You thought a Lightsphere looked stupid...

[compuwar]

Ok, it really doesn't make the Tupperware diffuser any prettier, but at least folks with them can feel a little better about prancing around with them...

http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2

:D

[bmat]

That's really awesome. Just waiting for a big gust of wind to take her away!

[dllavaneras]

Wouldn't a lot of light be bounced on the photographer's back? Is it really that effective?

[JNB]

Ok, it really doesn't make the Tupperware diffuser any prettier, but at least folks with them can feel a little better about prancing around with them...
:D

Hey! I like my Tupperware! (Plus, they're like three bucks if you don't mind Chinese knock-offs)

[Abstract]

How can you "knock off" an overpriced piece of tupperware? I'm GLAD someone is pricing them correctly. It's not exactly a new or ingenious invention. Someone just went out of their way to make a business out of it.

I'd rather take a Lightsphere, but I think this helmet idea would probably work better. It probably makes the light source bigger, which is the goal.

[QuarterSwede]

Wouldn't a lot of light be bounced on the photographer's back? Is it really that effective?
That's what I'd think but the example shots prove that it doesn't. Then again, those were all taken in daylight which may have masked that.

[JNB]

I'd rather take a Lightsphere, but I think this helmet idea would probably work better. It probably makes the light source bigger, which is the goal.

The Lightsphere diffuses, reflects, and refracts the light in somewhat equal proportions in a 360 x 300 or so degree sphere, whereas an umbrella would be mostly reflective in a relatively narrow arc, with a bit of diffusion and refraction thrown in as a side effect rather than part of the inherent design.

I've found the Lightsphere does a surprisingly good job at creating a more natural or studio light (depending on the dome color and translucence of the body), more so than I would have thought possible for a (seemingly) cheesy piece of plastic.

As annoying as Gary Fong's vids and website are, it really does work as advertised, and the shots he demos are no BS. Color me convinced.

(The knock-offs are from Link Delight, found on eBay. Shipping is pricey, but still nets at a quarter or less total cost than from Amazon or garyfong.com)

[SLC Flyfishing]

Yeah, as stupid as everyone thinks they look, they get the job done! I'd much rather have the lightsphere than not, I'm not out photographing weddings to look cool.

I guess I'm just a function over form guy!

SLC

[bmat]

Gary's demos are ok. But he's not properly using the flash WITHOUT the lightsphere, which makes his product look much better in comparison. Now, that is advertising, but equal results can be obtained a lot of different ways.

[ChrisA]

Wouldn't a lot of light be bounced on the photographer's back? Is it really that effective?

If the subject can "see" the umblela then the light will hit the subject. If the helmet blocks 50% of the light then the flash simply puts out two times more light. What matter here is the "size" of the light source as seen from the subject's location. The larger source the softer the light.

The test shown on the web is actually a hard test. Outdoor fill flash requires a lot of power as you are competeling with full sunlight. It looks like here exposure are about a stop below ambient. That's a LOT of light,

Other then looking silly this is a great setup

[JNB]

Gary's demos are ok. But he's not properly using the flash WITHOUT the lightsphere, which makes his product look much better in comparison. Now, that is advertising, but equal results can be obtained a lot of different ways.

True, there are far better ways (that one would learn in the first day of Flash Photography 101) than the two he always demonstrates, but at the same time, short of some off-camera fill (umbrella, slave, other reflectors), I doubt that anything would be as effective, as inexpensive (even at $40-$50!), or as simple to use.

The directionality of flash is its weakest point. In order to soften & bounce the light sufficiently for a decent fill, most of the power is lost in the bargain. That's why studio rigs are what they are. Most of the consumer diffusers just diffuse, or diffuse & single-bounce, but really don't alter the fundamental nature of the light, directionally speaking.

Look, I don't sell the things, nor do I buy into Gary's "celebrity photographer" crapola--personally, I think the guy's fairly full of himself as a "label"--but I have to admit, the damn thing just works.

[jessica.]

Ok, it really doesn't make the Tupperware diffuser any prettier, but at least folks with them can feel a little better about prancing around with them...

http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2

:D

I prance around with one on from time to time. Trust me. I have at least a dozen reasons to look stupid, the lightsphere is pretty much the least of my worries!

On a side note, the hat contraption looks effective. Don't know if I'd ever wear one but it looks, based on her examples, like it does the job.

[JNB]

I prance around with one on from time to time.

Photos, or it doesn't happen! ;)

[Cloud9]

Can send someone post a link to the fong knock-offs?

[Cliff3]

http://msfcontent.mqube.us/preview/thumbs/images/100x100/49754.jpg

(I have a Fong diffuser - packing around all the camera stuff has already relegated me to the dweeb zone)

[JNB]

Can send someone post a link to the fong knock-offs?

http://stores.ebay.com/Link-Delight-Links-World_Studio-Equips-Lighting_Diffuser_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7196668QQftidZ2QQtZkm

[ppc_michael]

Ha! Wellllll, that's certainly innovative...

Now if only there was a hat she could wear to fix the composition of her shots.

[jessica.]

Photos, or it doesn't happen! ;)

LMFAO yeah, not a chance!

[Westside guy]

Can send someone post a link to the fong knock-offs?

http://stores.ebay.com/Link-Delight-Links-World_Studio-Equips-Lighting_Diffuser_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ7196668QQftidZ2QQtZkm

It's probably leaded glass.

[MacNoobie]

The Lightsphere diffuses, reflects, and refracts the light in somewhat equal proportions in a 360 x 300 or so degree sphere, whereas an umbrella would be mostly reflective in a relatively narrow arc, with a bit of diffusion and refraction thrown in as a side effect rather than part of the inherent design.

I've found the Lightsphere does a surprisingly good job at creating a more natural or studio light (depending on the dome color and translucence of the body), more so than I would have thought possible for a (seemingly) cheesy piece of plastic.

As annoying as Gary Fong's vids and website are, it really does work as advertised, and the shots he demos are no BS. Color me convinced.

(The knock-offs are from Link Delight, found on eBay. Shipping is pricey, but still nets at a quarter or less total cost than from Amazon or garyfong.com)

The Lightsphere crap is just an over priced piece of miniature Tupperware and Gary Fong is an AMAZING marketer if he can sell a piece of dog ***** with his name on it then I can guaranty you he can sell the Tupperware without any problem. I think the first hint anyone can gather as to how great Gary is when I saw his "Getting Rich 2-DVD Set" on his front page. Now does this mean the Lightsphere doesnt work? ohh no it works as advertised but costs quite a bit more then a STO-FEN EY and does the same thing.. so I ask why pay more for a Gary Fong Lightsphere when all it does is fall off the flash if you're on the move (due to its top heaviness)?

And forget about

http://www.garyfong.com/imagesdaily/lightspherehugegroup.jpg

That looks like its got 3200ws of light pumped into that not some "Lightsphere" and on camera flash.

[JNB]

The Lightsphere crap is just an over priced piece of miniature Tupperware and Gary Fong is an AMAZING marketer if he can sell a piece of dog ***** with his name on it then I can guaranty you he can sell the Tupperware without any problem. I think the first hint anyone can gather as to how great Gary is when I saw his "Getting Rich 2-DVD Set" on his front page. Now does this mean the Lightsphere doesnt work? ohh no it works as advertised but costs quite a bit more then a STO-FEN EY and does the same thing.. so I ask why pay more for a Gary Fong Lightsphere when all it does is fall off the flash if you're on the move (due to its top heaviness)?

And forget about

<<pic snipped>>

That looks like its got 3200ws of light pumped into that not some "Lightsphere" and on camera flash.

So, how do you really feel? :p

Look, the Sto-Fen is a simple diffuser, but doesn't do anything for refraction or reflection. It's been around for decades in one form or another (actually, that type of slip-on diffuser used to be included with many flash heads), and I can achieve the same results for free. I'm not against it at all, and if you like the results, great. Hey, I prefer Canon glass, and you may prefer Tamron. Same thing, just a matter of preference there.

My point was that I've just compared shots using naked flash in several direct and bounce configurations, the Sto-Fen, and the Lightsphere, and quite honestly, the LS kicks everything else's ass for the resulting image, short of moving up to more studio-appropriate equipment. Yeah, the price is absurd for what it is, but what isn't? The link I provided above shows that you can get either for a fraction of the "retail" price. What's to complain about?

As far as your doubts regarding the shots that GF has on his website, there's always the FTC if you believe it's a blatantly false or misleading representation. From my direct experience, it's pretty much spot on, even if he's about the most annoying, self-aggrandizing piece of puffery I've seen since http://www.chadnelson.com/ ;)

[Lovesong]

From my direct experience, it's pretty much spot on, even if he's about the most annoying, self-aggrandizing piece of puffery I've seen since http://www.chadnelson.com/ ;)

Oh no, you didn't. Chad Nelson in awesome. My favorite website, ever since I stumbled onto it in the "most useless website thread."

http://www.chadnelson.com/photo/page%201/Chad-New-House-3.jpg
:p


Edit: He- beaverton... what a douche.

[MacNoobie]

So, how do you really feel? :p

Look, the Sto-Fen is a simple diffuser, but doesn't do anything for refraction or reflection. It's been around for decades in one form or another (actually, that type of slip-on diffuser used to be included with many flash heads), and I can achieve the same results for free. I'm not against it at all, and if you like the results, great. Hey, I prefer Canon glass, and you may prefer Tamron. Same thing, just a matter of preference there.

My point was that I've just compared shots using naked flash in several direct and bounce configurations, the Sto-Fen, and the Lightsphere, and quite honestly, the LS kicks everything else's ass for the resulting image, short of moving up to more studio-appropriate equipment. Yeah, the price is absurd for what it is, but what isn't? The link I provided above shows that you can get either for a fraction of the "retail" price. What's to complain about?

As far as your doubts regarding the shots that GF has on his website, there's always the FTC if you believe it's a blatantly false or misleading representation. From my direct experience, it's pretty much spot on, even if he's about the most annoying, self-aggrandizing piece of puffery I've seen since http://www.chadnelson.com/ ;)

Yup and when we've ran a few tests inside the studio between a Sto-Fen and the Lightsphere II and really saw no discernible difference between them. I'm not exactly sure the reflection and refraction come into play honestly the dome itself isnt a perfectly rounded so to speak and has the dimples all around the outside of it, shooting against a colored wall seemed to have revealed the dimples in the light patterns. Like I said the LS system works.. does it produce the rich images filled with even lighting of the girl found in Gary Fongs video? heck no but it doesn't do any better then a cheap Sto-Fen.

We tried it out on a Fuji S2 and S3 and SB800 set on manual, not exactly a formal test but every day shooting style. Like I said I'm not against it (Lighsphere or Gary Fong) but after shooting with it during a wedding (fast paced a lot of moving around) I'm convinced that theres really not a system aside from maybe stepping up to a Qflash or portable studio lighting that really does a head over heels better job at diffusing at scattering the light.

Anyways the thing with the umbrella.. I dunno I cant see that working really well I mean if you were up close at eye level to the subject I could see it working ok but beyond that I dont think it'd be any spectacular.. it does make for an interesting show though I dont know how many people shots I'd get with a gizmo like that on my head.

[-hh]

The Lightsphere crap is just an over priced piece of miniature Tupperware and Gary Fong is an AMAZING marketer...

That's often the case ;)

Now does this mean the Lightsphere doesnt work? ohh no it works as advertised but costs quite a bit more then a STO-FEN EY and does the same thing.. so I ask why pay more for a Gary Fong Lightsphere when all it does is fall off the flash if you're on the move (due to its top heaviness)?

The basic rule of physics always applies, namely, "Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". I used diffusers on my UW camera system for ~5 years and the action of diffusing to get them to cover a wider area always reduces the effective output, even if the system were somehow 100% efficient (which they aren't).

As such, the only question is: "How many Stops of power did it lose?"

Sure, one can argue that the strobe just needs to put out more power to compensate, but how is it ever able to exceed 100%?


And forget about

http://www.garyfong.com/imagesdaily/lightspherehugegroup.jpg

That looks like its got 3200ws of light pumped into that not some "Lightsphere" and on camera flash.

The "two" images are so nearly identical (try overlaying them), that I'm tempted to say that its either the same shot that's been Photoshopped, or the one was taken as part of a burst and the strobe system(s) failed to fire correctly. What I noticed was that not a single person (out of 200+) moved, including the kids.

Thus, if Mr. Fong is claiming that a strobe with a lightsphere is better than no strobe at all, the answer to that one is "duh!".

I'd put my money on the strobe(s) actually functioning, plus some post-processing. Probably some dodge/burn to prevent the background walls from becoming too lightened up.


-hh

[-hh]

Oh no, you didn't. Chad Nelson in awesome. My favorite website, ever since I stumbled onto it in the "most useless website thread."

In looking at Chad's ego-page ... I'm glad I missed that thead.

Maybe I should update my website to say:

"Hi, here's my house. Guess what? Its paid for!"
"Hi, here's my boat. Guess what? Its paid for!"
"Hi, here's my car. Guess what? Its paid for!"

etc.

Maybe a photo of my college diploma too, so that I can also point out that my Student Loans are all paid off. If all of that doesn't impress chicks from Craig's list, gosh - nothing will :D

FWIW, I found it particularly humorous to see a 3 car garage with cars sitting out in the snow. Mayhaps because he's in hock up to his eyeballs and can't afford the electric garage door openers? :rolleyes:


-hh

[Jeremy!]

If ever there was a site that needed hacking that would be it! (I'm not suggesting it!)

We should start a new thread of "pompous twits, aka a-hole.com". You have any more of chad.com-like sites?

Getting back to lightsphere....I don't get it. Aim the flash up with a white card to bounce it forward. Same thing. That 'hat thing' was even more stupid, if you can't take a good shot without a flash in broad daylight, you got bigger problems.

Personally I think all flashes suck. Anything other than a 'fill-in' flash destroys the image. The light is too harsh and cold - no matter how many bits of tuperware crap you put on it.

[jessica.]

If ever there was a site that needed hacking that would be it! (I'm not suggesting it!)

We should start a new thread of "pompous twits, aka a-hole.com". You have any more of chad.com-like sites?

Getting back to lightsphere....I don't get it. Aim the flash up with a white card to bounce it forward. Same thing. That 'hat thing' was even more stupid, if you can't take a good shot without a flash in broad daylight, you got bigger problems.

Personally I think all flashes suck. Anything other than a 'fill-in' flash destroys the image. The light is too harsh and cold - no matter how many bits of tuperware crap you put on it.

I beg to differ with you regarding "all flashes suck". If the reason you say they suck are true then you aren't using your flash right. Flashes are very effective when used correctly.

[compuwar]

Personally I think all flashes suck. Anything other than a 'fill-in' flash destroys the image. The light is too harsh and cold - no matter how many bits of tuperware crap you put on it.

If you can't light properly, that will always be true. Which is why we generally find "I only shoot natural light" to be a synonym for "I don't know how to light." Mostly due to (a) not understanding lighting and (b) not being equipped to light well. I've never seen anyone who could light well say "I only shoot natural light."

Want to understand lighting? Take cinematography somewhere good- you'll almost never hear a cine guy say "I only shoot natural light!" The reason for that is if you control the light, you control the image, and Hollywood exercises creative control over every single scene of every single film. So do good commercial and wedding photographers.

Light modifiers like softboxes, grids, reflectors, umbrella fabric and colors, scrims, gobos, beauty rings, etc. all control the harshness, direction and color of the light. If it's too harsh and too cold, you haven't lit the scene correctly if that's not the look you were shooting for. Look at the lighting on strobist.blogspot.com and objectively evaluate it- if he can do that with minimal equipment in the field, then obviously "harsh and cold" is a matter of lack of technique and minimal equipment.

Personally, I'd probably go for a Photoflex Q39 XS before I went for a LS- but modifiers work, even the cheapo Stofen ones or an index card rubber-banded to the flash head.

Personally, I think most natural light portraits suck as anything other than snapshots. But then Rembrant and the like have endured because of the way they portray the lighting as well as their skill with a brush. If you want art, you need the light to be right. With people, the easiest way to achieve that is with a flash or two, a couple of modifiers and some skill.

[ChrisA]

The Lightsphere diffuses, reflects, and refracts the light in somewhat equal proportions in a 360 x 300 or so degree sphere, whereas an umbrella would be mostly reflective in a relatively narrow arc, with a bit of diffusion and refraction thrown in as a side effect rather than part of the inherent design.

The Lightsphere works because the light falling on the subject takes two different paths (1) directly from the camera and (2) reflected off the walls and ceiling.

Light's "softness" depends on the size of the light source. When ever light is defused or reflected off a mat surface the surface of the diffuser or reflector becomes the light source. The walls and ceiling of a room are the largest light source possible. and to this the LS adds just a little directional light that adds a bit of "snap". No magic here. Yu can get the exact same effect by attaching an empty plastic milk jug to the flash The one qt. size fits nicly.

That said. If you are a wedding photographer or any kind of pro who sells to consumers (rater then selling to Art Directors and the like) your customers will judge your photographic skills by the sophistication and cost of your equipment. They think "He has expensive gear, he must be good." So even if the milk jug did produce the same effect, for self promotional reasons you may want to the LS.

I think a lot of photo gear is sold this way, not because of the results but because the photographer wants to make a certain impression

[Butthead]

I prance around with one on from time to time. Trust me. I have at least a dozen reasons to look stupid, the lightsphere is pretty much the least of my worries!


Photos, or it doesn't happen! ;)

LMFAO yeah, not a chance!

You tease :p, any in your B-day suit ;) ? Risque tupperware parties rock! We need pictures :eek:

[Butthead]

If you can't light properly, that will always be true. Which is why we generally find "I only shoot natural light" to be a synonym for "I don't know how to light." Mostly due to (a) not understanding lighting and (b) not being equipped to light well. I've never seen anyone who could light well say "I only shoot natural light."

Want to understand lighting? Take cinematography somewhere good- you'll almost never hear a cine guy say "I only shoot natural light!" The reason for that is if you control the light, you control the image, and Hollywood exercises creative control over every single scene of every single film. So do good commercial and wedding photographers.

Light modifiers like softboxes, grids, reflectors, umbrella fabric and colors, scrims, gobos, beauty rings, etc. all control the harshness, direction and color of the light. If it's too harsh and too cold, you haven't lit the scene correctly if that's not the look you were shooting for. Look at the lighting on strobist.blogspot.com and objectively evaluate it- if he can do that with minimal equipment in the field, then obviously "harsh and cold" is a matter of lack of technique and minimal equipment.

Personally, I'd probably go for a Photoflex Q39 XS before I went for a LS- but modifiers work, even the cheapo Stofen ones or an index card rubber-banded to the flash head.

Personally, I think most natural light portraits suck as anything other than snapshots. But then Rembrant and the like have endured because of the way they portray the lighting as well as their skill with a brush. If you want art, you need the light to be right. With people, the easiest way to achieve that is with a flash or two, a couple of modifiers and some skill.

All opinions, I think natural light portraits look *much* better than aritificially lit portraits...if, and that's a big if, you can get a good asthetically pleasing natural lighting situation. Usually that's not easy, so we use fill light to compensate/adjust for less than ideal lighting, natural lighting. I prefer warmer tones in pictures (so does Ken R. :D), but I hate extreme exaggeration/over the top vivid colors that look utterly unnatural too my eye (like Ken R. likes to do).

So it comes down to preferences and asthetics. Light does not have to be "right" for art or anything else, who are you to presume otherwise?

Barry Lyndon, candlelight cinematography, but some little known obscure director you might have heard of. Is it better? No, it's an asthetic that the director preferred (noting that much of Barry Lyndon was artificially lit).

Don't recall too many famous flash shots by Ansel Adams. Man Ray, polar opposite (what I see in the extreme examples of the HDR thread)...art of photography, or both. Personal preferences, neither are better.

Both still and video imagery still lacks what the human eye can perceive in tonal/dynamic range, so either are a compromise. You think the indoor barn scenes in the TV series Smallville look natural, or anything like what your eye would see inside such a barn, lol? No, but you are watching storytelling with famous actors well lit so you can see every detail on their faces from a camera perspective that is too far away from what a person being their would see. Lex Luthor's manson, nice stained glass windows, lol. If you know anything about lighting you see all the 'tricks' to bump up tremendously the light levels to be more uniform...there is intense light up there above the camera viewpoint.

Did you ever see the 1st full length HD movie from Russia called 'Russian Arc'? With early, limited DR modified Sony HD camcorder, the two continous shot movie, moves from one room of the Hermitage museum to the other, passing through a stairwell where the light levels were too low, and you could clearly see 'grey' blacks in that scene. You could clearly see WB problems with incandescent lit chandelliers next to a large floor to ceiling windows that view into a snow covered courtyard. But through the rooms of the Hermitage you had ceiling balloon lighting as the camera operator moves from one room to the next.

Human eye has greater range of adjustment for light levels than can be currently caputured or represented in most video or still imagery, so there needs to be a compromise.

For me, looking at a large size image, poster size of that choir picture, I prefer something in between the lower image and the top one, but leaning to the top one for more realistic, rather than 'pumped' up image below that looks like there is a bank of 18kw HMI balloons on the ceiling. Fine for little tiny images being viewed on the internet, but looks too artificial to me.

In the end it all depends on what your objectives are, if you don't understand lighting very well, then you probably don't get the pictures you want, either 'natural' appearance (and again, what that looks like, is mostly subjective), or 'exaggerated'...which is what I see in the lower choir shot.

Is Man Ray right, is Ansel Adams right? Answer is that both are right for what they want to express.

[compuwar]

All opinions, I think natural light portraits look *much* better than aritificially lit portraits...if, and that's a big if, you can get a good asthetically pleasing natural lighting situation. Usually that's not


It's more than usually, since you don't get good fill naturally- sure there are cases where a single light source on its own brings out an evocative mood, but that's the rare exception that would be so over if lots of folks did it anyway...


easy, so we use fill light to compensate/adjust for less than ideal lighting, natural lighting.


Which was my point...


So it comes down to preferences and asthetics. Light does not have to be "right" for art or anything else, who are you to presume otherwise?


If you're the type of person who includes flinging poo at a canvass to be art, then likely we'll disagree on this issue- however I've been in lots of galleries in the US, UK, Germany, France, Denmark and Norway- and I can say pretty much hands-down that the number of pieces painted or photography which were there for artistic rather than historical merit had the lighting "right" no matter if from a natural source or an artificial one (including the artist's vision in paintings.)

Would any of us go through the expense of setting up studio lighting if it weren't the best way to go? If it didn't give us the results we want? If it didn't give our clients the results they want?


Barry Lyndon, candlelight cinematography, but some little known obscure director you might have heard of. Is it better? No, it's an asthetic that the director preferred (noting that much of Barry Lyndon was artificially lit).


If you're just nitpicking corner cases, then you get the point of the message. Sometimes there's some value in being different, but usually if there's a large body of experience that has everyone going in the same direction, it's for a good reason.



Don't recall too many famous flash shots by Ansel Adams. Man Ray, polar


Perhaps you'd best do a bit more historical study:

Author Name: Ansel Adams

Title: Artificial Light Photography : Basic Photo Five
Publisher: New York New York Graphic Society 1956
ISBN Number: 0-8212-0720-2 / 9780821207208

While most of what Ansel's famous for are wide landscapes where you simply can't control the light in camera (and therefore have to get up early and get in position, then add in your artificial light in post processing) even in the pre-strobe days he was writing books on artificial lighting.

I suppose you also consider dodging and burning to be "natural light?" I don't think Durst made a sunlight-driven enlarger.

Finally, in Dawson's 1957 film "Ansel Adams, Photographer" you'll find his equipment list included: "hyperlight strobe portrait outfit." I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have drug one around if he didn't think it necessary.



opposite (what I see in the extreme examples of the HDR thread)...art of photography, or both. Personal preferences, neither are better.



We can look at the body of work in terms of people photography, and we can see where natural light works best and where it doesn't. We can look at the entire art world and see the same. Just like the folks who fling poo on canvass and call it art, we can see how that's played out historically and we can assign popularity and likely endurance values to it and we can get it mostly right, barring a very few exceptional corner cases... Since we can also create the same temperature and intensity of light artificially the predicate runs only in one direction for the natural crowd and two for the artificial crowd. It's not a zero sum game.

Maybe you can categorize poo-flinging as art, and maybe it's a valid form of self-expression in humans as well as monkeys, but I think we can pretty-much agree it's not anywhere near the mean case for art.


Both still and video imagery still lacks what the human eye can perceive in tonal/dynamic range, so either are a compromise. You think the indoor barn scenes in the TV series Smallville look natural, or anything like what your


That too is the point. You're executing a vision, not just snapping a picture if you have control of the light.



In the end it all depends on what your objectives are, if you don't understand lighting very well, then you probably don't get the pictures you want, either 'natural' appearance (and again, what that looks like, is mostly subjective), or 'exaggerated'...which is what I see in the lower choir shot.


Again my point...


Is Man Ray right, is Ansel Adams right? Answer is that both are right for what they want to express.

Ansel used lots of artificial light, both in camera and in the darkroom to get his shots to match his vision. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously hasn't spent more than fifteen minutes studying his darkroom work or reading large body of work he left as his legacy.

If it takes you a few days to print your negative, you're spending that time on artificial light- otherwise you'd see lots more straight prints from his negatives, especially the large format ones. I've seen it said he was a poor photographer and great printer, but I don't believe that's true- I think he just envisioned scenes that his camera couldn't record naturally and that he couldn't light artificially to match his vision, so he took what he could and added his lighting in post processing.

[Abstract]

Flash is always better. Always.

I agree with compuwar. Most people who say "I want to shoot in natural light" really mean to say, "I don't know how to use a flash, and when I do, the subject is well lit but the background is pitch black."

If you control the light, you control the photo. I don't know if that's arguable, because photography is all about capturing the light. For the most part, there's always a part of a scene that's not ideally lit in a natural way. In some situations, this can be used to a photographer's advantage, as it adds a dramatic effect. However, this is not the norm. In most situations where a flash can be used (ie: not natural landscapes and such), if the lighting isn't good, then the "natural light" photo could have been improved in those areas with a flash.


And about the LS: I think it probably works, but again, it's a rip-off and isn't much better than anything else out there. If you use a rating system for lighting, and assume that ideal, perfect lighting is 100/100 points, and a professional studio-lit photo is usually rated 95-100 points out of 100, then what would you rate an LS, a Stofen, and a ceiling bounce? The LS may get a score of around 70, the Stofen gets a 65-70, and the ceiling bounce flash generally gets a rating of 60-70 (depending on the ceiling and the room). These are just arbitrary values, but my point is that the difference between them all is minimal. If you really really REALLY cared, there are a lot of other factors to worry about, and how to better correct for it. However, this takes time and work. I don't care about 5/100 point difference.

I think the LS is probably good, but like ChrisA said, the only reason people like the LS is because of image. There's nothing that it does that's special. A milk jug can substitute and do as well. The problem is image, and would you want to walk around with a milk jug attached to your camera.

Give me a LS knock-off any day. The LS and knockoffs are alldesigned around the milk jug design. ;)

[jessica.]

You tease :p, any in your B-day suit ;) ? Risque tupperware parties rock! We need pictures :eek:

My b-day isn't for a while and I'm not fond of suits. ;)
How is it that even when I attempt to be clean it turns into...well...not so clean!?

[JNB]

One (thankfully) last comment from me on the whole lighting dust-up: I really don't give a rat's ass about Gary Fong, or the LS marketing, or whether someone prefers the Sto-Fen. What works, works. It's really that simple. For about three bucks each, I'll take both, because they have different strengths & weaknesses, and each has their place.

As far as looks, once again, I really don't care. It doesn't embarrass me or puff my ego that my camera body is silver, or my lens is white. I'm not out to impress anyone, much less care what they think about my gear or talent. I just like taking shots that satisfy me. If that means I put Tupperware on my flash, a helmet on my noggin, or chartreuse slippers on my feet, so be it. If it gives me marginally better photographs, so much the better. I will draw the line at Speedo's, though. I'm not into bikini waxing.

Make you a deal: if anyone hates the LS that much, PM me and I'll buy you one, entirely at my own expense. (Um, first response only - I'm not THAT much of a sucker!) Just try the darn thing. It does work quite well, and even with my limited skills, I was pretty surprised at how effective it was. It's not like it's a crime or admission that you think Bill Gates has a good idea from time to time, or anything truly appalling like that...

Now that I've found a cheap(er) source, I'm buying a Sto-Fen to go with my Tupperware. Maybe an umbrella hat, too, but only if it holds a beer can as well.

[Jeremy!]

If you can't light properly, that will always be true. Which is why we generally find "I only shoot natural light" to be a synonym for "I don't know how to light." Mostly due to (a) not understanding lighting and (b) not being equipped to light well. I've never seen anyone who could light well say "I only shoot natural light."

Want to understand lighting? Take cinematography somewhere good- you'll almost never hear a cine guy say "I only shoot natural light!" The reason for that is if you control the light, you control the image, and Hollywood exercises creative control over every single scene of every single film. So do good commercial and wedding photographers.

Light modifiers like softboxes, grids, reflectors, umbrella fabric and colors, scrims, gobos, beauty rings, etc. all control the harshness, direction and color of the light. If it's too harsh and too cold, you haven't lit the scene correctly if that's not the look you were shooting for. Look at the lighting on strobist.blogspot.com and objectively evaluate it- if he can do that with minimal equipment in the field, then obviously "harsh and cold" is a matter of lack of technique and minimal equipment.

Personally, I'd probably go for a Photoflex Q39 XS before I went for a LS- but modifiers work, even the cheapo Stofen ones or an index card rubber-banded to the flash head.

Personally, I think most natural light portraits suck as anything other than snapshots. But then Rembrant and the like have endured because of the way they portray the lighting as well as their skill with a brush. If you want art, you need the light to be right. With people, the easiest way to achieve that is with a flash or two, a couple of modifiers and some skill.


Condescending to the point of being pompous.........Perhaps you and Chad know each other? ;)

I was doing wedding photography twenty years ago with three synced flashes, two bounced off umbrellas so.........why do you assume I know so little? Odd. I said flashes suck. Not control of lighting. Not artificial light. Just flashes. They are cold. They have an intensity I dislike. They are too bright, too intense and too fast. Do any of you feel relaxed and at ease when YOU get a face full of flash? Everything about it is artificial. It is interesting to note how many that are 'pro flash' here have described different ways to overcome their short-comings. Filters, diffusing, bouncing. Is it just me or are you not bending over backwards to get a flash to give you a useful light? You are kind of proving my point. I think perhaps my experience has sensitized me to the foibles and pitfalls of the flash to the point were small flaws in the lighting caused by a flash jump out at me. Perhaps people who like flashes so much, no longer see flaws I see. They see a well lit scene, I see an over lit medical-photo-like effect. I see real world natural, they see lack of definition, and overly soft images. Eye of the beholder and such...

Maybe it is different for some of you, but I don't live under a flash. I live in a partially lit world, with shadows and bright patches. Most light I see in the day is soft and diffuse. If every image was perfectly lit and each pixel was exposed perfectly you'd have a 30% gray card. I have several flashes, I use them when I must. They still suck.

And just for the record the images I saw on the lightsphere website - I thought they reeked of flash........sorry.

I hate tripods too......if you care.....;)

AS far as Hollywood being in control of every frame. Yup, you have a point. Maybe that's why I like indie-films so much. It's real.

I see a lot of stuff that is very unreal. Especially coming out of 'Hollywood' (or to be more precise their mindset) It is like kraft slices of cheese. It is so processed and controlled it is no longer cheese.

[compuwar]

I was doing wedding photography twenty years ago with three synced flashes, two bounced off umbrellas so.........why do you assume I know so little? Odd. I said flashes suck. Not control of lighting. Not artificial light. Just flashes. They are cold. They have an intensity I dislike. They are too bright, too intense and too fast.


Here is exactly why I assume you know so little. The way I read it, you're saying that for 20 years every flash picture you have taken is harsh and cold- I'm asserting that it doesn't have to be that way- most especially if you're using modifiers like umbrellas. Lots of photographers shoot flash only in TTL with the flash on a bracket and end up with poorly-lit shots, lots of them do it for more than 20 years. I'd ask the reverse, if you can't get a warm, soft picture with flashes, what makes you think you know so much?

Let's look at your elements:

Harshness-

You have three easy controls for harshness- turn down the power on the flash head, increase the distance to the flash head or use a diffuser (LS, Stofen, Softbox, Lee filter pack...) If you're using umbrellas, you'll get harsher light from silver ones (which is why they're great for pet shots, they tend to bring out the fur detail)- you can either put in a gold reflector or use a shoot-through- both will give noticeably softer and in the case of the gold umbrella warmer light. I happen to think the Wescott silvers are muted enough to be ok, as they're not as harsh as some of the cheaper brollies I've seen, but these days you can get them with removable and reversible panels.

Depending on your method, a bounce card can also help soften the light if you're not using other modifiers.

Dragging the shutter to bring up the level of ambient light in the picture will also help significantly with harshness, assuming you adjust the flash output accordingly.

When you're using a softbox, larger and closer will give more diffuse light than smaller and further away.

Coldness-

As mentioned above, a gold brolly will give warmer light, as will a gold reflector in a softbox or on its own. You can also gel the lights. Lee makes some nice location filter packs. Some flashguns, like the Nikon SB-800 come with a built-in warming gel. Finally, you can simply white balance differently these days (as opposed to putting a warming filter on the enlarger head back in the day.)

I'm not sure what "too fast" is- even natural light obeys the speed limit ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

I hate flashes too, just so you all know. I too feel like they make things look too artificial, and they are a distraction to constantly be tinkering with to get the desired effect. But that doesn't make me any less of a photographer, it's just a personal preference. I think that compuwar is coming off a bit egotistical with this stance he/she is taking.

I've got a big huge hot-shoe flash with a guide number of 150 and some alien bees and umbrellas; but they are not fun to use, nor do they make me or the subject feel at ease (which only adds to the fakeness of the images that result). Here's how I see it, some people like all the help they can get, others like to do it on their own and see just what they can accomplish with just the camera and a fast lens. I'm in the latter camp, compuwar is in the former. It really doesn't matter, I'm sure some wonderful photos are made with flash and without. Why do we even need to debate this?

That being said, I have had the occasion where I was left with no choice but to whip out the flash in a crappily lit stairwell or someplace like that. I don't care what anyone says, if you want to keep your ISO down there's times where even an F1.4 won't get you the shutter speeds you need. It's times like those that I don't mind having my flash around, but every single other time I'll go without it and am consistently more pleased with the results.

SLC

[Jeremy!]

Here is exactly why I assume ...........
I think the first part of your reply pretty much sums it all up. ;) Too many assumptions, perhaps even to the point of being rude. That's O.K., at least your reply is full of suggestions others may wish to try. Not all is lost.

Although some may find your suggestions insightful, they are old news to me. In fact the card bounce I suggested earlier in this thread. In my opinion, you have gone to great lengths to perfectly illustrate why flashes 'suck'.

"I'm not sure what "too fast" is- even natural light obeys the speed limit" Ha. ha. ha. very droll. Fast, harsh, mechanical. It is more a comment on the method of approaching the subject.

FYI: I rarely go anywhere without a flash handy.....which sucks. But it does beat the six-pack of candles - especially on a windy day ;)

I think as LED camera lights mature, you will see flashes start to wane and go the way of the flash bulb. Wireless LED units arranged around a scene should offer superior flexibility in both color balance, intensity, diffusion and power consumption. Of course you can keep your flash and continue wrapping it up in gold foil like a baking potato if you are so inclined. You could keep it with your tuperware :)