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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Ping-pong ball flash diffuser...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 8 of 8, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/05/2010 05:12:48 PM · #1
Alright. I've heard about it, and now I've tried it out. Here are two photo's I just took. I didn't do anything to them. No resize, no levels, no svae for web, nothing. I took them, downloaded them from my camera, and then uploaded them here.

I hand held the camera with auto-focus and auto-exposure. The camera was about an arms length away from my face.

Normal Flash


With Ping-pong ball covering onboard flash


I know the model isn't much to look at, and the photo just doesn't seem like much, but it's comparing the difference between straight flash and a ping-pong ball, not my ugly mug. *grin*

I did have to tape the ping-pong ball to the flash and it wouldn't stay on its own. *shrug*
 01/05/2010 05:41:31 PM · #2
I'm going to go buy a remnant of lightweight, tight weave, white cloth to try making a small "flash bag" out of right now... Granted, I might be absolutely nutz right now, as I've been on the phone with IBM Partnerworld support all day (much less than pleasant really)..

I do like the idea ping pong diffuser, and I think a cloth diffuser should also work yeah? Anybody have any pointers here for me?

Message edited by author 2010-01-05 18:29:30.
 01/05/2010 06:08:34 PM · #3
Is the "diffused" version really diffused? Or is it simply darker? I don't see any better characteristics in that one I'm afraid.

In theory, you would think it would be better...I just don't see it. Maybe because your onboard flash isn't really too strong or harsh to begin with?

I have a Gary Wong Popup diffuser--whatever that's called. Maybe I'll do a little test for comparison for you later.
 01/05/2010 06:20:17 PM · #4
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I have a Gary Wong Popup diffuser--whatever that's called. Maybe I'll do a little test for comparison for you later.

If it's the same one I bought, it is called the "Puffer".

I found it awkward to use and store in my camera bag, plus is is fragile. The black plastic piece that slips into the hotshoe split in half after a few months of modest use. I felt the $20 Puffer worked about the same as the free ping-pong ball.


Here are my own test results with the ping pong ball. Looks pretty similar to what Nathan got with it.


01/05/2010 06:23:42 PM · #5
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Is the "diffused" version really diffused? Or is it simply darker? I don't see any better characteristics in that one I'm afraid.

In theory, you would think it would be better...I just don't see it. Maybe because your onboard flash isn't really too strong or harsh to begin with?

I have a Gary Wong Popup diffuser--whatever that's called. Maybe I'll do a little test for comparison for you later.


Agree - the shadows are not really softer (check the shadows cast from the rim of his glasses onto his face). Also it doesnt seem to communicate the white balance properly.
 01/05/2010 07:01:14 PM · #6
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I have a Gary Wong Popup diffuser--whatever that's called. Maybe I'll do a little test for comparison for you later.

If it's the same one I bought, it is called the "Puffer".

I found it awkward to use and store in my camera bag, plus is is fragile. The black plastic piece that slips into the hotshoe split in half after a few months of modest use. I felt the $20 Puffer worked about the same as the free ping-pong ball.


Here are my own test results with the ping pong ball. Looks pretty similar to what Nathan got with it.


The ping pong lighting looks warmer (white balance is affected) but the shadows, etc, don't seem fundamentally different. It is still a fairly small point source of light doing the work, after all.
 01/05/2010 08:42:47 PM · #7
Originally posted by chromeydome:
The ping pong lighting looks warmer (white balance is affected) but the shadows, etc, don't seem fundamentally different. It is still a fairly small point source of light doing the work, after all.

Exactly, which is why I gave up on it. I experimented with it a bit until I got something better than the built in flash.
 01/05/2010 09:11:06 PM · #8
Well I just did a few tests with the Puffer. I haven't used it much--I mainly bought it to have something in my bag when I absolutely had to use on camera flash. (And actually, I got it for free because I won a local contest and had a $50 credit at the local camera store).

After equalizing the shots for exposure (the puffer does cause some loss of light, and a slight color shift, but not as much as the ping pong ball examples below), I see a couple of minor benefits:

1) The puffer shots were less obnoxious to the subject. I shot my dog, who is willing to sit still and pose for treats. (Sorry, it's the only willing subject I had.) She **consistently** closed her eyes on the bare flash shots, and left them open with the puffer

2) Shadows cast by the subject are somewhat softer and diffuse for the puffer shots. So that part works, though of course the shadows are still there, just not as sharp and distinct.





It's arguable whether that's worth the money, or trouble. Perhaps I should have tried a ping pong ball for comparison, but I just didn't have the heart to destroy a perfectly good ping pong ball for the test.

Message edited by author 2010-01-05 23:44:34.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 07:13:54 AM

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: 08/09/2025 07:13:54 AM EDT.