jespdj Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I've bought a Sto-Fen Omni Bounce to use on my Canon 420EX speedlite. I've made some test shots with and without the Omni Bounce (with the flash head tilted up 45 degrees), but I don't see any significant difference between the shots. <p>Does anyone have (test)photos that show the difference between using and not using the Omni Bounce? How and when do you use the Omni Bounce? <p>It sure was an expensive piece of plastic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 As the name and the tilted flash head indicate, you need something like a white ceiling to bounce off the light onto your subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 I did my test shots in a room with a white ceiling and light gray walls. Not much difference with or without the Omni Bounce... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I notice a difference when I use mine. It's not always a great big difference but it helps. More important is to keep the flash directly over the lens to minimize side shadow. I usually hold my camera in my right hand, the flash in the left, so I can turn the camera either way. Whith my Vivitar 283 a rubber band and a business card works almost as well as the Omni Bounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RvdK Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Hi Jesper, I can imagine the result are disapponting - but you're not making a fair comparison. Forget about the walls and ceiling, go outside and compare the OmniBounce on a slightly tilted head with a direct flash towards the subject. Now you'll see the difference! You always need to tilt the head a little (or a lot depending on what you want) to tell the Flash it shouldn't use distance info because the flash light goes indirect. Only, not via a wall but via internal reflection in the OmniBounce. I'm not sure about Canon, but it works like that with Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_green1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 That's correct. The Omni-bounce isn't any different from normal bounce flash off a good neutral surface. What it IS better than is direct flash, or flash bounced off of a strongly colored surface. The raison-d-etre for an Omni-bounce is when you don't otherwise have a good bounce surface for the flash directly overhead, it gives you one quite portably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Omni Bounce produces somewhat more distinct shadows compared with bounce flash plus index card and rubberband. The further you are from the reflective surface (like the ceiling), the more the Omnibounce results look like direct flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_sirota1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 If your 420EX has a zoom head, be sure that it's zoomed out all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_cochran Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 If I understand the original question, you're comparing bounce flash without the omni-bounce to bounce flash with the omni-bounce. I'm not surprised that there's little difference. Both ways of shooting should be much more pleasing than direct unbounced flash. <p> The way I see it, the reason for using an omni bounce is when you can't be bothered to properly aim the flash head to bounce of the wall or ceiling. As the name implies, its omnidirectional, and you can point it pretty much any direction and still get the same results. Aiming the flash is now one less thing for a photojournalist to worry about. It pretty nearly emulates a bare bulb flash, except that it's a little bit bigger. <p> I don't understand the reason why someone would use it outdoors. I've done a/b tests with an without the omnibounce outdoors, and without a nearby reflective surface to bounce off of, the only difference I noticed was that it cost a few stops of light. It's just as harsh as direct flash in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 this wont make you feel good at all. sorry , but not all costly things work any better than cheap ones. that's why i've stuck with using 4"x^6" white index cards to bounce flash ever since, aside from not being able to afford an omnibounce. cheers ! pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 Thanks for the answers! <p>I had previously read some other posts / articles about using the Omni Bounce and I thought that you needed to have a surface to bounce the flash off of; it's called an Omni <b>Bounce</b> anyway... If it works to diffuse the flash also without a surface, that would ofcourse be useful. Maybe I should have tried the index card method before spending � 35 (about US$ 40 !!!) on it.... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Kenneth and Richard are right on the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_peters Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I read in this forum once that an inexpensive substitute for the Omnibounce is to buy a standard bottle of rubbing alcohol from your local drug store and cut off the slightly bulbous, bottom portion of it. That's the end that fits snugly over a Vivitar 283/285 or a Sunpak 383 and provides suitable diffusion. Seems to work as well as an Omnibounce for a fraction of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot_n Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 The 'bounce' in 'Omnibounce' is a misnomer. It is an omnidirectional device, so it's light output will always be DIRECT. In other words, it will always create those hard shadows that we associate with direct flash. Conventional bounce flash, on the other hand, is INDIRECT - a wall or a ceiling becomes the light source, and we no longer see those hard flash shadows. So why use an Omnibounce? Well, apart from lighting the subject directly, it does knock a little bit of light around the room, and this causes a slight reduction in the contrast of those hard flash shadows. However the main reason to use an Omnibounce is that it provides a very smooth, consistent light - whereas undiffused flashguns will often exhibit hot-spots. An Omnibounce (or other diffusion method), becomes essential when you are working with very wide-angle lenses, or very close to your subject. An undiffused flashgun will be unable to cover the scene you have framed. But if you like bounced flash, forget the Omnibounce, and tilt the flash head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 I've looked at my test shots more closely and I noticed one thing. One of the objects on the photos was a chrome lamp; with the Omni Bounce, the reflection highlight is much more diffuse than without the Omni Bounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_hunt1 Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I agree with Elliot - a compelling reason for using one is to avoid flash fall-off with wide angle lens. I haven't got one as my flashguns aren't best designed for the Omnibounce, but I recall seeing a display in a photo store which included a sample photo taken with either a 20mm or 12mm wide angle (it may have been a 12mm). Also, as said, the light spread is intended to happen in the Omnibounce itself - not by bouncing it off a wall. It's probably more light-efficient as well as handier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencer_hahn Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Check this out: http://www.stofen.com/Info/infoWithWithOut.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade_lawless Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Hi, I've invested in an omni bounce for use on a Canon 580 flash. I have not used a LS but taken a few test shots with and without the omni bounce mounted. Many people have remarked that they see no difference when bouncing flash with or without the omni bounce mounted. At first glance it's true to say it appears that there is no difference, but on closer inspection I have found that the omni bounce distributes a more even light - so much so that when bouncing light without the omni mounted I have found secondary shadows!! I guess that's because the flash without the omni is much more directional - even when bouncing the light!! I also quite like the results of shooting direct with omni mounted - even though it's recommended to bounce at 45ª angle. The biggest difference is in the white balance - a slightly warmer tone is produced (nice for portraits) and less washed out than using without, however I do have to set the Flash Compensation to approx +1 1/3 which may drain batteries quicker? Hope this helps... Ade<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now