| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2006 09:57:02 PM · #1 |
Ok so in the past I have loved doing Macros, but truthfully I sucked at them. I have studied some of the masters here on DPC and learned a few things. The biggest thing I have always struggled with was getting enough light to get the DOF I wanted. Well today I think I hit on the combination. The Lightspehere from Gary Fong, something I never tried before but its perfect. I took this photo at work today But it adds the perfect amount of light to get what I needed to make my combination at least alot more usable. F22, lightsphere, flash in bounce mode and a nice model willing to work with me.
 
Comments? Critiques? Any suggestions that will make it better? Oh did I mention the lightsphere rocks?
Edit to add the finished edit where I could sit down and clone out most of the dust. Both are up now to compare. Thanks for the comments.
MattO
Message edited by author 2006-08-15 22:58:15.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:09:07 PM · #2 |
| Great shot Matt, you're right the lighting is awesome. What lens did you use? Off subject but I just read about Brandon and his struggle with MD, he and your family will always be in my prayers. He is a great looking young man that any dad would be proud to call his son. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:11:24 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:17:02 PM · #4 |
I'm fond of the catch lights in the eyes.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:25:39 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by JOHNBOY1970:
Great shot Matt, you're right the lighting is awesome. What lens did you use? Off subject but I just read about Brandon and his struggle with MD, he and your family will always be in my prayers. He is a great looking young man that any dad would be proud to call his son. |
The lens is my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with a kenko extension tube, used my Sigma 500 Super flash with the lightspere.
Thanks for the prayers for my son he is a wonderful boy and is the light of my life.
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:34:46 PM · #6 |
Nice image Matt. Clean that sensor though
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:45:33 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Ok so in the past I have loved doing Macros, but truthfully I sucked at them. I have studied some of the masters here on DPC and learned a few things. The biggest thing I have always struggled with was getting enough light to get the DOF I wanted. Well today I think I hit on the combination. The Lightspehere from Gary Fong, something I never tried before but its perfect. I took this photo at work today(please forgive the sensor dust, I need a cleaning) But it adds the perfect amount of light to get what I needed to make my combination at least alot more usable. F22, lightsphere, flash in bounce mode and a nice model willing to work with me. Comments? Critiques? Any suggestions(besides the dust) that will make it better? Oh did I mention the lightsphere rocks? |
Nice Shot Matt, but IMO the LightSphere had little, if anything, to do with it. You said that in the past you had trouble getting enough light for the dof you wanted. Well, the LS only gave you less light (2 stops or so). So how did it help you get more light? You said that you used it in bounce mode - what did you bounce off of, and could you have bounced the light without the LS?
The LS has its uses, but it certainly isn't anything magical. See the results of some testing here
near the bottom of the third page. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:50:37 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by MattO:
Ok so in the past I have loved doing Macros, but truthfully I sucked at them. I have studied some of the masters here on DPC and learned a few things. The biggest thing I have always struggled with was getting enough light to get the DOF I wanted. Well today I think I hit on the combination. The Lightspehere from Gary Fong, something I never tried before but its perfect. I took this photo at work today(please forgive the sensor dust, I need a cleaning) But it adds the perfect amount of light to get what I needed to make my combination at least alot more usable. F22, lightsphere, flash in bounce mode and a nice model willing to work with me. Comments? Critiques? Any suggestions(besides the dust) that will make it better? Oh did I mention the lightsphere rocks? |
Nice Shot Matt, but IMO the LightSphere had little, if anything, to do with it. You said that in the past you had trouble getting enough light for the dof you wanted. Well, the LS only gave you less light (2 stops or so). So how did it help you get more light? You said that you used it in bounce mode - what did you bounce off of, and could you have bounced the light without the LS?
The LS has its uses, but it certainly isn't anything magical. See the results of some testing here
near the bottom of the third page. |
I disagree, the lightsphere gave me diffused light not harsh light that direct flash would have given me. Could I have bounced without the lightsphere II? Heck no, the ceilings at work are about 25 foot tall, I had the top on the lightshere so it WAS the bounce. I have no doubt in my mind that the lightsphere made this shot happen. You can believe what you want, but I know what my own personal experiences have been, and I know that this shot wouldnt have happened without it. I am a believer and will use it from this point on. Did I have to turn my flash up more then I would have with direct flash, heck yes I did, but the lightsphere diffused and changed the lighting to make it usable.
Regards,
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 11:25:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by MattO:
Ok so in the past I have loved doing Macros, but truthfully I sucked at them. I have studied some of the masters here on DPC and learned a few things. The biggest thing I have always struggled with was getting enough light to get the DOF I wanted. Well today I think I hit on the combination. The Lightspehere from Gary Fong, something I never tried before but its perfect. I took this photo at work today(please forgive the sensor dust, I need a cleaning) But it adds the perfect amount of light to get what I needed to make my combination at least alot more usable. F22, lightsphere, flash in bounce mode and a nice model willing to work with me. Comments? Critiques? Any suggestions(besides the dust) that will make it better? Oh did I mention the lightsphere rocks? |
Nice Shot Matt, but IMO the LightSphere had little, if anything, to do with it. You said that in the past you had trouble getting enough light for the dof you wanted. Well, the LS only gave you less light (2 stops or so). So how did it help you get more light? You said that you used it in bounce mode - what did you bounce off of, and could you have bounced the light without the LS?
The LS has its uses, but it certainly isn't anything magical. See the results of some testing here
near the bottom of the third page. |
I disagree, the lightsphere gave me diffused light not harsh light that direct flash would have given me. Could I have bounced without the lightsphere II? Heck no, the ceilings at work are about 25 foot tall, I had the top on the lightshere so it WAS the bounce. I have no doubt in my mind that the lightsphere made this shot happen. You can believe what you want, but I know what my own personal experiences have been, and I know that this shot wouldnt have happened without it. I am a believer and will use it from this point on. Did I have to turn my flash up more then I would have with direct flash, heck yes I did, but the lightsphere diffused and changed the lighting to make it usable.
Regards,
MattO |
OK you bounced with the dome on. In other words you didn't really increase the size of your apparent light source. Your light source was exactly the size of the LS. Any apparent lightsource as large as the LS (lumiquest softbox for one) would have done the same job. There is no way to "bend" light. No light modifier does that. Not even the LS. The light comes directly from all points of the apparent light source, whether it is the sun or the largest softbox there is.
If you believe that the LS was the only way you could have gotten those results so be it. You are not alone. And Fong is getting rich off the hype. I'm not saying that it doesn't work for you. Obviously it does. And you are happy with it and are more confident using it. There is something to be said for that.
As any doctor will tell you, the placebo effect is real - and it works. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 11:34:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jemison:
OK you bounced with the dome on. In other words you didn't really increase the size of your apparent light source. Your light source was exactly the size of the LS. Any apparent lightsource as large as the LS (lumiquest softbox for one) would have done the same job. There is no way to "bend" light. No light modifier does that. Not even the LS. The light comes directly from all points of the apparent light source, whether it is the sun or the largest softbox there is.
If you believe that the LS was the only way you could have gotten those results so be it. You are not alone. And Fong is getting rich off the hype. I'm not saying that it doesn't work for you. Obviously it does. And you are happy with it and are more confident using it. There is something to be said for that.
As any doctor will tell you, the placebo effect is real - and it works. |
Please dont misunderstand me, yes any light modifier source might have done what the LSII did. But my choice of use is the LSII. I couldnt have done it TODAY without it. You sound miffed that Gary Fong created something that people like. Not sure why you picked my thread to do that but thats not for me to discuss. At any rate I'm done discussing this with you. I'm pleased with the results and so are many others and wether you think its important or not isnt really all that important to me. If you would kindly take your rant about the lightsphere somewhere else I'd appreciate it.
MattO
Message edited by author 2006-08-15 23:57:15.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 01:00:29 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by jemison:
There is no way to "bend" light. No light modifier does that. |
Putting aside your nonsensical rant about Gary Fong's success, the above statement is dead wrong.
Any time light goes from one medium to another medium with a different index of refraction, it changes both direction and speed. How else do you think the lenses you put on your camera work?
If you're going to state physical absolutes, please study up.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 01:03:32 AM · #12 |
| The photos looks very good, however you have some serious sensor dust. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:33:03 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jemison:
There is no way to "bend" light. No light modifier does that. |
Putting aside your nonsensical rant about Gary Fong's success, the above statement is dead wrong.
Any time light goes from one medium to another medium with a different index of refraction, it changes both direction and speed. How else do you think the lenses you put on your camera work?
If you're going to state physical absolutes, please study up. |
You are quite wrong. The rays of light in the situation you give are not bent. They are refracted. In no way are they bent. They continue in a straight line. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:35:53 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by MattO:
You sound miffed that Gary Fong created something that people like. Not sure why you picked my thread to do that ...
MattO |
The thread title is not about a photo, it is "Another reason the Lightshpere ROCKS!" If you don't want to discuss the LS, why not change the thread title. Your photo does indeed rock, but the LS is another thing entirely. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:50:05 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jemison:
The rays of light in the situation you give are not bent. They are refracted. In no way are they bent. They continue in a straight line. |
Refraction is the bending of light as it passes between materials of different optical density.
Refraction
Refraction
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 11:52:01. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:50:42 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jemison:
There is no way to "bend" light. No light modifier does that. |
Putting aside your nonsensical rant about Gary Fong's success, the above statement is dead wrong.
Any time light goes from one medium to another medium with a different index of refraction, it changes both direction and speed. How else do you think the lenses you put on your camera work?
If you're going to state physical absolutes, please study up. |
You are quite wrong. The rays of light in the situation you give are not bent. They are refracted. In no way are they bent. They continue in a straight line. |
NO, I'm not wrong, refraction is the bending of light.
If you're going to make up your own physics, please keep the discussion to those entities that exist in your own little world where your imaginary physics applies.
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 11:54:24. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:52:26 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by MattO:
You sound miffed that Gary Fong created something that people like. Not sure why you picked my thread to do that ...
MattO |
The thread title is not about a photo, it is "Another reason the Lightshpere ROCKS!" If you don't want to discuss the LS, why not change the thread title. Your photo does indeed rock, but the LS is another thing entirely. |
I'm sensing some animosity towards Mr. Fong. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:55:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by MattO:
You sound miffed that Gary Fong created something that people like. Not sure why you picked my thread to do that ...
MattO |
The thread title is not about a photo, it is "Another reason the Lightshpere ROCKS!" If you don't want to discuss the LS, why not change the thread title. Your photo does indeed rock, but the LS is another thing entirely. |
Lets agree to disagree huh? I obviously think highly of the LSII and you dont. You feel strongly that the Mystery Modifier or Lumiquest softbox works just as well and I respect that, cant you do the same?
Regards,
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 11:57:17 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by MattO:
You sound miffed that Gary Fong created something that people like. Not sure why you picked my thread to do that ...
MattO |
The thread title is not about a photo, it is "Another reason the Lightshpere ROCKS!" If you don't want to discuss the LS, why not change the thread title. Your photo does indeed rock, but the LS is another thing entirely. |
Lets agree to disagree huh? I obviously think highly of the LSII and you dont. You feel strongly that the Mystery Modifier or Lumiquest softbox works just as well and I respect that, cant you do the same?
Regards,
MattO |
i like your lightsphere so much i have evil plans of stealing it from you in your sleep ;) |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:05:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kaelva:
[i like your lightsphere so much i have evil plans of stealing it from you in your sleep ;) |
Your so Evil like that! Maybe thats why I like you so much, maybe we should plot to take over the world. Pinky and the Brain kind of thing!
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:05:31 PM · #21 |
It's quite possible on this shot, since the LS allows light from the back and sides, that indeed the apparent lightsoure of fill light is much bigger than the lightsphere.
Light could (and probably is) being reflected by not only walls, but also MattO's clothing.
I don't have anything to post, but I've been experimenting with using reflectors with the LS with good results. Place a reflector behind the Lightspere and you can get good fill light, place it off to the side and you can make portraits that have a ratio'd lighting scheme.
There is nothing mysterious about the LS. It works for the applications it was designed for, if you know how to use it. Experimenting with it, allows you to know it's strong points and weaknesses.
Take my ducky for example. I could have bounced light from my flash directly off a reflector (cieling) above him. But, then I would also have to provide fill for the front side of the ducky. That would be easy enough to set up, placing my hand (or a piece of paper) directly behind the flash would have worked.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:07:50 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kaelva:
[i like your lightsphere so much i have evil plans of stealing it from you in your sleep ;) |
Your so Evil like that! Maybe thats why I like you so much, maybe we should plot to take over the world. Pinky and the Brain kind of thing!
MattO |
haha there we go.. you can be the brain.. i'll be pinky.. wait .. which one is more evil? |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:09:54 PM · #23 |
what's this refraction bidness? I thought it was reflection......
On a serious note, I have a LS as well and have found myself using it less and less and less because I have fallen in love with the angular bounces and reflectors. Not to say it doesn't work, and I don't do indoor weddings or anything, but just commenting on my current status in regards to the Fonginator
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 12:52:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jemison:
The rays of light in the situation you give are not bent. They are refracted. In no way are they bent. They continue in a straight line. |
Refraction is the bending of light as it passes between materials of different optical density. |
OK, I stand corrected though I think that perhaps we are into symantics here. The point is that once the light leaves the LightSphere or any other light source, it travels in a straight line - assuming it is traveling through the same medium. It doesn't "curve" around the subject in any way. Once it leaves the light source, it is essentially the same "softness" no matter what the source as long as it is of equal size.
 crude illustration of my point.
I will be happy to bow out of this thread, since it appears that no one is really interested in discussing why the LightSphere seems to Rock, despite the thread title.
Peace |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 01:06:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jemison:
The rays of light in the situation you give are not bent. They are refracted. In no way are they bent. They continue in a straight line. |
Refraction is the bending of light as it passes between materials of different optical density. |
OK, I stand corrected though I think that perhaps we are into symantics here. The point is that once the light leaves the LightSphere or any other light source, it travels in a straight line - assuming it is traveling through the same medium. It doesn't "curve" around the subject in any way. Once it leaves the light source, it is essentially the same "softness" no matter what the source as long as it is of equal size.
crude illustration of my point.
I will be happy to bow out of this thread, since it appears that no one is really interested in discussing why the LightSphere seems to Rock, despite the thread title.
Peace |
The problem with the illustration is that you have all the light rays traveling forward in both. With the Lightshpere the light would be traveling 360 degrees out of it. you are right, it does not bend the light around the subject - but that's not what the Lightsphere claims to do. Basically it just turns your flash into a turbo bounce flash, bouncing the light off of everything around you. That's why in the example video Gary is in a hallway - lots of surfaces to bounce off of. That's not a bad thing though. Bounce flash has been used for many many years and is seen by most as a good thing. A small apparatus for $50 doesn't seem like a lot of money to most folks to improve the efficiency of their bounce flash. It's a more practicle solution for many than carrying around large reflectors or cooler size pieces of styrofoam. That's not to say other products are bad - it's just to say that the Lightsphere is useful and does have a place in many people's tool kits. It's not a miracle device but it is a useful device - one of which many people enjoy the benefits of. |
|
