DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Gary Fong Lightsphere II
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 48 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/27/2006 09:51:32 PM · #26
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Jemison,

There were a number of issues with your test, discussed and unanswered in your original thread.

The LS is not magic, and spilling light from a 580 EX using the pull out card, or multiple flashes will produce good effects too.

However, the LS provides good results easily for more reasons that just being diffuse, and as a diffuser it strikes a good balance between portability and size (it is easily portable, unlike your mystery mod).

I think that it is ease of use is a very significant factor in its popularity.


I fully agree with LegalBeagle....and if you only knew what that meant... *lol*

;)
 09/27/2006 10:01:50 PM · #27
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Jemison,

There were a number of issues with your test, discussed and unanswered in your original thread.

The LS is not magic, and spilling light from a 580 EX using the pull out card, or multiple flashes will produce good effects too.

However, the LS provides good results easily for more reasons that just being diffuse, and as a diffuser it strikes a good balance between portability and size (it is easily portable, unlike your mystery mod).

I think that it is ease of use is a very significant factor in its popularity.


I tried to answer all issues brought up in the thread. Do you have something specific in mind? As an owner of the LS why didn't you give the test a try? It was really quite simple to do, but the funny thing is that only one person who had a LS gave it a try. Nobody else was willing to try to prove that it was the best. It didn't even perform as well as the Lumiquest Softbox, which is every bit it's equal in portability and ease of use. It is easy to criticise what are admittedly not rigorous scientific tests. They were designed to be as fair and unbiased as possible, considering that more than one person was needed to participate. The reluctance of the LS owners to step up to the plate says volumes. If you have a better idea for testing against other on-camera flash light modifiers, post it. Otherwise why don't you give the test a try as requested? Make the LightSphere shine. Give it it's best attempt. If you can show that it is better than even the Lumiquest Softbox that will be better than anyone else did.
 09/27/2006 10:16:35 PM · #28
Never mind... :)

Message edited by author 2006-09-27 22:17:42.
 09/27/2006 10:20:19 PM · #29
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Hmm...neither of those have a very solid background for catching shadows...


That's not always the point. The point here is that you can use the flash and LS to diffuse the light over the face of the subject without blowing out features of the subject. At least that's what I'd get out of those examples.

I like my LS, also... it really does make a positive difference.


Actually, the point I was trying to make is that you don't need the LS to diffuse light. Those are bare flash shots :)

And I'm not sure why not having a solid background would be an issue. I don't run around purposely placing my subjects next to walls. Who wants shadows? ;)
 09/27/2006 10:31:27 PM · #30
Originally posted by jemison:


I tried to answer all issues brought up in the thread. Do you have something specific in mind? As an owner of the LS why didn't you give the test a try? It was really quite simple to do, but the funny thing is that only one person who had a LS gave it a try. Nobody else was willing to try to prove that it was the best. It didn't even perform as well as the Lumiquest Softbox, which is every bit it's equal in portability and ease of use. It is easy to criticise what are admittedly not rigorous scientific tests. They were designed to be as fair and unbiased as possible, considering that more than one person was needed to participate. The reluctance of the LS owners to step up to the plate says volumes. If you have a better idea for testing against other on-camera flash light modifiers, post it. Otherwise why don't you give the test a try as requested? Make the LightSphere shine. Give it it's best attempt. If you can show that it is better than even the Lumiquest Softbox that will be better than anyone else did.


I think I just remembered why I stopped frequenting a site that I once loved.... somehow the "I'm better than you" attitude just really got on my freaking nerves.

Originally posted by alanfreed:
Never mind... :)


Yeah, what he said.
 09/27/2006 11:26:24 PM · #31
Demb Flash Diffusers
*easily portable
*cheaper than LS
May be worth a try
 09/27/2006 11:29:50 PM · #32
Look, I am not some uber-LS fan. Thought I do think it great. When I bought it I was quite skeptical. But I really like the effect it has. That said, there are many shots where it's just not the right tool and I'm popping it off and tossing it to the side.

I won't even argue that the Lightsphere is the best. I will argue that it is a darn good product with it's uses. It's not an end all be all.

Originally posted by "jemison":
It didn't even perform as well


IMHO, you have no basis to state how well it performed because you are comparing two groups and you have no control independently evaluate. You do not know if the wall, bulb, flash (yes, could even be the same model but if it's fired more it might light differently), etc. had influenced it.

---

Frankly, regarding your stepping up to the plate comment and speaking volumes. Well, the number one volume is "time". And I imagine for most people that is the issue at hand.

The second issue is that I don't have all the others as you seem to have.

In fact, if you really want, I might contemplate letting you borrow my Lightsphere if you have the time and inclination to re-do the test you did with the Lightsphere. In truth, I think if such a test is done it would be best if it was done in a variety of shots for each unit. Or perhaps two shots each:

- one shot all at the same camera settings and set intensity
- one shot optimized for each unit

Though as the Lightsphere is designed to be used multiple ways (up, direct, up with dome, direct with dome) it might be nice to do it in all four of those to see which is best. Such would kill two birds with one stone.

It may be the LS may do lousy when all the settings are the same, but may do better if the flash power is boosted. Anyways, it will be a much more accurate test and presentation and directly comparable.

If you are inclined, PM me. It may very well turn out that the Lightsphere is not the best. No biggie to me. I'm not some uber fan boy. I think it's a nifty tool and nothing more. But I think it would be a much fairer comparison.

- Saj

09/27/2006 11:37:18 PM · #33
I don't think there's a wrong or right here. If you're happy using a Lumiquest and get good results, that's great. If you're happy using a Lightsphere (I know I am), that's great too. Same for Stofen, "mystery mods," etc. For me, what I like best about the Lightsphere is its versatility. It does a decent job of diffusing a straight-on flash, and if you get a spot with white ceilings or walls just pop the dome off and bounce the flash and get a subtle fill-in from the front. I don't know many flash diffusers that can do both, and there's nothing gimmicky about that.

Despite what diffuser you have on your flash, using a flash on a rotating bracket is the probably best way to eliminate shadows with a single flash as it puts the shadow behind the subject out of view. The only shadow that you usually get is a small amount underneath the chin, but that is usually flattering to your subject as it defines the jawline better. -Nothing scientific there, just my opinion.

All that aside, how about this for some serious flash diffusion :-) :
09/28/2006 12:04:55 AM · #34
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
All that aside, how about this for some serious flash diffusion :-)


I like it. Just don't get caught in the wind.... :-)
 09/28/2006 11:50:37 AM · #35
Thanks for all the response. I am going to get one. I am doing a wedding in October I think it will help in many situations.
Again thanks for all the help

Eric
 09/28/2006 12:08:15 PM · #36
Originally posted by ecameron:
Thanks for all the response. I am going to get one. I am doing a wedding in October I think it will help in many situations.
Again thanks for all the help

Eric


Just as a bit of advice, there are those who have mentioned that the intense work of a wedding (many shots without much downtime between) has overheated their flash because the LS basically forces it to fire at full power for every shot and doesn't let the heat escape rapidly. No scientific proof here, just a thing I've seen mentioned.
 09/28/2006 12:31:52 PM · #37
If you notice...everyone that doesn't own a lightsphere says it sucks and everyone that does own one says its great.

For my next point, I'll illustrate how I can say that the Canon 5D sucks complete ass and my 30D will beat it any day of the week. I don't own a 5d, but apparently that gives me sufficient say in how well it performs since I do own a 30D.

NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO SAID THE LIGHTSPHERE SUCKS HAS PROVEN IT, NOT EVEN CLOSE. That supposed "test result" with the lightbulbs is so scientifically innaccurate a five year old could tear it down.

And I can prove the shadows/diffuse with raw bounce flash vs. lightsphere with shots of my own if everyone would like to show that the lightsphere produces far better shots.


09/28/2006 12:41:48 PM · #38
Originally posted by nards656:


I think I just remembered why I stopped frequenting a site that I once loved.... somehow the "I'm better than you" attitude just really got on my freaking nerves.



Well, you're still here, so if you've got a better way to test different flash mods let's hear it. Whining about your perception of "better than you" is just a cop-out.
 09/28/2006 12:42:30 PM · #39
Originally posted by theSaj:
Look, I am not some uber-LS fan. Thought I do think it great. When I bought it I was quite skeptical. But I really like the effect it has. That said, there are many shots where it's just not the right tool and I'm popping it off and tossing it to the side.

I won't even argue that the Lightsphere is the best. I will argue that it is a darn good product with it's uses. It's not an end all be all.

Originally posted by "jemison":
It didn't even perform as well


IMHO, you have no basis to state how well it performed because you are comparing two groups and you have no control independently evaluate. You do not know if the wall, bulb, flash (yes, could even be the same model but if it's fired more it might light differently), etc. had influenced it.

---

Frankly, regarding your stepping up to the plate comment and speaking volumes. Well, the number one volume is "time". And I imagine for most people that is the issue at hand.

The second issue is that I don't have all the others as you seem to have.

In fact, if you really want, I might contemplate letting you borrow my Lightsphere if you have the time and inclination to re-do the test you did with the Lightsphere. In truth, I think if such a test is done it would be best if it was done in a variety of shots for each unit. Or perhaps two shots each:

- one shot all at the same camera settings and set intensity
- one shot optimized for each unit

Though as the Lightsphere is designed to be used multiple ways (up, direct, up with dome, direct with dome) it might be nice to do it in all four of those to see which is best. Such would kill two birds with one stone.

It may be the LS may do lousy when all the settings are the same, but may do better if the flash power is boosted. Anyways, it will be a much more accurate test and presentation and directly comparable.

If you are inclined, PM me. It may very well turn out that the Lightsphere is not the best. No biggie to me. I'm not some uber fan boy. I think it's a nifty tool and nothing more. But I think it would be a much fairer comparison.

- Saj


PM sent.
 09/28/2006 12:46:40 PM · #40
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by ecameron:
Thanks for all the response. I am going to get one. I am doing a wedding in October I think it will help in many situations.
Again thanks for all the help

Eric


Just as a bit of advice, there are those who have mentioned that the intense work of a wedding (many shots without much downtime between) has overheated their flash because the LS basically forces it to fire at full power for every shot and doesn't let the heat escape rapidly. No scientific proof here, just a thing I've seen mentioned.


Yeah, for that reason, I'd recommend shooting with the dome off for most of the wedding. Which isn't a problem, because most church/hall celinigs are pretty high anyway.

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:48:29.
 09/28/2006 12:54:59 PM · #41
Originally posted by jemison:
I tried to answer all issues brought up in the thread. Do you have something specific in mind? As an owner of the LS why didn't you give the test a try? It was really quite simple to do, but the funny thing is that only one person who had a LS gave it a try.


1. - Main reason is that I have mostly halogen lights... no bulbs at home!

2. - As I said before, the test is a little false. The LS is a tool that works quite flexibly. It provides a large diffuse light source outside where there is no bounce capability and a pleasing round catchlight. It spills light towards the subject effectively when used in "bounce" mode (the amount of spilled light is a lot - as you say, 2 stops worth, which is a lot more spilled light than you get from other diffusers). It does these things without requiring any thought by the photographer, which makes it V easy to use.

3. - Your test subject matter (a naked bulb) does not properly reflect the type of subject that the LS is designed for - principally, people, with complicated shadow/highlight contours that benefit from a large amount of spilled light as well as the diffuse light from being bounced.

If you were using the LS as nothing more than a softbox, then undoubtedly there are better systems out there for that purpose (eg a proper softbox, similar to your mystery mod).

Message edited by author 2006-09-28 12:56:17.
 09/28/2006 01:43:40 PM · #42
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

If you were using the LS as nothing more than a softbox, then undoubtedly there are better systems out there for that purpose (eg a proper softbox, similar to your mystery mod).


Don't knock the mystery mod ... there may be a good market for it with lightbulb photogs :-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist ...
09/28/2006 02:02:12 PM · #43
Originally posted by KevinG:
If you notice...everyone that doesn't own a lightsphere says it sucks and everyone that does own one says its great.

...

NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO SAID THE LIGHTSPHERE SUCKS HAS PROVEN IT, NOT EVEN CLOSE. That supposed "test result" with the lightbulbs is so scientifically innaccurate a five year old could tear it down.


I have a LS on my desk collecting dust because I don't think it's all that great. There are alternatives that provide infinitely more control than some Gary Fong $40 plastic piece of marketing. Even the samples on his webpage aren't accurate (the only shots where he bothered to balance the exposure are the ones with the LS). I use my flashes bare and I get decent results.

Try a bounce card for starters. They're super compact (I use my Costco card most of the time), you can adjust front fill by changing the angle, and you get more output because you don't waste as much light sending it off frame.
 09/28/2006 02:28:05 PM · #44
Man... fairly strong opinions here. I ordered one and since it is relative inexpensive I can give it a try. I just received my flash today so I need to play around with it before I can post examples. If it doesn't work out then I'll just not use it that much.

I did notice that my 580ex has a built-in diffuser and a white card for bouncing...

09/28/2006 04:31:51 PM · #45
Originally posted by KevinG:
If you notice...everyone that doesn't own a lightsphere says it sucks and everyone that does own one says its great.


I own one (actually, my wife does) and I don't say it's great. I don't say it's terrible, either, just that I don't really like the look of the resulting photos.

09/28/2006 05:06:31 PM · #46
Originally posted by jemison:
Originally posted by Leok:


An interesting obeservation - the shadow behind the light globe is the smallest, lightest and softest with the Lightsphere. This in itself is very handy for many situations... and one area where it clearlty excels.


I think you are misinterpreting the results. Clearly the LightShpere was middle of the road (at best) in diffusing the shadow. The sharp edges of the shadow it produced show that it is not doing a very good job of diffusion. The size of the shadow only appears a bit smaller because the image is not quite as large as the others. Besides, the more diffuse the shadow, the larger it will be.


Spot on - I misread the captions under the the post... edited my original text but you were too quick for me....

Would be interesting to repeat the tests with something the size of someone's head rather than a lightglobe IMHO - most people use this stuff for portraits not product shots...
 09/28/2006 05:12:37 PM · #47
Mystery modifier is here - interesting to see that it is just a giant lightsphere (OK lightcube) - one of those occasions when bigger is better ;-)

Then again I can't imagine trying to shoot a wedding with something that big on my camera :P

Message edited by author 2006-10-03 07:27:25.
 09/28/2006 05:59:33 PM · #48
Here is a nice article on flash photography: //www.planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:34:12 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 05:34:12 PM EDT.