Or, this thread could also be titled "Why I need more interesting friends!"
I was incredibly bored tonight, so I decided to make a custom diffuser for my flash. The only problem is that I'm not very good with arts and crafts. Needless to say, it came out looking pretty crappy. It actually seems to work quite well, but anyone with even a shred of modesty or dignity would never be caught in public with this thing strapped to their camera!
I tried to do something different. I started with a cool idea to make a very thin, low-profile diffuser, but then I made the idea useless by extending it out in front of the camera anyway.
And... here are the results. These are stopped down pretty low just to show that the light is fairly consistent and even. It's probably not very efficient, but in all fairness I did make it out of copy paper, aluminum foil, and a toilent paper roll.
Just remember: When you're out partying, when you're sleeping soundly in your bed, or maybe when you're editing pictures that should have been done a month ago... I'm awake watching Iron Chef and pushing science and technology to their very limits!
The more I think about this, the more surprised I am that this worked. The diffuser, itself, is really about 2 in thick. If it weren't for the "snoot", this wouldn't have to extend more than 3 in beyond the flash. I'd say that's pretty good for a diffuser with a 8.5 in diameter.
Ok, for 2010, I challenge any one to find a better name for a DIY project
Jetmutant calling this "New age Ghetto ring blaster" is pure genius. I can't stop laughing. I am not laughing at the project, just loving the name.
jim
Having time to be bored is the part that I utterly cannot comprehend. Seems like a good thing to me
If you do patent this thing, I hope you don't mind my suggestion that you let someone else handle the physical design. Though toilet paper rolls are cheap and abundant, they might not be a selling point.
I hate to admit it, but your design is very similar to something I dreamed up some time ago. My idea involved use of a transmissive mirror of the same shape, to allow some of the light through onto the front diffusion surface.
BTW, the angle of light bouncing from the triangular mirror will be at a complementary angle, which should cause light from the "snoot" to reflect onto the front diffusion surface (for the most part). It would be interesting to see the light from it with flash power turned down to where it is not blown out. That is the only way to see just how evenly the light is being diffused.
P.S.
I hope I have not exceeded the limits of good taste for use of smiley faces. I realize that two in one post is a bit excessive.
I think the real purpose of it is to make your subjects smile when you take their photo. Heck, you might have over done it! Instead of simply smiling they will be ROFL! Get it patented and then peddle it to Paul Buff here.
Before putting the Tin Man's hat on your flash you might want to understand the cause and effect of diffusion and what creates the impression that light and the objects it illuminate are hard or soft
Let's start with the perception of softness. Its the overall tone of the shadows, not how fuzzy the edges are, which create the impression the light or object casting a shadow from the light is hard or soft. The darker the shadows, the harder the light seem. The highlights are the constant, aways exposed the same regardless of lighting ratio. Its the shadows create the character and mood of the lighting as the ratio changes.
Diffusion of the shadows - how fuzzy the edges are - is a function how parallel the light rays hitting the object are, not size or distance. Those are just two variables which affect how parallel the light rays hitting the object are.
When the source is big and close enough to dwarf the object its lighting the light rays come from outside the object inwards canceling out the edges of the shadow created by the stronger more parallel rays in the center of the source which is a bit closer to the object. This creates a two-tone shadow with a dark core (umbra) and lighter edge (penumbra) which varies with the size of the object. For example on a face the bigger, taller nose will wind up with a darker shadow on it than the lower rounder cheeks making the nose shadow more distracting.
As a diffuser of any given size moves further away from the object the light is hitting it looks smaller. The footprint of the light expands with the square of the distance so as it moves away It will bounce more light around the room off walls and ceiling making it seem to be diffusing more effectively, but the light rays which actually hit the object directly become more parallel as the distance increases and the shadows become more distinct.
Unless a hot shoe flash diffusers is big and close enough to wrap light much of the diffusion of shadows you'll see is actually result of spill off the walls and ceiling. That's why cap diffusers like StoFen work great indoors and don't do much besides waste flash power outdoors. To objectively judge how well a diffuser works take it outdoors at night where there is nothing for the light to bounce off of to test it.
Want to control the mood of the lighting? Get control over the lighting ratio. That's why all things considered a more effective approach for controlling the tone of the shadows is using a separate source of shadowless fill over the entire image to raise the shadow tones up to the level the camera can record detail. With the shadows already lifted the overlapping key light doesn't need to wrap the object to try to lighten the shadows. No need to wrap means there is no compelling need to haul around a huge modifier on the key light. The shadows can be made as light or dark as desired by regulating the fill.
Since small hot shoe flash diffusers are big enough to wrap the light, and large modifiers complicate the logistical advantages of hot shoe vs studio lights, the overlapping pattern of key over fill is very effective lighting strategy for achieving soft looking lighting with hot shoe flash. Soft lighting can even be achieved with direct flash by keeping the fill and key lights equal strength. Put the fill on a bracket and there is only one stand to carry to and move around on location. Put the stand on wheels and using two flashes becomes as simple logistically as using one.
What does diffusion on hot shoe flash do by itself if there isn't any bounce of the spill?
The effect of larger and larger hot shoe flash diffusers will be noticed in the catchlights, which get bigger and more attractive, and the brightest highlights which become less specular. You'll notice this if you do a test outdoors starting with a single direct flash above the camera and add progressively larger modifiers. Compared to the sky the size of the diffuser will not affect the shadows, but you'll see the reflective hot spots from the flash reduced as the diffuser size increases. Repeat the same test at night and you'll realize how much soft light the sky is contributing.
cgardner wrote:
...Let's start with the perception of softness. Its the overall tone of the shadows, not how fuzzy the edges are, which create the impression the light or object casting a shadow from the light is hard or soft.
If that were true, then we wouldn't need soft boxes and other large light sources; we could just light everything with dinky little heads and set low key:fill ratios; but that is not soft lighting, that is low contrast lighting.
You are absolutely right that contrast is an imprtant factor in setting the mood of an image, but you can't just go around redefining terms at will.
I don't want to start any arguments, I'm just a noob with too much tape and tinfoil.
That being said, I thought I was going to crack you guys up, but you guys have me ROFL! Some of these comments are hysterical.
If you're that bored, you should may try cleaning up that place of yours!
Hmmh... have you been talking to my girlfriend? You sound just like her. Megan, Is that you? All kidding aside, I should really do this before the new semester starts. Crap.
BTW, the angle of light bouncing from the triangular mirror will be at a complementary angle, which should cause light from the "snoot" to reflect onto the front diffusion surface (for the most part).
I realized this as well. I was going to try to apply this, but, as you can see, the construction really went to hell and I just did the best I could to just get it together. As bad as it looks, though, I managed to construct the reflective cone that redirects the light out of the "snoot" rather well. The reflective "dish" is obiously a different story. I saw someone else's DIY ringflash here and they used a pie tin. I might give this a try on the "New Age Ghetto Ring Blaster II"
My idea involved use of a transmissive mirror of the same shape, to allow some of the light through onto the front diffusion surface.
Buddy, you need to start wearing an aluminum foil hat to keep me and the government away from your thoughts! I had the same idea to improve it as I was lying in bed.
The "Light Plunger"!
Nice. I think this is my favorite perhaps because it looks so much like a plunger, perhaps because it's made from toilet-associated products. Nah, it really looks like a plunger!
but you can't just go around redefining terms at will.
Sure you can, just read the photo blogs. Every time they come across something they know nothing about they make-up or redefine words. Even those that draw a big audience (maybe especially those that have a big audience).
The way cgardner works it doesn't really make all that much difference what he uses for on axis fill. Most people can only tell you that's harsh light or what they perceive as soft light, so for all practical purposes he's right.
Well, we're getting off topic from amacal1's original post, so sorry for hijacking the thread, but as long as were here...
Let's say I want to take a portrait of Sam Elliot. He's a ruggedly handsome man known for playing rough and tumble cowboy types. So for a key light I might use a gridded reflector. That's a hard light, and it would allow the crags and creases on his weathered face to show nicely. I can change the ratio of the fill to make the lines on his face black (low fill) or brown (higher fill), but the key's hardness will still be evident and will establish the character of the lighting: hard.
Now let's say I want to shoot a portrait of Diana Rigg. Remember Mrs. Peel? Diana is in her seventies now. If I used the same gridded reflector for the key light on her, I don't thing she'd be pleased no matter how much fill I used, unless I used so much that the "fill" became a flat key. Low contrast between key and fill would not make the key light softer; using a softbox would, because it would increase the apparent size of the source relative to the subject, thus softening the edges of the shadows cast by her wrinkles. That's soft lighting.
Hard lighting doesn't have to be harsh and contrasty, and soft lighting isn't neccessarily low contrast.
