Speedlight Modifier Tests:

[studio460]

<p>There seems to be a lot of interest on this forum in this particular product category, so I thought I'd post this here. I'm starting to shoot more event-oriented photography, so I'm also gleaning a lot of helpful knowledge for myself from the more experienced members of this forum--thank you. In my continuing search for the Holy Grail of Speedlight modifiers, I've just received my ExpoImaging Rogue FlashBender kit, and optional diffusers. After seeing another photographer using this same product at a recent event, I thought I'd give it a try.</p>

[studio460]

<p>ExpoImaging Rogue FlashBender Tests:</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F1-D.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; direct flash, flash head aimed directly at subject--no modifier.</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F2-RS.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; Rogue FlashBender w/small reflector + ceiling bounce, flash head aimed straight-up.</p>

<p><br /> <img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F3-RL.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; Rogue FlashBender w/large reflector + ceiling bounce, flash head aimed straight-up.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F4-RL+D.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; Rogue FlashBender w/large reflector + large diffusion panel (no ceiling bounce), flash head aimed straight-up.</p>

[studio460]

<p>ExpoImaging Rogue FlashBender Tests (cont'd):</p>

<p>Now, I've reversed the flash head, so that it can fire directly into the large Rogue FlashBender:</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F8.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Rogue FlashBender w/large reflector, flash head reversed.</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/F6-RR.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; Rogue FlashBender w/large reflector, flash head reversed.<br /> </p>

[johnw63]

<p>I really hope I'm NOT the only one who can't see any images.</p>

[parv]

John, you are not alone ... for once.

 

When I tried earlier on this 'puter, I could not see anything. Noticed the browser had been showing "Completed request to nikoncinematograhpher.com..." or "Contacting ..." too long. So I "Stop"ped, and reloaded the page. Well, now I can see some of them again but not all of them, or all of an image.

 

I did see the images earlier on another 'puter elsewhere with faster connection without any problems. Something has to be said about uploading a picture to a post right here.

 

*sigh*

[studio460]

<p>Sorry, Network Solutions must be having some kind of issue. I can see them here, but they are taking longer to load (files are well under 100Kb each).</p>

[studio460]

<p>I've contacted Network Solutions, and the issue appears to be resolved--the images appear to be loading fine now (near-instantaneous, depending on your local connection). My apologies for the inconvenience.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Lumiquest Promax Softbox III (8" x 9"):</p>

<p>This is the modifier I've been using previously. Now, I plan to use the large Rogue FlashBender instead, with the flash head reversed. As you can see, the Lumiquest is a bit bulky, extending your forward-profile out by several inches, especially when mounted onto a rotating bracket.</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/LQ3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Lumiquest Promax Softbox III.</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/LQ2.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon SB-800; Lumiquest Promax Softbox III.</p>

<p>Also, the Lumiquest adds a color cast not present in the whiter FlashBender reflector material. The Promax III is definitely more unwieldy to use, and inhibits your mobility when moving through crowded rooms.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"In my continuing search for the Holy Grail......"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly what it is Ralph; a search for something that doesn't exist.<br>

The quality of light is governed only by the size of the source and its position relative to the subject. There ain't nothin' you can fit to the top of a camera that's going to be big enough or portable enough to make a huge difference to the quality of light, especially since it's always going to be coming at the subject head on.</p>

<p>In the situation you've shown, what does the flashbender do that pointing the flash up at the ceiling wouldn't do? And a small head-on softbox is still going to give flat frontal lighting. That said, you could try putting the flash bender sideways instead of straight up and effectively move the light slightly sideways to give some modelling. Better yet, I'd use a simple folding reflector held off to one side with the flash pointed into it. That's if there's no convenient lightly painted wall or ceiling to bounce off. The walls and ceiling don't even have to be neutral white if you set a custom White-Balance.</p>

<p>Anyway, like the Holy Grail, maybe it's the quest that's important, and not the end result.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Joe said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the situation you've shown, what does the flashbender do that pointing the flash up at the ceiling wouldn't do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At most of the events I'm shooting, there is no ceiling. Most are outside at night. No bounce surfaces whatsoever. The Rogue large FlashBender measures 10" x 11" which is a far larger surface than the flash head alone, and is the best modifier I've tested for this application to date.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Ralph, I think that you should test the way you intend to shoot. So if you are shooting outside at night you should be testing by shooting outside at night. Similar subjects, distance and framing.</p>

<p>When you are shooting close ups as in you samples above, flash power is not as important as when you are further away. The softbox III has a hotspot in the center. That will increase the specularity. I put a stofen with a ND on the front on the flash (insed the softbox III) when I want an even light from the softbox (and have the power).</p>

<p>One way to check for hotspots is to shoot with the flash in manual off camera and then aperture stopped down.</p>

<p> </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Thankyou for the gear photos ... I was wondering about the contraption I've seen advertised but not seen it in use :-)</p>

[ian_casement]

<p>These work.. they're just a bounce board:<br>

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/METZ-MECABLITZ-60-33-FLASH-BOUNCE-TILT-BOARD-BOXED-NIKON-PENTAX-CANON-/330673375937#ht_884wt_1133</p>

<p>And you can make these which work too - same principle:<br>

http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/</p>

<p>Personally, I just use a Quantum with a diffuser. If you want a larger/softer source both the 12"x12" Quantum softbox or the 19" Norman softbox are good. The extra output can help too.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, I think that you should test the way you intend to shoot. So if you are shooting outside at night you should be testing by shooting outside at night. Similar subjects, distance and framing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, clearly I shot these tests under optimum conditions, indoors, at closer than normal subject-to-camera distances. I was excited to see how good the modifier performed under the best conditions first (plus, it was getting kinda late).</p>

[studio460]

<p>JC said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you for the gear photos . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome! I honestly think it's the best modifier of its kind. The product is well made, and has an attachment strap design, far superior to Lumiquest's. It's strong, secure, and unlike the Lumiquest "UltraStrap," it's actually part of the modifier. The Lumiquest strap is separate and can be easily lost.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ian said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>These work . . . they're just a bounce board:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those look pretty neat, too, Ian!<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And you can make these which work too . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, those are similar to Lite Genius' SuperScoop II, which probably has the largest bounce surface of all: 8.5" x 11.5". In fact, an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper is the "modifier" of choice of most of the WireImage shooters I know--they simply handhold a piece of paper (usually the event's tip sheet or press release) in their left hand for bounce. I like to to have both hands available, so I chose the FlashBender, which has nearly the same bounce area.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Handheld, off-camera options:</p>

<p>Now, while on-camera flash certainly isn't my preference, it's often necessary, mainly due to the extremely limited spaces allotted to you on arrival lines. But, for times when I can afford to handhold a flash, off-camera, here's what I've been using/considering.</p>

<p>1. Photoflex XS LiteDome (12" x 16")<br /> 2. Lumiquest LTp (10" x 14")<br /> 3. Strobies Portabox (12" x 8")<br /> 4. Interfit CyberFlash flat-panel flash units<br /> 5. Sunpak FP-38 flat-panel flash</p>

<p>I actually own a Photoflex XS, but I can't find my speedring/bracket for it (or the pins). I also own the 12" x 8" Strobies Portabox, which isn't bad at all. I actually think it's a pretty cool product--perfect for handholding your strobe at arm's length, mainly because it's so light.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Joe said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Better yet, I'd use a simple folding reflector held off to one side with the flash pointed into it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's actually one of the best suggestions yet for an off-camera, handheld modifier. A small FlexFill, Lastolite, Photoflex, or other circular reflector would certainly do the trick. Or, even an 8.5" x 11" folded card, which could open up to 17" x 22" would be a neat solution as well. A bit unwieldy, perhaps, and definitely forces you to shoot with one hand, but a large, source which doesn't mess with your flash's balance.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Handheld, off-camera reflector, with on-camera Speedlight:</p>

<p>A Lastolite 18" Mini TriGrip silver/white, held in your left hand, would probably be the best balance between size and weight for bouncing your hot-shoe mounted Speedlight (flash head turned left-rearward). The best thing about the Lastolite TriGrip, is that it has a handle.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/501663-REG/Lastolite_LL_LR3531_Mini_TriGrip_Silver_White_18.html</p>

<p>Lastolite 18" Mini TriGrip silver/white $45.89</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ian said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want a larger/softer source both the 12"x12" Quantum softbox or the 19" Norman softbox are good. The extra output can help too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't even realize they made such a product for their Qflashes--it's the Quantum QF-68 12" x 12" softbox for Qflashes ($76). I think I'll get one for my old Model T. Pretty slick!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>How about attaching a 45 degree reflector to the top of an old-fashioned "L" camera bracket? That way you don't have to wave the reflector about in your left hand. Also remember that the effective area of the light is only that which can be seen by the subject. So if the strobe obscures most of the reflector, that's not good for soft lighting. If the reflector's at a 45 degree angle to the subject, it's effective area is halved. If the flash doesn't fully fill the reflector with light, it's effective area is reduced, etc, etc.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I just use a Quantum with a diffuser. If you want a larger/softer source both the 12"x12" Quantum softbox or the 19" Norman softbox are good. The extra output can help too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep. If I did parties a lot and there were groups to shoot, I would use your Q flash too and get the advantage of a larger source with more options. I have one and it is a versatile piece of professional gear that will last and last.( It's a question of getting a quart out of a pint jar, size of source wise that is per what Rodeo guy said)<br /> On the other hand, you are doing the best you can out of a cam mounted/lens mounted Speedlite with these popular gizmos that abound in the market place.<br>

I understand they help a <em>little</em> to soften the pop. Even a diffuser disk on Quantum helps some to spread the beam, but then off camera is the way to go to get the beam off the center vs headlight style.<br>

There is no end of gadgets, like small umbrellas on stalks and then the question is maneuverability and all....packing and schlepping ad infinitum. ( At one time in the day, direct flash, shadows and all was actually accepted journalistic shooting....I know them days is past..since people now can ratchet up the ISO and shoot by candlelight almost).<br>

But eventually ralph I think your grail approach will lead you to the Quantum Q flash along with that battery pack and the little umbrellas you got. And then a grip to hold it on its separate bracket, another subject, but an important one as mentioned above. Good luck and thanks for the photos of your experiments.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks for your comments, Joe, Gerry. Another good idea, Joe. That reminds me of an old photo teacher I had that shot events with a bracket-mounted umbrella. Looked silly as hell, but sure did the trick. I haven't really considered any two-handed approaches--there's just too much zooming required (a full-length vertical, plus a head-shot, all within about four seconds). But, I'm really pleased with the FlashBender. It's a good balance between bulk and effectiveness.</p>

<p>But, these types of gadgets are always going to be a trade-off between effectiveness and bulk. In the environments I'll be shooting in, the emphasis is clearly on reducing the latter. For more artsy, close-up stuff that's not so space-constrained, yeah, a Qflash with the 12" softbox held just at arm's-length, or Joe's reflector on an 'L' bracket deal, I think is the bees' knees.</p>

[studio460]

<p>By the way, I was kinda expecting to see others' tests here, too, and I certainly would welcome that if anyone is interested. I originally wrote this in the wedding/events forum (the thread was moved here by a moderator--sorry about that), where there were a couple of lengthy discussions regarding on-camera modifiers also. I was hoping to see contributions from those members here as well.</p>

<p>That said, I was originally planning to post additional tests from my old pile of "retired" modifiers, but since the surface areas weren't that different, I didn't think they'd bring that much to the table.</p>

[parv]

Try this: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/16/comparison-between-different-flash-modifiers-contest/

 

...

 

(answer: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/28/contest-results-comparison-between-different-flash-modifiers/)