New Flash Modifier: 1st Look:

<p>I'm a piggy for different flash modifiers and have a box full of them ... some good, some not so good.</p>

<p>I just took delivery of a new one called "FlashRight" from the folks that brought you <em>ColorRight.</em> I got it early as a pre-order ... so I can be a Lab-Rat for you folks and give it a go to see if it something other wedding shooters might interested in.</p>

<p>This is just a preliminary look at it. My next wedding isn't until 2 weeks from yesterday, so no true test yet. </p>

<p>At first I thought it to be kinda flimsy material ... but swiftly realized the thinner surrounding material is a benefit not a negative. I makes the unit very light-weight so the rotating head of the speed-light doesn't keep flopping over like it does with the Fong modifier (among others). Also, the attachment makes it literally impossible to fly off while working fast ... I really tried to fling it off, and it held fast ... so it shouldn't go bouncing along the dance floor like my Fong has done a number of embarrassing times. The attachment is designed to be universal, so this can be used on a number of different sized speed-lights.</p>

<p>I also wondered if the smaller light source would have an effect ... not that other speed-light modifiers are actually all that much bigger ... evidently this thing has some sort of lensing or whatever that scatters the light pretty evenly. Kind of like a mini-globe head with light dispersion magnifiers. I fired it at straight on at a blank wall and there didn't seem to any significant vignetting. </p>

<p>What is unique about this modifier is the rotating ball which allows you to direct the bounce toward any orientation... center, left, right or behind you ... and the rear part is somewhat blocked, so most of the light is directed where you aim the ball.</p>

<p>At the very edge of the light output it does feather ... so if you bounced off a wall camera left, it provides directional lighting on the subject, but the feathering also provides some fill.</p>

<p>The acid test will be at my next wedding ... I will report further then ... unless someone beats me to it : -)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>With the exception of the rotating ball, it looks alot like my omnibounce......</p>

<p>Looking forward to your future review.</p>

<p>Cool. My only concern would be how much it cuts the flash power. If the feathering allowed really nice fill, I might think it would be worthwhile to have the flash power cut. Otherwise, I'd think it was a big negative, since you don't need diffused light for the light that is bounced, and I use the beam angle for bouncing quite a bit--seems to me it is kind of wasted. Maybe if the top was open and the opaque part was gradually cloudy...</p>

<p>It sure looks cool, though--like having a planet sitting on your flash. I'll be very interested in your report.</p>

<p>I think it has lens etchings to intensify the output Nadine ... when I get done with Mom's day I'll shoot with and without to see how much the light is cut. I tried it rotated left and right on a subject and you could definitely see a change in directionality of the lighting where there wasn't a close bounce surface. </p>

<p>I'll play with it more when I get a minute.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went online and looked at the product videos (by Peter Gregg). As stated, I would like to know three things, if you are taking suggestions for things to test.</p>

<p>1. What is the light loss compared to direct flash. Assume the 'window' points straight forward (as much as it can).</p>

<p>2. Is there a way to vary the fill to key light ratio (such as moving the feathering edge around). This is one of the things that bothers me about the Lightsphere--you can't change that ratio, while you can with a Demb Diffuser.</p>

<p>3. Is there a way to vary the spot of light you create on the bounce surface. To me, this is very important. Seems there is only one angle available--what comes out of the clearer part of the dome. What happens when you manually vary the beam angle--anything?</p>

<p>Good questions Nadine.</p>

<p>I would expect some light loss per your #1 ... but that has less meaning for me compared to whether I can use this thing to light a larger area with tall ceilings and not run out of light at the settings I usually employ in dark interior conditions. And, more importantly, what does the lighting look like?</p>

<p>So, I shot 2 interior test shots early in the AM with next to <strong>zero ambient (all room lights shut off)</strong>. The first sample below marked 1A was part of our kitchen area that I use for these tests because the <strong>ceiling is 23' high</strong>. Camera at ISO 640, shutter @ 1/40, using a 24mm lens, Sony speed-light zoom reflector set to 24mm, flash head in the upright position ball straight forward (which in the upright flash head position means partially up and partially forward). Result was pretty even illumination with soft shadows even with some subject matter directly against the wall. Relatively flat, head -on lighting but not bad in terms of over-all coverage. </p>

<p>To test the hot spot aspect I then went into a bedroom that has a very low ceiling and did the same thing ... I usually get a hot spot ceiling even with the flash zoom reflector at 24mm ... sample below marked 1B shows the result using the FlashRight (bright swath camera right is from a mirror reflection just out of frame). Again, decent over-all evenness.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><strong>Per question # 2</strong> ... I then tried the more directional aspects of the FlashRight. Again in pretty much near darkness as the acid test. This room has a slanted ceiling about 9' tall. I experimented with slightly changing the degree of ball rotation and flash head rotation to vary the feathering.</p>

<p>Did 3 shots of a pineapple from about 6 or 7 feet away in landscape orientation with the lens set to 30mm ... then cropped in on the subject.</p>

<p>LightRight ball rotated left with flash somewhat left <strong>(Sample 2A),</strong></p>

<p>Then dead center which also caused a bit more ceiling bounce evident by the yellow fabric just behind the pineapple <strong>(Sample 2B),</strong></p>

<p>Then rotated right with the flash head slightly right <strong>(Sample 2C).</strong></p>

<p>In each case where the ball was rotated L or R it created a bit less ceiling bounce and did a decent job of feathering the fill. How much rotation was a pretty intuitive decision.</p>

<p>Result was some degree of directional lighting with some drop shadows ... but not overly harsh given that this was the only light source. Not a replacement for off-camera directional work with 2 lights, but not bad at all for a single on-camera speed-light. </p>

<p><strong>Per question #3:</strong> How the flash zoom reflector affects the LightRight depends on distance to subject. If zoomed to 105mm and used close to the subject, it creates a soft spotlight effect with gradual vignetting to the edges. </p>

<p><strong>Further thoughts:</strong> I'd speculate that if a subject was being lit by a window and there wasn't a<em> near-by bounce surface</em> to use as fill, this could be rotated in the opposite direction and feathered to provide a very natural soft fill as if there was a bounce surface. </p>

<p>I'd say to realize the full potential of this speed-light modifier, one needs to already know basic strobist techniques pretty well, and recognize it isn't a solution to all flash modification needs. However, it is quite intriguing and the possibilities of all various settings and angles is mind boggling.</p>

<p>The real test will be at a wedding. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Marc--thanks for the test info. The wide angle shots look nice. I have to say I was a bit disappointed in the pineapple shots showing the drop shadow. This is the kind of thing I like to control---just how much fill is added--something you have quite a bit of fine control over with the Demb Diffuser. From what I understood watching the videos, there are two other diffusion panels (they didn't say if they were lenses), one of which is at the typical bounce angle to create catchlights in the eyes, and it is stationary. However, I can see the advantage of the unit for fast fixing of various configurations.</p>

<p>I think the power issue might be a problem for me. I don't use ultra high ISOs when shooting at receptions, and I've heard you say that you don't either. I like ISO 800 and 1250, sometimes 1600, but I also don't use lenses wide open with flash. I key my exposure levels for f4 or f5.6, for full frame shots, for DOF. If I am using off camera flashes, the load is taken off the on camera, a bit, but even so, I run my flashes probably bit more than many. So I like to have all the power available to shoot up to higher ceilings and/or darker bounce surfaces.</p>

<p>Dave asks a good question--there are only so many modifiers you can play with at the same time at a wedding, depending upon how easy they are to put on and take off. Like you, I have lots of modifiers, but I use only certain ones partly due to how much one can fiddle with something when shooting under time pressure, and partly due to how versatile it is. I've modified the Demb Diffuser to fit my various uses as well. So I agree--there isn't such a thing as the one, magic 'beautiful light' modifier which requires no thinking, particularly for small flashes.</p>

<p>You probably would never use this modifier this way but how about outside at night without anything to bounce off? My question would be--could it create some directionality by itself?</p>

<p>I look forward to your real-life tests.</p>

<p>Nadine, just to clarify ...</p>

<p>The above shots were using zero ambient ... as in less light than you'd get at a candle lit reception. I did that as an acid test. ISO was 640 because I do not like to go beyond 800 if I can help it.</p>

<p>So any directional light would cast a drop shadow like with the Pineapple images ... that they were fairly soft was a good sign IMO ... how much more fill could be employed by adjusting the ball I don't yet know ... this was the extreme of directional possible with one one-camera speed-light. More fill would lessen the directional fill.</p>

<p>So, I'd speculate that for a subject not sitting on a table or against a wall ... with some directional ambient acting as fill, you could get a nice wrap-around dimensional feel with something like this ... and get it pretty quickly. </p>

<p>What I was looking for is a smaller, more compact replacement for the Fong unit that is so big and tends to fling off at the most inopportune moment. I also use a flat folding modifier for other applications and like to keep it to two modifiers in the bag.</p>

<p>BTW, this has a slot for filters.</p>

<p>Not advocating anything here ... just reporting.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sure, I understand. I'm not passing any judgements either, at this point. I've found that one has to actually use such a thing personally, as second hand conclusions can be dead wrong (not talking about your conclusions, but mine, here). I also think that the fill will appear less hard on subjects that aren't real close. Slot for filters is good, although the filters to fit won't come til later in the year. This latter is also another thing that one has to consider--whether the filter system one currently uses will work with the unit. As said above, I dislike carrying duplicate things just to accommodate a 'system'. This is why I've modified my Demb Diffuser to fit the way I like to do things. So not being prematurely negative, just saying...</p>

<p>Again, looking forward to your real life report.</p>