Gary Fong Lightsphere II - DPChallenge Forums

09/27/2006 09:30:24 AM · #2

DO IT!!! Awesome...you wont regret it. If I shoot flash...it is on.

edit - Here is mine

Message edited by author 2006-09-27 09:32:16.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/27/2006 09:35:00 AM · #3

We have two different flashes and I bought a Lightsphere for both. They are fantastic in terms of the results and were well worth the money. I used to use a Stofen filter and the Lightsphere craps all over it! I'm sure you'll be happy with what you get out of it!

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/27/2006 09:35:25 AM · #4

Here, I made it easy for you. It's now available at B+H Photo. They work awesome!

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

09/27/2006 09:46:29 AM · #5

I am having the same debate....well sort of...

I own a Lightsphere and for portrait work it is awesome. That said, mine is the original. It's big and bulky and not collapsible.

I hear the Lightsphere II is soft and malleable (and thus probably a lot easier to carry in a pouch). So I am thinking of buying a LSII.

That said, I hear the top is still hard plastic and not malleable. So I am unsure what to do.

But if I did not have any Lightsphere, than without a doubt...I'd buy one.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

09/27/2006 09:57:00 AM · #6

See this thread for a little different perspective and some useful information.

dleach

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/27/2006 04:12:11 PM · #7

Well I ordered my flash and Lightsphere last night....

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/27/2006 04:39:53 PM · #8

yeah i would say it is worth it. I use it every day for real estate photography. It spreads the light around nicely.

I have the new version, and yes it is soft plastic (except the top). so when you take the top off, it is possible to squish, flatish to get into a bag and not have it take up tons of room. It is a little deformed when you put it on, but if you use the top, the shape sorts itself out again

notesinstones

Nikon D200

09/27/2006 04:57:21 PM · #9

Love mine with a capital L. I use it all the time, and I swear its incredible.

Heres one from a couple of days ago - I saw this kittens nose over the top of a bookcase during a shoot for a family at thier home and stuck the camera with the Lightsphere on it over my head, and shot blindly at her on a whim. It was about... maybe... 8 inches away from the ceiling?

And its indespensible for when I am requested to take photos in this style:

and

I use either a window or a reflector to highlight the side.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/27/2006 05:20:15 PM · #10

I have one and it's collecting dust. In bounce situations, it's not doing anything different from what a flash without one would look like (other than robbing you of output). It's a gimmick.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

09/27/2006 05:24:40 PM · #11

Originally posted by virtuamike:

It's a gimmick.

Nice opinion.

I have 2 they never collect dust. I use them all the time and they are not a gimmick but a useful tool when needed.

Just my opinion ...

Message edited by author 2006-09-27 17:25:04.

fotomann_forever

09/27/2006 05:30:27 PM · #12

Originally posted by virtuamike:

In bounce situations, it's not doing anything different from what a flash without one would look like (other than robbing you of output). It's a gimmick.

Not quite true... in a bounce situation you have to deal with darkness under the eyebrows and potentially shadows under the nose and chin. With the lightsphere in bounce configuiration some of the light is allowed to fill from the front and depending on how closely walls are to you from the sides.

Yes, the Lightsphere II, at least the clouded version, takes about two stops of flash exposure compensation, but that's pretty easy to compensate for. Any diffuser or bounce is gonna lose some light. I've tried everything from pocket softboxes to pocket bounces and IMO the LSII outperforms most other on-camera diffusion/bounce systems.

Message edited by author 2006-09-27 17:32:22.

09/27/2006 05:34:40 PM · #13

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by virtuamike:
It's a gimmick.

Nice opinion.

I have 2 they never collect dust. I use them all the time and they are not a gimmick but a useful tool when needed.

Just my opinion ...

In a bounce situation, whatever you're bouncing the light off of will already soften the light. There's no need to diffuse when bouncing (hence why the instructions usually say to take the dome off when bouncing).

In a direct lighting situation, you're better served by balancing the exposure rather than trying to modify shadows created by your flash (unless you're going for the direct camera flash look, of which I'm not a fan of).

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/27/2006 05:40:41 PM · #14

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by virtuamike:
In bounce situations, it's not doing anything different from what a flash without one would look like (other than robbing you of output). It's a gimmick.

Not quite true... in a bounce situation you have to deal with darkness under the eyebrows and potentially shadows under the nose and chin. With the lightsphere in bounce configuiration some of the light is allowed to fill from the front and depending on how closely walls are to you from the sides.

Yes, the Lightsphere II, at least the clouded version, takes about two stops of flash exposure compensation, but that's pretty easy to compensate for. Any diffuser or bounce is gonna lose some light. I've tried everything from pocket softboxes to pocket bounces and IMO the LSII outperforms most other on-camera diffusion/bounce systems.

Flashes spill more light than Lightsphere marketing make it sound. Just angle your flash, or on a modern flash with zoom change the coverage. You don't need a Lightsphere to get spill from the front.

And 2 stops is pretty significant. That means you're using your flash at 1/4 its capacity. That's the difference between shooting at ISO200 and ISO800, or f/5.6 instead of f/2.8, etc.

jemison

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/27/2006 05:43:41 PM · #15

Here is the result of a real and standardized test. Like it or not, this is what the testing showed:

******************

For easier reference here are the images I compared:

(1)

(2)

(4)

(5)
bare flash..................Stofen....................LumiquestSoftbox..........MysteryMod..........Lightsphere

Hopefully, the formatting will appear correctly. I took the liberty of slightly modifying Megatherian's Lightsphere image by flipping horizontally and increasing the white point so that it would be a bit easier for comparison. Thanks again Dan for contributing.

I rank the diffusion in this order (worst to best)1,2,5,3,4.

The hardest call for me was between 2 and 5. I didn't particularly care for the double shadow produced by the LightSphere. This may have been accentuated by the nature of the test, which put the subject fairly close to the background. I'm not really sure about that though, since the separation between the two shadows would be greater further from the background.

Some of the things I noticed.
...All the modifiers seemed to shift the White balance to the warm side. This could use some study, imo.
...The amount of diffusion exhibited was directly related to the size of the apparent lightsource. This is no surprise to me, nor, I suspect, for many of you. That is the whole principle behind softbox lighting - and pointsource lighting as well. IMO there is no "Magic Bullet" to be had. The physics of light doesn't allow for bending of light rays (usually, though General Relativity allows for it around black holes, ect.). any "softening" of the light comes from a broader apparent source, not from a magical device.
...there seems to be a bit of confusion in regards to the correct way to use the LightSphere in it's several configurations. If is is meant to be used only in bounce configuration it would be quite useless to me, since one can not count on having a suitable bounce surface. And if one could count on it, I think something like a Lumiquest Softbounce (not sure of the name) with something like 80% bounced and 20% direct would do at least as well as the Lightsphere. Kirbic has posted several messages that agree with this. His messages seem to me to show the greatest amount of understanding, or at least expression, of the principles involved. Re-reading his posts is quite informative in light of the test results. To be fair, perhaps an additional test of the LightSphere is in order...one that uses direct light on the subject, thus matching the other conditions. I strongly suspect however, that the results would be similar - at best.

I did not set out to prove a point nor to discredit the LightSphere. If it had done better I would have bought one. I did want to show that hype cannot always be believed without testable results. Without very similar testing conditions, ones that will clearly show the characteristics of interest (light diffusion in this case), it is really not possible to make an informed decision. I think that this thread has illustrated that point very clearly.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended anybody or appeared stubborn. Thanks to all who got involved.

Oh yeah...the "Mystery Modifier"...I am going to post a new thread showing what it is.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/27/2006 05:44:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by virtuamike:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by virtuamike:
It's a gimmick.

Nice opinion.

I have 2 they never collect dust. I use them all the time and they are not a gimmick but a useful tool when needed.

Just my opinion ...

In a bounce situation, whatever you're bouncing the light off of will already soften the light. There's no need to diffuse when bouncing (hence why the instructions usually say to take the dome off when bouncing).

In a direct lighting situation, you're better served by balancing the exposure rather than trying to modify shadows created by your flash (unless you're going for the direct camera flash look, of which I'm not a fan of).

I appreciate your expertise on the matter. However as I only speak for me ... I love mine and use them with great success.

fotomann_forever

09/27/2006 05:47:12 PM · #17

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I appreciate your expertise on the matter. However as I only speak for me ... I love mine and use them with great success.

Yup... plus it just looks cool on top of my flash and makes girls wanna get naked... LOL

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for Pentax

09/27/2006 05:48:39 PM · #18

Fill situation. Built-in flash on the D70 at max output to balance his face with the sky. Shot at noon. Robbing 2 stops would've made the shot impossible because there wouldn't have been enough output to balance the exposure.

Leok

Pentax K10D

09/27/2006 05:51:01 PM · #19

Originally posted by jemison:

Here is the result of a real and standardized test. Like it or not, this is what the testing showed:

******************

For easier reference here are the images I compared:

(1)(2)(3(4)(5)
bare flash..................Stofen....................LumiquestSoftbox..........MysteryMod..........Lightsphere

Hopefully, the formatting will appear correctly. I took the liberty of slightly modifying Megatherian's Lightsphere image by flipping horizontally and increasing the white point so that it would be a bit easier for comparison. Thanks again Dan for contributing.

I rank the diffusion in this order (worst to best)1,2,5,3,4.

The hardest call for me was between 2 and 5. I didn't particularly care for the double shadow produced by the LightSphere. This may have been accentuated by the nature of the test, which put the subject fairly close to the background. I'm not really sure about that though, since the separation between the two shadows would be greater further from the background.

Some of the things I noticed.
...All the modifiers seemed to shift the White balance to the warm side. This could use some study, imo.
...The amount of diffusion exhibited was directly related to the size of the apparent lightsource. This is no surprise to me, nor, I suspect, for many of you. That is the whole principle behind softbox lighting - and pointsource lighting as well. IMO there is no "Magic Bullet" to be had. The physics of light doesn't allow for bending of light rays (usually, though General Relativity allows for it around black holes, ect.). any "softening" of the light comes from a broader apparent source, not from a magical device.
...there seems to be a bit of confusion in regards to the correct way to use the LightSphere in it's several configurations. If is is meant to be used only in bounce configuration it would be quite useless to me, since one can not count on having a suitable bounce surface. And if one could count on it, I think something like a Lumiquest Softbounce (not sure of the name) with something like 80% bounced and 20% direct would do at least as well as the Lightsphere. Kirbic has posted several messages that agree with this. His messages seem to me to show the greatest amount of understanding, or at least expression, of the principles involved. Re-reading his posts is quite informative in light of the test results. To be fair, perhaps an additional test of the LightSphere is in order...one that uses direct light on the subject, thus matching the other conditions. I strongly suspect however, that the results would be similar - at best.

I did not set out to prove a point nor to discredit the LightSphere. If it had done better I would have bought one. I did want to show that hype cannot always be believed without testable results. Without very similar testing conditions, ones that will clearly show the characteristics of interest (light diffusion in this case), it is really not possible to make an informed decision. I think that this thread has illustrated that point very clearly.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended anybody or appeared stubborn. Thanks to all who got involved.

Oh yeah...the "Mystery Modifier"...I am going to post a new thread showing what it is.

An interesting obeservation - the shadow behind the light globe is the smallest, lightest and softest with the MysteryMod which suggests to me tthat is is quite big - will be interesting to see what it is...

Message edited by author 2006-10-03 07:27:15.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/27/2006 05:51:57 PM · #20

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by virtuamike:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by virtuamike:
It's a gimmick.

Nice opinion.

I have 2 they never collect dust. I use them all the time and they are not a gimmick but a useful tool when needed.

Just my opinion ...

In a bounce situation, whatever you're bouncing the light off of will already soften the light. There's no need to diffuse when bouncing (hence why the instructions usually say to take the dome off when bouncing).

In a direct lighting situation, you're better served by balancing the exposure rather than trying to modify shadows created by your flash (unless you're going for the direct camera flash look, of which I'm not a fan of).

I appreciate your expertise on the matter. However as I only speak for me ... I love mine and use them with great success.

Try taking it off ;)

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

09/27/2006 05:53:43 PM · #21

Originally posted by virtuamike:

Try taking it off ;)

:-P