LightSphere the best? Show me. - DPChallenge Forums

08/03/2006 03:24:18 AM · #51

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Well I did the best I could to create the test situation you asked for. It was all measured out to the inch like you asked.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D70 - so shot at ISO 200 but then used 1/50 to compensate. I did not have a totally plain white wall so I shot against an unpainted piece of drywall (light grey).

You said point the flash directly at the bulb - but that's not how you're supposed to use the lightsphere so I pointed it up with the dome on.

Didn't do anything to the photo but scale it down.

You didn't say anything about ambient light so I shot in almost complete darkness.

Flash used was an sb600.

Hope this helps.

DAN!!! You're the MAN!!! Yes indeed, that helps immensely. Thanks so much for restoring my faith in the scientific curiosity of fellow DPCers.

Forgive me for not commenting more extensively right now, but it's 1:30am here and I'm hitting the sack - much relieved I might add. I will post more extensive commentary in the morning.

Thank you again!!!

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

08/03/2006 07:40:21 AM · #52

Never freaking mind.

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 07:41:48.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/03/2006 08:11:51 AM · #53

Thanks for your persistence Jemison.

I would love to see what you have to say about the results...

It seems to me after reading some of the other comments that you might be on to something.

Don't worry about the peanut gallery. I don't really understand why people would be getting offended about this.

It was a simple request to perform something according to a standardization with a light bulb. I thought that the tripod head provided fairly good information, but because of the possible insufficiency with the strength of the flash, I can see why further results would be desired.

We all have different styles of shooting different settings and where one person might not see a need to shoot enough shots to really push the flash unit, another person in a different circumstance (particularly lower light with higher ceilings) might need to push things a lot harder... thus ending up with predictable equipment failure.

Surely the professionals out there could see where this would be an undesirable trait for a peice of equipment.

I've been thinking about different ways to make flash brackets and reflectors/soft boxes myself... I've been thinking about larger surface areas for diffusion and ways of controlling the directionality. But I am very green.

carisakD70

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/03/2006 08:32:35 AM · #54

I also have a lighsphere, but have not had it for very long. I will also try the test if I have time when I get home this afternoon. I should have enough time. BTW...it is not that I don't like my lightsphere, or that I am afraid it will perform badly...I just have not had time to do this kind of thing since this thread was started. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. Lightsphere only cost me $45 if I remember right...if there is something better out there I would love to know about it!

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

08/03/2006 08:42:08 AM · #55

Originally posted by jemison:

Originally posted by nards656:
I don't know if anyone wants to see a "non-conforming test", but I do have a lightsphere - well, Karma does - and I've done a similar test just for my own interest. Exposure settings don't match, but these were done in a basically dark room with manual focus and manual exposure at the indicated settings... The center of the lamp is 6" from the wall. Shots are resized only. No exposure compensation or any other adjustments. I see a tremendous difference in shadows, but I also see that my flash is too weak to ever completely compensage for being turned vertical AND being totally diffused. It's a Bower, by the way, on the 300D. I'm sure it maxed out and just couldn't completely expose correctly.

See my reply above to thegrandwazoo.

So sorry to intrude. Next time I'll stay clear. I do have opinions if you are ever interested in them. Maybe PM me so I don't muddy the waters? :)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/03/2006 09:25:53 AM · #56

Originally posted by Megatherian:

You said point the flash directly at the bulb - but that's not how you're supposed to use the lightsphere so I pointed it up with the dome on.

I would note that the Lightsphere is supposed to be used with the dome on pointing at a subject, or dome off and bounced.

I am afraid that I don't have any standard lamps that use standard bulbs to help with the test (mostly halogen nowadays).

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/03/2006 09:32:02 AM · #57

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
You said point the flash directly at the bulb - but that's not how you're supposed to use the lightsphere so I pointed it up with the dome on.

I would note that the Lightsphere is supposed to be used with the dome on pointing at a subject, or dome off and bounced.

I am afraid that I don't have any standard lamps that use standard bulbs to help with the test (mostly halogen nowadays).

If memory serves, according to the Gary Fong video that came with my Lightsphere II:

- Indoors, low ceiling = pointing up, dome off
- Indoors, high ceiling = pointing up, dome on
- Outdoors, no ceiling = pointing at subject, dome on.

I'll have to re-watch the video to be sure, I am a bit senile.

I'll try to do the test later.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

08/03/2006 09:43:28 AM · #58

After watching this thread, my concern is the heating of the flash unit. Why would anyone risk a $500 flash with a $45 peice of tupperware? Is there a long term effect on an expensive flash unit by being overheated? Does that diminish the effectiveness or accuracy of an automatic flash such as the 550 or 580? Has anyone had overheat issues with any other types of diffusers?

It just doesn't sound like it's worth the possible damage to an expensive flash. Maybe when only taking a couple dozen photos during a meeting or presentation the heating is not going to be a problem. Whatch all think of this issue?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/03/2006 10:15:00 AM · #59

After seeing nards's and Megatherian's tests, I'm not that impressed witht he LightSphere's performance. Any good diffuser should significantly broaden the transition from light to shadow, and the lightshpere appears to mostly be just be filling the shadow by redirecting a lot of the flash energy around the room, giving secondary reflection. I'm sure that the frosted dome, when pointed at the subject, *does* create some diffusion, but there are more effective ways to get it done.
Remembering that the end goal is to create a physically larger (more diffuse) light source while not wasting the flash energy, I'd suggest that illuminating an angled reflector is the most effective strategy. Much less energy is misdirected, and at least as large a source is possible with a lighter and more compact device.
The frosted dome will absorb a lot of light, and reflects a lot of light backward, where it will do no good for subject illumination. For my money, the Lumiquest 80/20 is a great bet. Very versatile and highly transportable.
With regard to diffusers and heat, the only time issues arise is when a diffuser prevents a lot of energy from leaving the flash head. The Sto-Fen is one I'd worry about. The LightSphere allows substantial space around the head but does reflect some energy back at the head (1); my SWAG would be that it won't cause a problem, except in extreme cases, perhaps.
(1)Any light reflected from the inside surface of a shpere from a source at the center of the sphere, is reflected back toward the source. Note that this is strictly true only for a mirrored surface, but even with matte surfaces, much of the energy still follows this path.

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

08/03/2006 10:20:17 AM · #60

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
You said point the flash directly at the bulb - but that's not how you're supposed to use the lightsphere so I pointed it up with the dome on.

I would note that the Lightsphere is supposed to be used with the dome on pointing at a subject, or dome off and bounced.

I am afraid that I don't have any standard lamps that use standard bulbs to help with the test (mostly halogen nowadays).

If memory serves, according to the Gary Fong video that came with my Lightsphere II:

- Indoors, low ceiling = pointing up, dome off
- Indoors, high ceiling = pointing up, dome on
- Outdoors, no ceiling = pointing at subject, dome on.

I'll have to re-watch the video to be sure, I am a bit senile.

I'll try to do the test later.

Perhaps I need to test with the dome off, as mine was done with the dome on. Again, apologies for muddying the waters, but I still think this is a good discussion.

There is a MAJOR problem with the Lightsphere, IMHO, but "does it do its job" IS the biggest question.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

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

08/03/2006 11:28:02 AM · #61

:-)

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 11:42:33.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/03/2006 11:40:10 AM · #62

This thread *could* be a great way to compare different strategies for flash diffusion, if we can avoid the verbal sparring. I know the OP was a bit unnecessarily demanding on the specifics of the test. Let's all grow a little thicker skins, and discuss the posted results. I do see similarities in results across the posted tests, and to me it doesn't look that great for the LightSphere.
And just what the bleep is that "mystery modifier?"

acrotide

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/03/2006 11:41:24 AM · #63

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I think you have the two indoor shots mixed up. They should be:

Indoors, low ceiling = pointed up, dome on
Indoors, high ceiling = pointed up, dome off

I guess some experimentation might yield some different or even better results, but this is what I got from the video. Of course if I'm wrong, then please ignore this post and chalk it up to me not having a ribbon :)

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

08/03/2006 12:15:38 PM · #64

Originally posted by kirbic:

Thick skin in place...

:)

Prof_Fate

08/03/2006 01:04:07 PM · #65

Originally posted by eschelar:

Surely the professionals out there could see where this would be an undesirable trait for a peice of equipment.

Ahh, but the pros use flash everyday (or all day when they do use it) and have learned to use it differently than joe average.

Up till now 98% of my flash work is done in Av mode. It's not perfect, but i'm used to it shall we say. this is joe average's way of shooting.

What most wedding photogs seem to do is put the camera on manual (1/60 f5.6 or so) and shoot, let the flash do the work of making the right exposure and keeping the ISO up to keep recycle time down and battery life long. This high ISO and flash works particularly well at a reception as no one is gonna want large prints so a bit more noise is not a concern.

I've experimented with this a bit and it does work better than it sounds like it will.

08/03/2006 01:13:50 PM · #66

Originally posted by kirbic:

(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.

Prof_Fate

08/03/2006 01:14:59 PM · #67

Originally posted by jemison:

Sure, the Lightsphere is all the rage right now, but I've been around long enough to have seen lots of fads that are nothing more than that. All I am asking is to be shown that it is as good as people say it is and better than what I've got. Why throw away the money?

It is really perplexing to see that not a single owner of a Lightsphere is willing to follow the very simple criteria and post the results. That tends to make some of us old farts suspicious as heck.

I got my LS used about 18 months ago (came with a used flash unit I got), so it's more than 'all the rage right now'. If it didn't work the 'net would be full of posts lambasting it to death don't you think? I've not heard anthing about it not working, only folks like you doubting it's ability to do what it says it does.

I've not performed the test for a couple of reasons, some I stated earlier. here are a couple of more - what model LS? there are several and there will be differences in performance. I leave for vacation tomorrow and am busy as heck, my studio is currently in pieces as an expansion is under way and I need to get that done ASAP, and I while like to help folks determine if a product is good or not or for them or not, I don't make a dime if you or anyone else buys a LS so my motivation to perform a test to convince you, when I am already convinced, is not that great.

It works as advertised. If you don't believe it, then don't buy it.

Prof_Fate

08/03/2006 01:23:38 PM · #68

Originally posted by jemison:

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.

yep, that's right.
that is why i performed this test -

This was taken outside with the LS, no dome, 'bounced' straight up into the night sky. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, for the light to bounce off of. Most people seem to thing the bouncing is how it works - not true. that is why you put the dome on in a low celiing room (and still aim it bounce mode wise)- it won't bounce as strongly this way. Same settings as the indoor ( 50mm 1.8 lens at 1.8, 1/60 and ISO 400 and exp comp +2 - still not sure why on that exp comp)

08/03/2006 02:02:29 PM · #69

For those interested in the Mystery Modifier it is revealed here.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/03/2006 02:37:43 PM · #70

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by jemison:
Sure, the Lightsphere is all the rage right now, but I've been around long enough to have seen lots of fads that are nothing more than that. All I am asking is to be shown that it is as good as people say it is and better than what I've got. Why throw away the money?

It is really perplexing to see that not a single owner of a Lightsphere is willing to follow the very simple criteria and post the results. That tends to make some of us old farts suspicious as heck.

I got my LS used about 18 months ago (came with a used flash unit I got), so it's more than 'all the rage right now'. If it didn't work the 'net would be full of posts lambasting it to death don't you think? I've not heard anthing about it not working, only folks like you doubting it's ability to do what it says it does.

I've not performed the test for a couple of reasons, some I stated earlier. here are a couple of more - what model LS? there are several and there will be differences in performance. I leave for vacation tomorrow and am busy as heck, my studio is currently in pieces as an expansion is under way and I need to get that done ASAP, and I while like to help folks determine if a product is good or not or for them or not, I don't make a dime if you or anyone else buys a LS so my motivation to perform a test to convince you, when I am already convinced, is not that great.

It works as advertised. If you don't believe it, then don't buy it.

Well, after seeing the results from the person that did do the test - I don't believe it and I won't buy it. No sweat that you didn't do the test. Your results were interesting, but not to-the-point. Sure there are a lot of different Lightsphere models out there and I would love to see the results of other models. If they produce superior results great...if not (and that seems most likely) that's fine, too. But Fong ain't getting my money...not for now at least.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/08/2006 07:59:24 AM · #71

I think that the lightsphere works well in a couple of ways, and perhaps for different reasons than you suggest/test here.

Pointing up, the LS turns a flash with one lightsource into a flash with two lightsources:

(1) the first is the body of the LS - this provides some fill light, catching shadows under chins and creating a reasonable fill light. It is fairly wide and diffuse, making it quite soft. However, it reflects only part of the light from the flash head, so it is not as strong as the light from a normal diffuser. This also creates a catch light in eyes (though a rounded oblong shape).

(2) bounced light: ideally from a white ceiling, giving you the traditional benefit of bounced flash, which is a very large, diffuse light from above (like a huge soft box). The dome is also a diffuser, so if you keep the dome on then you will diffuse the light before it hits the ceiling, creating greater diffusion/softer light.

Pointing directly at a subject (dome on) is using the LS as a large diffuser: it is larger than a stofen, probably therefore more diffused, and creates a pleasant round catchlight.

Because the LS diffuses the light more than, say, the Stofen, it forces the flash to a higher power output in order to output the same amount of light. This may be the reason for overheating (the same would presumably occur if you used the flash at high power for the same amount of time without the LS: the flash is obviously designed to cut out before damage occurs.

The LS does do a good job, though it is fairly cumbersome and can look a little ridiculous rather than professional.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

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

09/27/2006 10:44:59 AM · #72

Originally posted by jemison:

First, I would like to apologize for being a bit anal in the requirements for the test. Didn't mean to be offensive, but I do come from the perspective of calibrations training, so that may help explain it. Anyway, thanks to all who participated! I would still love to see examples of other flash modifiers...off-the-shelf or otherwise.

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.

I) this test is completely invalid, and frankly, any calibration tester should realize such. Your comparison is great for 1-4 but utterly useless for #5.

a. The lightsphere is seperate and distinct from all others compared.
b. Distance from object is unknown
c. Type of bulb, luminosity response, etc is differing thus no comparison
d. Color of the background and reflectivity is unknown
e. Flash, camera type, etc... would need to be the same for proper comparison

That said...I did do some quick comparisons between a plastic flash bounce, Lightsphere, and just the Flash. And I preferred the Lightsphere's results in most cases.

The lightsphere is about the distribution of the light. Not necessarily bending it but rather to release it in a more even spread. This is a simple concept to understand. It's the difference of bouncing off of a flat surface and a curved surface.

The aspect of the lightsphere that is most prominent in the results is a softer shadow. And even in your analysis above this is quite apparent. Of all four of your shots depict shadows with much darker intensities of tones. Now the MysteryMod might have a better softer fade but still becomes darker in the center. The other three shots you took are exceedingly darker.

And this is one of the main aspects why I like my Lightsphere. It often diminishes shadows intensity. And sometimes just a little more distance is enough to reduce the visibility to barely perceptible.

So I apologize if I am likewise being anal. But from a scientific perspective and one who spent some years working for a company that is one of the leading manufacturers of analytical testing standards in the world. Well, I found your test rather flawed.

(Only in relation to the lightsphere, it was very effective for the other 4. And I would support you in perhaps borrowing a lightsphere and re-doing this test properly.)