DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a scientific test and doesn't take into account all the variables possible with each modifier. Nor did I shoot to maximize the best potential of each modifier. I'll do that next time. So, just for fun....

See if you can GUESS which modifier was used for each shot?

This was fun. I got 3 out of 5. I got #1 and #2 switched.

Your test protocol is flawed unless all you want to do is compare relative efficiency (i.e. exposure difference) between them. For a more objective test you should normalize the exposures. Otherwise its impossible to objectively compare the specular highlights and wrap in the shadows.

Instead of shooting all at the same aperture / power put a white textured target in the scene and adjust flash power with each modifier so the white target -- the baseline for exposure in the highlights -- is just below clipping. Then all the skin highlights will be identical and the tone of the shadow can be objectively compared.

Chuck

cgardner wrote:
Your test protocol is flawed unless all you want to do is compare relative efficiency (i.e. exposure difference) between them. For a more objective test you should normalize the exposures. Otherwise its impossible to objectively compare the specular highlights and wrap in the shadows.

Instead of shooting all at the same aperture / power put a white textured target in the scene and adjust flash power with each modifier so the white target -- the baseline for exposure in the highlights -- is just below clipping. Then all the skin highlights will be identical and the tone of the shadow can be objectively compared.

Chuck


Yes, I was just testing efficiency. Very basic test for my needs. I didn't shoot at the same power, but I did modify each light output to achieve f/7 exposure (or is that what you meant?). I can't get rid of the specular highlight on a mannequin w/out everything else being under-exposed anyway. A better test would be on a person, which I'll be doing soon. I also know some modifiers give a different look depending on how close they are to the subject, and as I said in my disclaimer this was not that kind of test. I was just curious to see what results I could expect if I put any modifier next to my lens and took a picture. Thanks for the suggestions!!

3 out of 5, missed #1 and #3.

The interesting thing to me is how little difference there is between them. Although I think it would be more noticeable if the light had been in a main light position (wider shadows) rather than the fill position, not as much as people would think from reading photo forums.

TomRittenhous wrote:
The interesting thing to me is how little difference there is between them. Although I think it would be more noticeable if the light had been in a main light position (wider shadows) rather than the fill position, not as much as people would think from reading photo forums.



The shadows indicate the light is about 45 degree from the nose in a near classic "short" lighting pattern as evidenced by the highlight / shadow pattern on the near side and the nose shadow which falls ideally along the base of the nose and over the top of the nostril modeling its shape nicely. But then mannikins have idealized symmetrical faces. Its a near miss only be cause the light spilled through the notch of the near side eye and hit the near side ear.

The change in the character of the shadows is a result of how parallel the light is relative to the face. Bigger sources which dwarf a head cause the light to hit the face from more different directions resulting in a "wrap" effect. In my view that's counter productive because it changes the modeling, particularly on the nose, in ways which are not predictable.

On dark backgrounds I prefer to have a smaller more direct key light which defines the features well with modeling used in conjunction with neutral fill from over the camera to control how light or dark the shadows are. On white backgrounds where contrast difference are more subtle I'll use larger key sources and more fill (lower ratios) than on dark ones.

Chuck