash issue... having tried several diffusers, so far my favorite has been the Rogue FlashBender (large size).

I should mention that one area that reviewers may be missing is the nature of the ceiling. Many diffusers are combination 'bounce' + diffuser. The Gary Fong "Lightsphere" is a sort of milky rubber and you can optionally add or remove a cap. But the idea is that most of the light fires up to the ceiling to act as a bounce flash. But that can create shadows in the eye-socket... so kicking "some" light forward helps fill that in. Anyway... this assumes there's a suitable ceiling for for bouncing.

I've done receptions in venues where the ceiling isn't suitable for bouncing (it's not white - maybe it's natural wood beam and stained - maybe it's too high... but it's not a good bounce source.) This completely changes the nature of the diffuser when you can't use bounce and now pretty much all the light has to kick forward. At that point you have to push the light forward and ideally you want to create a broad apparent source of the light. The larger the area the better. Ideally, a "side-lighter" (an assistant carrying an off-camera flash with a portable soft-box (24 or 30") mounted on a mono-pod mast that they just hold) creates great light but that requires an extra person. If you can only use an on-camera flash, then you basically want to create a broad light source.

I found the FlashBender to be pretty good in these situations. Rogue also makes a soft-box version of the FlashBender. The Lightsphere doesn't work nearly so well if you don't have a ceiling suitable for bouncing.

 

[dasmith232]

One of the most important things in photography is the "direction and quality of light". There are additional factors with light, and even the "direction" part is critical. But let's stay with the "quality" part (and diffusers) for a moment.

Quality of light is all about the apparent size of the light source. The purpose of a diffuser is to make the light source larger. And the whole thing with diffusers is geometry.

Light coming directly from a flash head is only a few square inches. The "area" (think in geometry terms) is pretty small, about the size of a business card. If you were a small insect crawling under a business card on the carpet, then the card would be huge. If rays of light were emitting from the entire area of the card, then you'd be getting hit with light from many directions. Any shadows would have "soft" lines. The same size business card emitting light from 10 feet away is now a "point source" of light and will create hard shadow lines.

The size of the diffuser is meaningless unless you also consider the distance from the light to the subject.

These little mini-softboxes that attach to the flash head while the flash is still mounted in the camera's hotshoe are pretty pointless. Do they make a difference? Meh... a tiny bit. You're much better off getting rid of all the tupperware attachments and pointing the flash head at other surfaces (walls, ceilings). By the time the light from the flash head hits the wall, it's getting big (from spreading out) and then the light reflect off that wall hitting your subject is much nicer.

When moving around quickly at a wedding ceremony, you're not going to have time for setting up off-camera (or multiple lights) on stands. It's all on-camera stuff. (Again, by pointing the flash head, you can still create nice angles.)

Flash brackets are okay. They really help with (avoiding) red-eye as long as you are close enough. But when a flash is on a bracket, it's still a small source of light and will create hard shadows lines.

The Fong Light Sphere is also "okay". I've used one once (from a photo partner that I shot one wedding with). It's not 6" across. It might have been 3" or 4" tops. (They now have multiple versions, so that may have changed.) But again, as soon as you get far enough away, that small of a light source is going to create the same hard-line shadows as direct flash.

Sorry, too long of a response here...

Anyway, there are different kinds of wedding photography and each has its own style of lighting. There are artistic, story-telling and photojournalistic styles (for example). Unless you specifically study a style, you'll probably drop into a PJ style.

For PJ, direct flash (even pointed straight at the people) is okay if you turn the power down. Don't use the built-in flash (if you have one). Use an external flash which gets the light off axis from the lens.

For "formals" or "set" pictures, getting off-camera flash is really good to do. Either you already know that, or trying to describe how to do it is too long for this post.

I would consider mini diffusers only if they were big enough. But they start getting very awkward very quickly.

On the other hand, using those various attachments will make people that don't know anything about photography think that you know a LOT about photography. (Wow! That's a really nice camera!) People that *do* know about photography might know more quickly than you if you're doing it wrong...

 

[dasmith232]

And when you DO have time and latitude to set things up...

This is a picture that I shot with a 7' umbrella just to the (camera) right of the couple. The sun is high and to the (camera) left. I underexposed the shot just a bit to get more color saturation. Oh, and the other thing is that I did not try to use a speedlite to fill that umbrella and compete with the sun. That took a 900w/s monolight.

But it's really fun to use the big toys and get pictures like this...

 

[goodguy]

I don't think I'll be using the flash outdoors since I will be shooting from the back with a 70-200mm. The bride does not want me walking around the crowd/near the front during the ceremony. I don't see much point in using a flash from that distance . . .

Outside with no flash ?
Oh mama, raccoon eye heaven
I need my flash outside even more then inside, bride is boss but I hope she understand what she is asking for.

 

[table1349]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
A good photographer understands light, how to use it, all forms of light. That is especially true for a wedding photographer.

 

[fmw]

Indoors, you need to be inside of about 12 feet for a small-flash diffuser to be very effective, otherwise the light source becomes rather hard, and it cuts into effevtive flash power by quite a bit.

Outdoors, using the flash as fill-in lighting at Minus 2.5 EV or so, the SUN is the actual main light source, and it is a crisp, hard light source, so there really is not much need for a flash diffuser for that very slight bit of shadow-fill the flash provides; the goal is not to totally,totrally eliminate the shadows, but to give some eye-sparkle and some light in the eye sockets and in the shadows caused by the sun's light.

I generally agree with the idea that if a guy were shooting the ceremony from the back with a 70-200 on a DX camera, or "sniping" it, that fill-flash would not be needed.

Derrell that is a terrible comparison. The photographer should have tested to the same or nearly same exposure. The idea is to determine the softness of the light with different techniques. That array of images only shows how each technique alters the exposure. I'm not arguing the point, only the images.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno...it is what it is. Shows how those things work in one situation, and all are compared side by side within minutes of one another. Kind of amusing that it was done by none other than Gary Fong, the inventor/marketer of the Fong Diffuser. I think "the idea" was to put the units on equal footing, and see how they actually worked, rather than trying to keep the final density of the images equivalent. It also gives an idea of how the shadow pattern is from each type of diffusing device.

 

[greybeard]

I shoot weddings from time to time. After watching all these videos, I'm sold on the Light Bender.

 

[nickgillespie]

Indoors I use an off-camera speedlight with an umbrella for portraits.