But there are times that I find I do need to work with a camera flash. So I purchased a couple of diffuser options to test out. One is the often berated Gary Fong diffuser. The other is the newer Rogue FlashBender from ExpoImaging.
The tests were conducted using a Canon 5DmkII with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and a Canon 430EXII flash mounted in the camera's hot shoe. Camera settings were ISO 100, camera in Manual mode at 1/60 at f/1.8. White balance was set to Flash. Flash was in ettl mode at +1/3 stop. The camera is 28 inches from the mannequin and the background is white seamless paper 13 inches behind the mannequin head.
The room I was in is about 12x18 feet with an 8-foot ceiling. Walls and ceiling are painted white. All images are as they came out of the camera into Adobe Lightroom 4.1 with no additional processing.
The FlashBender I used is the Large Reflector along with the Large Diffusion Panel. The Gary Fong I used is the Lightsphere Collapsible with the dome attached (pointed out/convex).
I want to present the results without commentary so you can make your own conclusions. Feel free to note which ones you like in the comments.
 | ||
| Direct flash |
 |
| Direct flash with bounce card under chin |
 |
| Ceiling bounce |
 |
| Ceiling bounce plus fill card under chin |
 |
| Large FlashBender with diffusion panel |
 |
| Large FlashBender with diffusion panel with fill card under chin |
 |
| Gary Fong Lightsphere pointed up |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed up with fill card under chin |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed towards subject |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed towards subject with fill card under chin |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed towards subject |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed towards subject with fill card on side |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed up |
 |
| Lightsphere pointed up with fill card on side |
 |
| Large FlashBender with diffusion panel |
 |
| Large FlashBender with diffusion panel with fill card on side |
 |
| Direct Flash |
 |
| Direct Flash with fill card on side |
I like #8 but I can't explain why.
ReplyDelete#6 and #8 are probably the most "studio like" versions with a white bounce card under the chin to fill in the shadows. #8 with the Lightsphere lets light bounce around the room a bit so the shadows are less dark than in #6. In a room with darker walls or a large open space the difference might not be as much.
ReplyDeleteI think a fair comparison requires that the luminance levels be equalized somehow---maybe using a spot on the cheekbone. #3 and #4, for example, are much darker than they would be in practice (I assume the flash was set at the same manual setting for all shots?) Generally, I like the Flashbender shots (though the Lightsphere isn't bad).
ReplyDeleteA (somewhat) related question: why is on-camera flash always "bad" while ringflashes and beauty dishes (which also produce minimal shadows) are popular? They are bigger sources, thus softer, but that matters less with minimal shadows. My own take is that with even, shadowless lighting, the emphasis is on the person's features---their symmetry, proportions, and intrinsic beauty. So beautiful people do fine; ordinary people not so much. Thoughts?
-Steve
I'm not sure about equalizing things. I was trying to see how these accessories would work in a real-world setting, such as doing grip and grin photos at an event where it is mostly point and shoot. No time to futz with making changes.
ReplyDeleteAs for the related question, that is a good one. In the case of the beauty dish, I think it is the size, softness, ability to be closer to the subject than the on-camera flash, and the ability to move around a bit.
I've often commented the a beauty dish is good for "classically beautiful" people. It doesn't make someone beautiful, but it enhances those who already are.
I just posted some samples of the photos I took with the FlashBender at an event this past weekend at http://blog.cornicello.com/2012/06/flash-modifiers-in-use.html
ReplyDeleteJohn