Timeline for Using a diffuser actually made the lighting worse?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2014 at 22:43 | comment | added | user2719 | It's the "what you expect" part that's the problem, @erotsppa. It doesn't jibe with what the modifier provides. Take some time, when it really doesn't matter, to learn what the Flashbender does in all its various configurations ("tight", "loose", with and without the diffuser cloth, as a snoot, etc.), then you'll know when and how to use it going forward. But indoors in a small room, you're almost always better off with bounce (wall bounce preferred; ceiling a distant second unless you also like shooting in midday sun). | |
| Jan 27, 2014 at 21:34 | comment | added | erotsppa | But again the products are just not doing what I would expect it to be. Using the same example, we're in a living room with indoor lighting. I want to light my subjects a bit more at a dinner party. What should I do? Take the fleshbender+flash off camera and then shoot perpendicular to the face? Leave it on the camera? I've tried all the different configuration, none of them give me a good result. | |
| Jan 27, 2014 at 17:55 | comment | added | user2719 | There are a lot of ways to do "off-camera modified flash", but most of them involve having the flash off of the camera. That's great if you don't have to move around (you can use a stand), or if you have an assistant, or if you have three or more hands (or are good at one-handing a DSLR with a large zoom lens). Everyone else will probably find it easier to do "off-camera" flash with the flash on the camera, and that's what these modifiers are for. And if you think about them as main lights, you can make them work very well -- but you do need to think about the light, always. | |
| Jan 27, 2014 at 17:50 | comment | added | user2719 | @erotsppa - "normally" indoors the light in insufficient, so you're not trying to fill shadows, you're trying to light the subject. At that point, the existing lighting can be treated as "practicals" (lights that would look good if you include them in the picture, but that you're not actually using to light things) and maybe as fill. That leaves hard, direct flash (not great), bounced flash (great if there's a neutral bounce surface; not great if the walls are black or dark grey; really bad if they're brightly coloured) or move the flash away from the lens and make it bigger. (cont'd...) | |
| Jan 27, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | erotsppa | So if I understand you correctly, these kind of products are only great as primary source light. Not so great for fill. And what exactly would be a situation where it would be the primary? Like out in the night and you are light someone up for a portrait? It's just so limiting as a product. I would think the most common cases for flash is when I'm in door with dim lighting and I want to light some subjects up. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 1:59 | history | answered | user2719 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |