Vivitar 285 Sto fen bounce not getting good results.

[john_e2]

<p>I tried out my sto fen bounce for the first time today . I took a picture of some bushes in the shade.<br>

the picture came out looking hazy. No matter how many times I tried to adjust things the pic just was hazy.<br>

the sun was not shining into the lens since hit had gone down behind the house and was not an issue.<br>

I had the bounce in place and had the flash pointed straight up. I fixed it in photoshop, but I just think the pic should be clear not hazy. Advice please. I was shooting at 4.o with a nikon D70 at between 200 iso and 400 iso.<br>

Nothing I tried helped. is this just what to expect with bounce flash?</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>John, if you are outside, there is nothing for the flash to bounce off (with enough strength). So you will have underexposed images if you intended the flash to be the main source of illumination.</p>

<p>Modifiers such as the OmniBounce are primarily intended for indoor use, so that the light from the flash can bounce off walls and ceilings. Use the OmniBounce inside, and use a fairly high ISO for best results. ISO 200 inside, bouncing, will not get you the results you are probably expecting. Use ISO 800 and wider auto apertures.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>If you had the camera inside in the AC and then stepped out in heat and high humidity, your lens could have fogged up. Don't know where you are but it can be a problem here in the south this time of year. But then you should have seen the effect in the view finder. Other than that, post an example for better answers.</p>

<p>And Nadine (as always) is right on the improper use of the Sto fen. While I have seen people use them out doors, it is pointless and only kills your flashes effectiveness. The purpose of such modifiers is to make your flash effectively a larger light source. It would do this by scattering the light so it will bounce off walls and ceiling. So outdoors it is no good, and more so when pointed straight up.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[john_e2]

<p>I was trying it out outside as a fill. I'm going to be shooting a friend and her child outdoors and I don't like the harsh shadows the direct flash produces, so I pulled out the sto fen which I've never used and tried it out. Once indoors which worked pretty well then outdoors. It just produced the Haziness which I can't understand. The glass wasn't fogged. I have a lot of experience with fogging glass and was the first thing I checked, I went from a hot un-airconditioned room to the out doors.<br>

I don't have a lens hood on the lens could the bounce be bouncing light into the lens somehow?</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Are you using the pop-on diffuser dome? Sto-Fen makes several flash modifiers. What they call a "bounce" should be called a diffuser. What should be called a bounce card, they call a "Uni". Confusing.</p>

<p>If you're using the pop-on diffuser dome, aim it straight forward. Those recommendations to angle it upward make flash nearly useless at any distance beyond around 10 feet or so. Try it for yourself - experiment with it straight forward and at various angles and distances. That's what I did with my Nikon SB-800 and Sto-Fen clone diffuser dome. Turns out the straight-upward position is not practical beyond 10 feet, tops. I also get more consistent TTL results with the flash head aimed straight forward, but that's not a factor with the Vivitar 285, altho' the auto-flash mode may work better</p>

[James G. Dainis]

200-400 ISO, f/3.5, 1/60 sec. It looks to me like the whole thing is overexposed. I don't see any blacks in there at all not even in the deep shadows.

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>""While I have seen people use them out doors, it is pointless and only kills your flashes effectiveness."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not completely pointless. The Sto-Fen type dome diffusers are very effective outdoors at short range and provide much better looking results than flash without the diffuser. I'll use it with the flash head aimed directly forward, not upward, for photographing people out to around 10-12 feet. Beyond that I remove the diffuser since small diffusers have little effect at longer distances and mostly rob power needed to reach out.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>John, if you are interested in making photos with flash outdoors, why not try this same technique at or near twilight? While I would not wait until it was completely dark outside, it looks as though there was just so much bulk sunlight in the area that you cannot establish a great deal of variance in the lighting ratios. </p>

<p>Even outdoors, it helps to have some darkness on hand so that you can illuminate parts of the photo with an amount of energy that's reasonable. </p>

<p>It's possible for someone with a large and powerful studio spotlight to bring more light into the photo during your average partly cloudy day; yet, that takes a lot of energy. The flash does have a lot of energy in it, but in common sunlight, it will often give a boost of at most, a stop. </p>

<p>Try this under darker conditions. At or near sunset, a photo in the same area will work out much better. This is because the ability to impose darkness at will is almost as important as being able to light and expose in the first place.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Hi ya Lex,</p>

<p>The only product of Sto fen that I know of is the Omni Bounce. A short stubby omni directional modifier. I don't know about a dome, but if it like the Gary Fong lightsphere then yeah I can see what ya mean. I use one alot and have used it like you described. Just a notch better than bare flash.</p>

<p>If the OP really wants to make the most of thier flash, then try out <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/">David Hobby and all things "strobist"</a>. Practical use of off camera flash.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>This shot is certainly over-exposed. There is potentially some flare happening. The light source looks stronger on the right side of the frame, where the whites are hotter. There is a lot of sunlight bouncing around, hence the greenish overall cast to the image from light bouncing off the grass/leaves. An UV filter would exaggerate any flare. A quick auto-levels does wonders. But it also reveals some of that stronger light on the tops to the plants making flare an even more likely suspect. Were you using your lens hood?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...outside as a fill.... I don't like the harsh shadows the direct flash produces</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As fill, there shouldn't be any more shadows. As fill, you are merely raising the level of light in shadows already preset. As <em>key</em> the flash would create it's own shadows. As others have pointed out, without anything to bounce off of, you are limited as to modifying the flash. The Sto-fen can be used outside with the flash pointed straight ahead. If I know I am going to be doing a lot of shooting outside, I will gaffer's tape the dome so that no light is going out the sides. Using it this way will reduce specular highlights (forehead hot spots) since the light is diffused (scattered); it won't soften the light because the <em>size </em>of the light source remains relatively unchanged.</p><div></div>

[john_e2]

<p>Hi folks. Thanks for the responses. I shot this at around 7:30 pm Central time. the entire area was in the full shadow of the house. this area is on the east side of the house which faces due east. My problem is that it looks hazy, when i decrease the aperture the picture looks the same just a darker version. I'm using the 285 on the hot shoe. I'm baffled at the hot area on the right side of the of the picture. </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>The first problem is that the image is over-exposed. Yes, dialing in a narrowing aperture would "darken" the image, which is what we need: a properly exposed image.</p>

<p>Next, even with the house being on the "shade" side, there is still a lot of light bouncing around. Hence the right side of the frame being brighter. You could have spot metered the right and left and came up with different EV values. This just means that stay light could have been entering the lens: flare. Not using a hood and/or using any type of filter will contribute to the effect. Regardless, this lack of contrast is usually a sure fire indication of flare.</p>

<p>Next, if this is shot at 1/60th of a second handheld (as per your other post), then it isn't as sharp as it could be. A faster shutter will give you a sharper image.</p>

<p>Finally, unless you took two shots, one with flash and one without, I am not so sure your flash is doing anything in the shot anyway. But before adding flash to the image, testing or otherwise, you need to establish an ambient exposure.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>From I see the light is simply dull and flat and not much good can come from it. Get into some "good" lighting and try some different shots.</p>

<p>I think the haze you are seeing is simply little contrast in the scene and again, very flat light. Useing flash on axis with the camera (no matter what modifier is used) is not helping and can actually make it worse. Your images are two small and pixelated to tell much for what I see.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Low contrast indeed. I tried my spotmeter on similar bushes in the shade at 7:30 PM today and only got about a one stop difference between the shadows and the outer green foliage.:

[cj8281]

<p>How old is your flash? Just a precaution, you should check the voltage of your flash before you use it on a digital camera. I have 3 older flash units and their voltages range for 144v to 230v. Most digital cameras are rated around 4 to 12 volts with only a very few able to handle the higher voltages that the older flashes put out. Go to this website and check it out. <a href="http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html">http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html</a> You can check the voltage with a simple volt meter, the center pin is usually (+) and the side rail contact is (-).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> Most digital cameras are rated around 4 to 12 volts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most are o.k. up to 250 volts. Check your manual first.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Several things.</p>

<p>1. The 'haze' looks like plain old flare to me.</p>

<p>2. I don't see any evidence of flash in this image, and don't think the flash was strong enough to have affected the image.</p>

<p>3. With an auto thyristor flash like the Vivitar 285, you cannot use the OmniBounce on the flash head with the flash head pointed directly ahead, because the light being output in a wide swath by the Omni will fool the sensor eye on the Vivitar, causing extreme flash underexposure.</p>

<p>In fact, while you said that you used the Omni with the flash head pointed straight up, there still might have been <strong>flare into the lens from the flash because you didn't use a lens hood</strong>.</p>

<p>4. Outdoors, diffusers like the OmniBounce or any small diffuser will not soften the light from the flash. You can only soften the light by enlarging it first. The best these small diffusers will do is lessen hotspots (shiny spots on skin, etc.). If you are not using the flash as main light anyway, it makes little difference whether you use a diffuser for portraits. You might as well just use the flash direct. It is the main light which creates the light quality.</p>

<p>If you want soft, main light on subjects outdoors, you are looking at umbrellas or at least, large (in relation to the subject) modifiers, which are problematic if there is any wind at all.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I think a better test would be with a subject in the shot, so you can see the effect of the flash and Sto Fen on a face. The bushes here would be in the background anyway (assuming this is where you're going to shoot). I would use the Sto-Fren straight on or at a 45-degree angle, not straight up.<br>

"3. With an auto thyristor flash like the Vivitar 285, you cannot use the OmniBounce on the flash head with the flash head pointed directly ahead, because the light being output in a wide swath by the Omni will fool the sensor eye on the Vivitar, causing extreme flash underexposure." Actually there is a very simple solution to this that I learned years ago. Get a black (not transparent) 35mm film can. Take off the cap and cut off the bottom. Then slide it over the Vivitar's sensor. It will create a "snoot" that protects the sense from the light coming off the Sto Fen and will eliminate the exposure problem described by Nadine. You may need to slice the can lengthwise to loosen it up just a touch. If you don't have a film can around you can do the same with a piece of cardboard.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>While Nadine is right about the Omni Bounce and an Auto Thyristor flash (surprised no one else picked up on that, includeing myself), Sto Fen does make a hood adaptor that will sheild the eye from the broad wash of light from the OmniBounce. You WILL need this if you intend to continue to use this diffuser with the Vivitar.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/52778-REG/Sto_Fen_SS_285_SS_285_Sensor_Shield_for.html">See here....</a></p>

<p>Jason</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"With an auto thyristor flash like the Vivitar 285, you cannot use the OmniBounce on the flash head with the flash head pointed directly ahead, because the light being output in a wide swath by the Omni will fool the sensor eye on the Vivitar, causing extreme flash underexposure."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, Nadine. I'd forgotten that I'd had that problem years ago with homebrewed diffusers on my Vivitar auto thyristor flash and solved it by making a little shade from an empty 35mm film container, glued around the sensor. Been so long since I'd use that rig I'd forgotten about that problem. Doesn't happen with my Nikon SB-800 in TTL mode because the light is measured through the lens. Doesn't seem to be a problem in non-TTL auto mode either, presumably due to the design of the Nikon's optical sensor.</p>