john_h2

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

Chromatic Aberation can show up in ANY DSLR if the circumstances are prime for it. I've seen it on my 20D with a 50mm lens, and a 300mm lens. Fortunately it is very easy to fix in Camera Raw. Two sliders and the ALT key let's you remove it the right way by shifting the colors to align more appropriately. This is the nature of CA. The color convergence gets a little misaligned through the optics of the lens and are captured by the sensor this way. The data is there it's just not lined up properly. When using the CA adjustment tool within Camera raw, you'll actually see the image shift a little as the color fringing disappears.