bob_bell Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Hi, What does everyone use on their dedicated flashes when the ceilings are too high to bounce from and there are no bare walls around? I am going to a family reunion at my aunts house who has 20 foot tray ceilings and I would like to take some pictures of my grandparents and the oldest generation but dont want the harse light from a 550EX. I was looking at the lumiquest mini soft box and some other products, but I am not sure what works and what doesn't and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer in the archives. Any advice or solutions would be much appreciated. Thx -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melisa Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Hi Bob, I haven't used the Mini but I do use the Lumiquest Promax which has a lot of bang for the buck and provides beautiful soft light outside and in areas with high ceilings. It is large and sticks out like a sore thumb but I love the look.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Bob- I would advise shooting direct flash. I truely think that "mini softboxes" are a waste of money. They do not dramatically increase area through which light is being projected in relation to the size of the subject. In other words, light is softened by it wrapping around a subject; requiring the light's surface area close in size to, if not larger than, the size of the subject itself. Also, "mini softboxes" eat light. You will probably lose at least two f/stops. That having been said, Lumiquest makes a small softbox for shoe mount flashes. However, if you are more than three feet from an individual subject, you probably won't see a worthwhile softening effect: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=32690&is=REG Westcott also makes a 5x8" mini box: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=62832&is=REG Finally, Westcott makes a bigger 16x16 inch box; but using this product will cause you to look like a dork: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=62804&is=REG Regards, E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I've found that the Promax soft box softens up the shadows when otherwise harsher sharper edged ones would appear. Combined with a stroboframe, I get some great results.<br> <br> <img src="http://elaisted.com/ljprev/jq-dj-booth.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Kevin, looking at the shadow under the DJ's chin, I would repeat that there is no demonsterable difference from direct flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 That's true, and I should have lowered the flash a little, but the shadows behind her body are a lot softer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I don't understand how the shadow under her chin can be about as hard as with direct flash, but the shadows behind her, which are even further away are somehow softer than they would have been with direct flash. Light doesn't work that way. With all due respect, if you took identical photographs with direct flash and with the ProMax at a distance of five to ten feet, and compared the shadows in the images, I think you'd toss the ProMax in the garbage. The Promax simply doesn't dramatically increase the size of the light-producing area, something necessary to softening the light. We have Lumiquest products at my store and I won't recommend them to customers. ProMax kits, for instance cost $26-37, gobble up about two stops of light and have almost no effect with a subject more than three feet away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melisa Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I don't know how accurate this comparison is, but here are two shots from the same wedding, one with direct flash and the other with diffusion--the Omni Bounce, which is actually harder in comparison to the Promax. The underarm shadows of both men are what is interesting to me, in addition to the softness of the skin. Direct flash is fine, but I do like the wrap around effect of diffused flash.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melisa Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Here's #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Melissa, your Omnibounce picture did not come through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melisa Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Sorry, here it is again.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I agree with Eric, I don't think you'll see much difference in the situation you describe. Diffusers cut the specularity of the bare headed flash, though, meaning skin shine is subdued, so if that is your goal, any of the diffusers will do that. The DJ photo is a good example of what you can expect since the flash is the main source of illumination and there are no close, light colored walls/ceilings for light to bounce off. I may be wrong, but Melissa's photo of the flower girl seems to be lit by a large window to the girl's right. The window light is already soft, so its hard to tell the effect the ProMax fill is having. If you are taking close-up individual or "couples" photos of your grandparents, you can put another flash on a stand as close as you can to your subjects with a mini softbox or ProMax, or even an Omnibounce, and given enough flash power, can make your lights be softer than the bare head. But if you're going to do that, you might as well use a regular umbrella or softbox, plus you need extra gear. And it wouldn't work for group shots. I'd recommend bringing the tripod and dragging the shutter, combined with direct (or diffused, but don't count on the softening effect) on-camera flash. A flip bracket would be good if you are going to do verticals. Dragging the shutter gets some of the ambient light into the picture, which helps fill in the shadows the flash will create and keeps the backgrounds from going black. This doesn't mean setting the shutter for so long that you get motion blur. If, for instance you use 400 speed film, a setting of f5.6 at 1/15th will usually get some of the ambient light. Maybe 1/8th if you think your subjects are pretty steady. Most adults can hold still that long. Be sure you can trigger your camera without moving it--mirror lock-up or a cable release might help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 Geez. I was hoping there was a quick and easy solution to this issue. Thx to everyone who responsed. Nice photo's :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsbc Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 What about a white index card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 "What about a white index card?" A straight white index ("kicker") card behind the flash can be used if you have an 8-11 foot white ceiling to bounce off. A similar "card" is built into newer Nikon high-end flashes out of defference to press shooters. The kicker card will throw (kick) about a stop of light directly at the subject, filling in eye sockets that would be somewhat dark if you relied solely on bounce flash off the ceiling. If you bend the index card out into the path of the bounced flash, you get about the same effect as the ProMax for the cost of an index card and a rubber band. I do use Sto-Fen Omni-Bounces for a specific purpose. If I'm shooting in close with DIRECT flash and a wide angle lens, the Omni-Bounce will prevent light fall-off from the top to the bottom of the frame. Actually, I like the Omni-Bounce-like 14mm flash covers that came with my Nikon SB-80DX flashes better than Omni-Bounces. They are a little more translucent than the Omni-Bounces, allowing more light to pass through.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Sorry ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hovland Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Try a piece of the white plastic bags we get from stores. I just checked one from Safeway and it seems to absorb about 1/2 stop. It won't have the effect of a larger softbox, but it will take the hard edge off the flash tube. For a more photo-specific material, try 1-2 layers of Rosco Opal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted June 18, 2004 Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 I like the plastic bag idea. I was also thinking of cutting off the top of a stofen and attaching some softbox material over the opening with a rubber band. I like the idea of softening the shadow line a little more than shooting straight on. Thx again -Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_bell Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 Your dog's picture didn't show up at work when I posted. Wow that is great shot. Makes me want to buy a wide angle and try that with my doggie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Those small 12x16" and 16x16" softboxes do make you look like a dork, but they can be very effective. I'm out of town at the moment without access to images and the scanner, so I can't post a sample shot, but I really like the effect of a 12x16" softbox mounted high on a bracket directly over the lens (I use a Stroboframe Pro-RL), and angled down slightly. It works best with a subject distance of around 6 feet or less. I have a PhotoFlex (only one available at the time) 12x16" softbox, but if I were buying one today I'd get the Chimera, which is better made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_leonard Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I don't know what you are working with so my first suggestion may not work. Basically up the film speed / sensor sensitivity to the point that you can bounce the flash. On my canon 10d I am more than happy to shoot at ISO 800 and do longer distance bounces and prefer ISO 1600 with bounced flash to anything with direct flash. My second suggestion would be to just not worry about it for candid shots but for portraits aim the flash backwards and to the side a bit and have someone holding a piece of white foamcore or poster board for you to bounce the flash off of. It's cheap and very effective albeit somewhat unwieldy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h2 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Ok... first I have to say that the difference between using direct flash and even a small flash modifier like the lumiquest 5x8 softbox can not be judged by shadow softness alone. The benefits are much further reaching than that, using the box. I have one of course and Here are some comparison shots from my bracket mounted flash. It's a Sigma EF-500 DG Super ETTL II.<P> http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/6787/ashleedirectflash1um.jpg<P>With direct unmodified flash, is there a shadow present under her chin? You betcha. But that's not all that's wrong with this picture. You should also notice the underexposed background and really anything that is not the subject. The subject lighting is harsh(not overexposed mind you... just harsh) and with the tiny little reflection in the dead center of the eyes, it makes this image look flat and lifeless.<p> http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/2346/ashleebounce8tv.jpg<P>Looking at bounce off of my 8 foot ceiling, this is a little better and solved the harsh unforgiving lighting and underexposed darkish background, but her eyes are completely in shadow due to her brow and the shadow is now not only present under her chin, but it's now much longer and to me less appealing even if it is much softer.<P> http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/8436/ashleesoftbox8rk.jpg<P>NOW, look at the box picture. Background is much brighter while not washing out my subject's face. The eyes have a slightly larger reflection so they don't look as flat and lifeless, and the only thing un-wanted, that is still there is the shadow under the chin. Ok so the box is not perfect, but the shadow is softer than with the direct flash, and I think that the overall image is much brighter, and more evenly exposed allowing it to look brighter and more colorful, and contrasty. I think that it's also better than with the bounce. If you can't see an EXTREME difference in the overall image quality between direct flash and softbox, I'm not sure what else to say. I think maybe a larger box would of course be better and while it may make some of you feel like a dork, I should just remind you that if you're being paid to cover a wedding, you're not getting paid to look cool. You're getting paid to get great memories on film(or jpeg) for your client. If mounting a translucent salad bowl to your flash is the way to do it, you do it. Those of you who are not doing photography professionally should maybe just consider using bare flash or an omnibounce and accept the results you are getting, unless you don't mind looking like a dork. :P 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