Gary Fong Puffer - Pics Inside

NateS · Oct 28, 2009

N0YZE said:
Are you serious man?

I, nor does anyone (hopefully) think the Puffer would replicate a proper flash, that's not the intent.

Turning this thread into a Puffer vs SB-900 or whatever is ridiculous.

I am serious. You said that you in fact own a proper flash (guessing SB-400/600/800/900).

What is ridiculous is that you would bother with this little diffuser if you in fact have a proper bounce flash to use instead. The ONLY good that I can see with this diffuser is for somebody to use while they save up enough money to get a real flash. Using this when you have a real flash is about as dumb as grabbing the $100 point and shoot over your D90.

Derrel · Oct 28, 2009

What I see is the zoom lens on his camera gives a big,ugly flash shadow at the bottom center of the images shot with the lens hood on,and it's probably worse at certain focal lengths. But with the Fong product, the offensive shadow is made about 80-85% more bearable....it's still there, but the flash's direct output has been diffused quite a bit. The Fong product pictures DO look better!

Shooting indoors and at closer ranges, almost anything that diffuses a pop-up flash's harsh,direct beam is a good thing. For people who want to do a little bit of fill-flash outdoors in bright sunlight, the pop-up flash is perfect to give a little bit of direct, on-axis fill light. Now that we have all these remote multi-flash capabilities, an on board flash that is ever-present makes a lot,lot more sense than it did before off-camera multi-flash was a workable reality.

Has anybody tried cutting a piece of white paper, making a two "tails" on it, and bending it around and just taping the paper onto the pop-up flash? it takes the flash from about a 1 square inch area to 75 square inches and costs about 3 cents per diffuser. Any port in a storm, right?

itznfb · Oct 28, 2009

inTempus said:
itznfb said:

inTempus said:

I figure if a picture is worth taking, it's worth taking right.

Click to expand...

Taking a picture right is no more than being satisfied with the end result. Why does it matter how you get there?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying the Fong defuser gives the same result as a proper flash? If that were the case, I would imagine Canon and Nikon would stop making external flashes and issue Fong defusers with their bodies. I suspect you would agree the Fong defuser is a compromise and isn't the equal of a proper flash.

If it's a compromise, that means it's not as good as it could be but might be good enough to be acceptable. If that's the case, I go back to my original statement which was "if a picture is worth taking, it's worth taking right".

I realize not everyone agrees with me, so I'm only talking about my own personal preference. Heck, I've seen some pics people were proud of that I would delete if I took. We all have different levels of what we deem to be good or even acceptable.

If the Fong makes him happy, which it appears to do, outstanding. It's money well spent in his case.

I'm not really making an argument. Just saying that people's expectations for a given end result will differ. One's level of acceptability may be higher than another. Doesn't make either one right or wrong. If you can achieve the end result you expected with a $5 product than that's all that matters. Someone else may not be satisfied with your end result but who cares? Typically those types of photos don't get posted on public forums for critique. NOYZE just posted the pictures to show the difference between with and without for people that may be interested. I'm sure his intent wasn't to show that the FONG produced professional level speedlight results.

PhotoXopher · Oct 28, 2009

itznfb said:
I'm not really making an argument. Just saying that people's expectations for a given end result will differ. One's level of acceptability may be higher than another. Doesn't make either one right or wrong. If you can achieve the end result you expected with a $5 product than that's all that matters. Someone else may not be satisfied with your end result but who cares? Typically those types of photos don't get posted on public forums for critique. NOYZE just posted the pictures to show the difference between with and without for people that may be interested. I'm sure his intent wasn't to show that the FONG produced professional level speedlight results.

Exactly the point of this thread, just to show the difference with and without, and that it does in fact improve the photos when the popup flash is used, which is the intent of this product. Reduces the lens shadow and harshness of the light.

Kind of my own little mini show and tell of this particular device.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If someone read in there that I said this was comparable to some strobist action or that it was just as good as using 'proper flash', please - by all means - show me.

inTempus · Oct 28, 2009

N0YZE said:
If someone read in there that I said this was comparable to some strobist action or that it was just as good as using 'proper flash', please - by all means - show me.

Boy, you are really stuck on this. That's not what I said - not even close. I was outlining a thought process and clearly said we all could agree that the puffer isn't the equivalent of an external strobe therefore X could be assumed. Try reading the post again.

It's unfortunate we have to give each other reading comprehension lessons... such a waste of bandwidth (and yes, I'm guilty of it too).

PhotoXopher · Oct 28, 2009

Just curious why you brought up the 'proper flash' vs puffer argument in the first place really, it's pointless in this thread.

As I said more than once in this thread now, I'm merely showing it works as intended and provided some quick shots I took with and without the device to show this for anyone INTERESTED in this little gadget (which I do enjoy using).

inTempus · Oct 28, 2009

N0YZE said:
Just curious why you brought up the 'proper flash' vs puffer argument in the first place really, it's pointless in this thread.

No, actually it's not, especially if you have an external flash. But if you don't get it, far be it from me to try and explain it to you in another 15 posts.

Enjoy the puffer. As I said already, which you apparently ignored, enjoy it as it's money well spent if you're happy with it.

PhotoXopher · Oct 28, 2009

So because I have a proper flash I can't try out other alternatives and post the results for others to see?

Thanks, I think I got it now.

Perhaps it's not something I needed, but you know what... for $5 I really didn't care either. This requires no additional batteries, no setup, nothing... not that my flash is hard to use (so please spare the comments).

inTempus · Oct 28, 2009

N0YZE said:
So because I have a proper flash I can't try out other alternatives and post the results for others to see?

Thanks, I think I got it now.

Perhaps it's not something I needed, but you know what... for $5 I really didn't care either.

Apparently you do care because you want to argue about it.

PhotoXopher · Oct 28, 2009

I'm not arguing about it, I'm trying to make a point which is beyond some people's comprehension apparently.

I've said all I can on this... hope it helps someone, if they can weed out all the jibberish.

gsgary · Oct 28, 2009

N0YZE said:
Cost me $5 shipped brand new from Adorama, how does that make me a sucker for anything? It does what I expected it to, and better than I thought it would.

Have you actually tried one?

I guess if buying something that does exactly what I needed makes me a sucker, then so be it.

No i don't need to i can do it without