This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009My First DIY SoftBox
p.1 #1My First DIY SoftBox
Hey,its my first time here.
I wrote a tutorial-Building a Diy 40cm*40cm softbox.
This softbox is great for use with of camera flashes(SB800,580EX and all other flashes)
Enjoy DIY 40cm*40cm SoftBox
I wrote a tutorial-Building a Diy 40cm*40cm softbox.
This softbox is great for use with of camera flashes(SB800,580EX and all other flashes)
Enjoy DIY 40cm*40cm SoftBox
Jun 26, 2009 at 01:49 AM
p.1 #3My First DIY SoftBox
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the irony of spending $400+ on a 580 and then hooking it up to something like that is just a little overwhelming. I don't know what sort of stores are available in Israel or if you can order from B&H easily, but $60 is all it takes to buy the real thing: (flash speedring is included) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90032-REG/Morris_32600_Soft_Box_15x18_.html
Cheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the fact that, if you really are a pro, there's no possible way that I'd ever hire you if I saw you using a softbox like that.
Cheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the fact that, if you really are a pro, there's no possible way that I'd ever hire you if I saw you using a softbox like that.
Jun 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM
p.1 #4My First DIY SoftBox
have to echo bacilonur. maybe it does the job, but it sure don't look good
Jun 26, 2009 at 10:10 AM
p.1 #5My First DIY SoftBox
If I look at it from just a time expenditure perspective, constructing that softbox would have cost me more than buying a real one.
~Ted
~Ted
Jun 26, 2009 at 10:39 AM
p.1 #6My First DIY SoftBox
weddingypp wrote:
Hey,its my first time here.
I wrote a tutorial-Building a Diy 40cm*40cm softbox.
This softbox is great for use with of camera flashes(SB800,580EX and all other flashes)
Enjoy DIY 40cm*40cm SoftBox
Thanks for the nice tutorial on how to build an inexpensive softbox. I think the other responders were over the top in bashing your work. It looks to me to be a workable solution for you. Your ideas are good and I applaud you for taking the time to show us. I would like to see some images that you made with the device.
Keep up the good work!!!!
RWW
Hey,its my first time here.
I wrote a tutorial-Building a Diy 40cm*40cm softbox.
This softbox is great for use with of camera flashes(SB800,580EX and all other flashes)
Enjoy DIY 40cm*40cm SoftBox
Thanks for the nice tutorial on how to build an inexpensive softbox. I think the other responders were over the top in bashing your work. It looks to me to be a workable solution for you. Your ideas are good and I applaud you for taking the time to show us. I would like to see some images that you made with the device.
Keep up the good work!!!!
RWW
Jun 26, 2009 at 11:03 AM
p.1 #7My First DIY SoftBox
It's not bashing, it's being realistic. He'd be better off with an umbrella adapter and a reversible umbrella. Hotshoe flashes aren't designed to be put in a softbox the way a barebulb strobe is. Without a diffuser on the flash or at least a couple diffusion panels inside the SB, the light quality will look more like a set of barn doors than an SB.
Jun 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM
p.1 #8My First DIY SoftBox
If the OP had fun and learned a little something along the way, it was not a bad project.
I certainly take better care of my store bought softboxes, because I never want to have to make one myself!
John
I certainly take better care of my store bought softboxes, because I never want to have to make one myself!
John
Jun 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM
p.1 #9My First DIY SoftBox
Thanks for the responds,although I didn't think you'll so tough with me.
It simply was a fun thing to do and with some improvements (that will be shared in future posts) it will be a handy tool for guys (and girls) that want to play with lighting and test their ability and creativity playing with their camera stuff.
(Before buying some strobe sets...)
First of all for my work I use strobes (of course).
P.S.
You can buy a softbox in Israel too!!!
It simply was a fun thing to do and with some improvements (that will be shared in future posts) it will be a handy tool for guys (and girls) that want to play with lighting and test their ability and creativity playing with their camera stuff.
(Before buying some strobe sets...)
First of all for my work I use strobes (of course).
P.S.
You can buy a softbox in Israel too!!!
Jun 26, 2009 at 01:44 PM
p.1 #10My First DIY SoftBox
DYI is a good way to learn the cause and effect of how flash and diffusion work. Size of the modifier and the distance it is used from the subject are variables which affect how parallel the rays of light hitting the object and creating the shadows are: the more parallel the light rays from the source, the more distinct the shadows it creates will be.
What makes a shadow look hard or soft is a function the ratio of umbra (dark core of the shadow) to penumbra (fuzzy transition zone). The softer looking penumbra is created when single light source is so large relative to the object creating the shadow that the light hits it from many different directions; from the outside-in. Hence the rationale for using large key light modifiers. The larger the modifier, the more it wraps the light around the object making the penumbra larger and the darker core umbra smaller having the net effect of making the shadows lighter.
But there's another way to make light hit an object from different directions: use more than one light. That is the cause and effect relationship between a key light (i.e. the one which creates the highlights on the front of the subject facing the camera) and a secondary source for fill. The fill creates a second directional component which works to modify the shadows cast by the key light in a way similar to how a single large modifier will wrap the object to lighten the shadows.
Its possible to create very flattering lighting with direct flash if the key light is placed to model the shape of the face in a way that is perceived as natural and enough neutral fill is used to keep the shadows light and reveal detail. What the key and fill do when working together cooperatively is reduce the contrast of the scene to the point the camera can record detail over the entire range when the exposure is set for the highlight detail. The lighter the shadow become the softer the lighting will look perceptually, even if the sources are direct unmodified flash. I learned this in a very practical way: learning to shoot wedding receptions with two direct flashes back in the early 1970s.
Most thing in terms of starting with the key light to create the lighting pattern then filling the shadows, but the best way to grasp the cause and effect of how key and fill work together perceptually is to start the other way around with only the fill light on to start.
FIll placement is important because its role is to lift all the shadows the camera sees. Logically if the fill source creates a shadow on the face the shadows are not lifted there. That will not be a problem if the key light also hits that area, but what happens when a fill shadow crosses a shadow cast by the key light? A dark harsh void will be created. The #1 rookie mistake in lighting is putting key and fill on opposite sides of the face. The face will look evenly illuminated, but because the shadow cross in low areas there will be very dark and harsh looking shadows in low areas like the smile creases around the mouth, the corners of the mouth, and the base of the nostrils where small very dark crescent shaped shadows will appear. If you see any of those characteristics in a lighting pattern its the result of the fill creating shadows which overlap the shadows created by the key light. Logically the way to avoid the problem of shaded fill and crossed shadows is to start by placing the fill where it will create minimal shadows on the front of the face: directly over the camera. Yes that is a recipe for flat shadowless lighting but flat lighting is what is ideal for fill because the other component, the key light, has the role of creating the illusion of shape.
So humor me and place your unmodifed fill flash directly over the camera lens (a flash bracket is ideal for this) put it in M mode at f/8 and gradually raise the power of the fill. What you'll see in the images is the detail emerge from the base noise level of the camera sensor. Keep raising the fill until you see the desired amount of detail in the darkest areas of the face.
Once the fill is set to reveal the shadow detail put the key light, also unmodified, 45 degrees from the nose and a foot or so higher than eye level at its lowest power setting. In that configuration where you've already established the shadow level with the fill even small amounts of light from the key light overlapping it will start to form highlights and create the illusion of 3D. As you gradually raise the power of the key light the areas it hits will become progressively lighter, but the areas you first illuminated with the fill will remain the same. Eventually when the key light power is raised high enough you'll see the highlight areas start to clip and blackout in the camera warning. When that starts to happen back down the power of the key light until it disappears.
What you will wind up with in that little 15 minute experiment is a perfectly exposed image in which the camera is able to record the full range of tonal detail. It will teach you the cause and effect of how key overlapping even fill work together to reduce contrast to fit the range the sensor can record. Equally important it will give you a good baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of your DIY modification experiments. What you will discover is that when the key light is well placed to put light in the eyes and make the nose shadow fall down naturally along the base of the nose and over the top of the nostril, and sufficient foundational even fill is used to first raise the shadows and reveal their detail, its possible to achieve very flattering lighting with direct flash. What softer looking lighting? Start with more fill power (i.e. a lower light ratio).
From that direct flash key over neutral fill baseline as you add modifiers of increasing size to your key light you'll have a good basis for comparison. What you'll find, as I have, is that a point is reached where the size of the modifier placed on a hot shoe flash begins to make the use of the flash more cumbersome. Your DIY creation is making the light more diffuse than direct flash, but its cumbersome and impractical for field use and it will also block the optical sensor on the slave flash requiring the additional expense of radio triggers.
I learned flash using two direct flashes used as described above and experimented with various bounce and DIY modification techniques over the years. I've found, all things considered, a reflector-diffuser to be the best general solution for the type of location shooting I do with my Canon flashes. I don't try to make them into something they are not designed to be -- studio style flash heads - but have used what I know about the physics of light and cause and effect of making lighting flattering to find a good balance between results and practicality.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DIYdiffusers.jpg
Because I used two flashes in a key / fill configuration the top of the diffusers extends over and covers the vertically oriented flash head. Instead of just blasting the lens focused light through a layer of diffusion to change its direction the design changes the reflective angle of the light: two different means to the same end. But what I found with experimentation is that the reflective angle approach diffuses the light more than a similarly size softbox would. So instead of moving around with a cumbersome SB on camera or stand I get similar diffusion from a reflector-diffusers which weighs a few once and folds flat for storage. By orienting the flash head vertically I can position the slave anywhere without blocking its sensor, which on Canon flashes is on the front over the red AF assist lamp (which has no role in the wireless control). The signaling is done via visible pre-flashes from the Master on the flash bracket and the identical diffuser on it spreads the light on a wider arc than the bare flash head zoomed to 24mm so I rarely have any signaling problems and haven't found the need to use radio triggers. On occasions where I find I need more diffusion over a wider area on the key light than the foam diffusers provide I use an umbrella on the key light (which is mounted on a generic light stand umbrella bracket). Its one of a million possible modification options, but the one I've found to be most convenient and compatible with the way the Canon flash system is designed to work.
Chuck
What makes a shadow look hard or soft is a function the ratio of umbra (dark core of the shadow) to penumbra (fuzzy transition zone). The softer looking penumbra is created when single light source is so large relative to the object creating the shadow that the light hits it from many different directions; from the outside-in. Hence the rationale for using large key light modifiers. The larger the modifier, the more it wraps the light around the object making the penumbra larger and the darker core umbra smaller having the net effect of making the shadows lighter.
But there's another way to make light hit an object from different directions: use more than one light. That is the cause and effect relationship between a key light (i.e. the one which creates the highlights on the front of the subject facing the camera) and a secondary source for fill. The fill creates a second directional component which works to modify the shadows cast by the key light in a way similar to how a single large modifier will wrap the object to lighten the shadows.
Its possible to create very flattering lighting with direct flash if the key light is placed to model the shape of the face in a way that is perceived as natural and enough neutral fill is used to keep the shadows light and reveal detail. What the key and fill do when working together cooperatively is reduce the contrast of the scene to the point the camera can record detail over the entire range when the exposure is set for the highlight detail. The lighter the shadow become the softer the lighting will look perceptually, even if the sources are direct unmodified flash. I learned this in a very practical way: learning to shoot wedding receptions with two direct flashes back in the early 1970s.
Most thing in terms of starting with the key light to create the lighting pattern then filling the shadows, but the best way to grasp the cause and effect of how key and fill work together perceptually is to start the other way around with only the fill light on to start.
FIll placement is important because its role is to lift all the shadows the camera sees. Logically if the fill source creates a shadow on the face the shadows are not lifted there. That will not be a problem if the key light also hits that area, but what happens when a fill shadow crosses a shadow cast by the key light? A dark harsh void will be created. The #1 rookie mistake in lighting is putting key and fill on opposite sides of the face. The face will look evenly illuminated, but because the shadow cross in low areas there will be very dark and harsh looking shadows in low areas like the smile creases around the mouth, the corners of the mouth, and the base of the nostrils where small very dark crescent shaped shadows will appear. If you see any of those characteristics in a lighting pattern its the result of the fill creating shadows which overlap the shadows created by the key light. Logically the way to avoid the problem of shaded fill and crossed shadows is to start by placing the fill where it will create minimal shadows on the front of the face: directly over the camera. Yes that is a recipe for flat shadowless lighting but flat lighting is what is ideal for fill because the other component, the key light, has the role of creating the illusion of shape.
So humor me and place your unmodifed fill flash directly over the camera lens (a flash bracket is ideal for this) put it in M mode at f/8 and gradually raise the power of the fill. What you'll see in the images is the detail emerge from the base noise level of the camera sensor. Keep raising the fill until you see the desired amount of detail in the darkest areas of the face.
Once the fill is set to reveal the shadow detail put the key light, also unmodified, 45 degrees from the nose and a foot or so higher than eye level at its lowest power setting. In that configuration where you've already established the shadow level with the fill even small amounts of light from the key light overlapping it will start to form highlights and create the illusion of 3D. As you gradually raise the power of the key light the areas it hits will become progressively lighter, but the areas you first illuminated with the fill will remain the same. Eventually when the key light power is raised high enough you'll see the highlight areas start to clip and blackout in the camera warning. When that starts to happen back down the power of the key light until it disappears.
What you will wind up with in that little 15 minute experiment is a perfectly exposed image in which the camera is able to record the full range of tonal detail. It will teach you the cause and effect of how key overlapping even fill work together to reduce contrast to fit the range the sensor can record. Equally important it will give you a good baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of your DIY modification experiments. What you will discover is that when the key light is well placed to put light in the eyes and make the nose shadow fall down naturally along the base of the nose and over the top of the nostril, and sufficient foundational even fill is used to first raise the shadows and reveal their detail, its possible to achieve very flattering lighting with direct flash. What softer looking lighting? Start with more fill power (i.e. a lower light ratio).
From that direct flash key over neutral fill baseline as you add modifiers of increasing size to your key light you'll have a good basis for comparison. What you'll find, as I have, is that a point is reached where the size of the modifier placed on a hot shoe flash begins to make the use of the flash more cumbersome. Your DIY creation is making the light more diffuse than direct flash, but its cumbersome and impractical for field use and it will also block the optical sensor on the slave flash requiring the additional expense of radio triggers.
I learned flash using two direct flashes used as described above and experimented with various bounce and DIY modification techniques over the years. I've found, all things considered, a reflector-diffuser to be the best general solution for the type of location shooting I do with my Canon flashes. I don't try to make them into something they are not designed to be -- studio style flash heads - but have used what I know about the physics of light and cause and effect of making lighting flattering to find a good balance between results and practicality.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DIYdiffusers.jpg
Because I used two flashes in a key / fill configuration the top of the diffusers extends over and covers the vertically oriented flash head. Instead of just blasting the lens focused light through a layer of diffusion to change its direction the design changes the reflective angle of the light: two different means to the same end. But what I found with experimentation is that the reflective angle approach diffuses the light more than a similarly size softbox would. So instead of moving around with a cumbersome SB on camera or stand I get similar diffusion from a reflector-diffusers which weighs a few once and folds flat for storage. By orienting the flash head vertically I can position the slave anywhere without blocking its sensor, which on Canon flashes is on the front over the red AF assist lamp (which has no role in the wireless control). The signaling is done via visible pre-flashes from the Master on the flash bracket and the identical diffuser on it spreads the light on a wider arc than the bare flash head zoomed to 24mm so I rarely have any signaling problems and haven't found the need to use radio triggers. On occasions where I find I need more diffusion over a wider area on the key light than the foam diffusers provide I use an umbrella on the key light (which is mounted on a generic light stand umbrella bracket). Its one of a million possible modification options, but the one I've found to be most convenient and compatible with the way the Canon flash system is designed to work.
Chuck
Jun 27, 2009 at 09:23 AM
p.1 #11My First DIY SoftBox
I really think Chuck Gardner's design is obviously the best for situations where no bounce is possible, and you want a single shoe-mountable light source. It has larger light-emitting surface area than most competitors, is cheap, and doesn't weight much. You could technically get a bigger softbox, but you could just as easily make an even bigger foam area and angle it correctly to spread the light. It doesn't waste light throwing it in directions where you can't get a secondary bounce, like Omnibounces, Fong tupperware etc. does. One should still be able to gel the flash to good effect. I think I'm going to make one soon!
For situations where you can bounce, I think bouncing is generally going to work better (or at least give softer light, which is usually the goal) just due to the ability to use a much bigger light source. Here I think the Joe Demb Flip-It has an edge, due to the fact you can change the forward fill/bounce ratio, and the fill is fairly soft.
In any event, sorry for the rought treatment, OP. I think your design is fine and it's fun to tinker. I see people making homemade diffusers for macro, which I'm getting into, and may use some of your ideas there. Seems like you might get more even light spread by adding a secondary diffusion panel inside the softbox, maybe made out of tissue paper.
For situations where you can bounce, I think bouncing is generally going to work better (or at least give softer light, which is usually the goal) just due to the ability to use a much bigger light source. Here I think the Joe Demb Flip-It has an edge, due to the fact you can change the forward fill/bounce ratio, and the fill is fairly soft.
In any event, sorry for the rought treatment, OP. I think your design is fine and it's fun to tinker. I see people making homemade diffusers for macro, which I'm getting into, and may use some of your ideas there. Seems like you might get more even light spread by adding a secondary diffusion panel inside the softbox, maybe made out of tissue paper.
Jun 27, 2009 at 02:41 PM
p.1 #12My First DIY SoftBox
FWIW - the top flap of my DIY design is adjustable so all the light can be directed forward when down all the way or partially or fully open for a combination of ceiling bounce and direct.
In rooms with 8ft ceilings there is usually spill off the ceiling, even with the flap down all the way. I like to shoot portraits from above subject eye level so often the top of the diffuser is only a few inches from the ceiling. For the shot below for an employee of the month poster at work I stood on a chair with the diffuser pressed against the ceiling for maximum fill assist from the ceiling...
http://super.nova.org/TP/Ray02.jpg
For this shot at my church I had my slave 580ex with diffuser up on the stage, just out of frame on the left with Master / fill on the camera bracket with diffuser.
http://super.nova.org/TP/PSurge4.jpg
I wanted to minimize the fill of the foreground figure so I flipped open the top flap, zoomed the flash on the bracket to the max 105mm position and tilted the head slightly forward so the master / fill light was aimed at the ceiling about 20ft in front of me. It was shot in ETTL ratio mode. No problem with signaling because the sensor on the slave wasn't blocked by the modifier.
Here's a typical portrait shot of the type I do with the 580ex and diffusers.
http://super.nova.org/TP/TowelGary.jpg
I put both flashes in M mode at 1/2 power. The off camera light is placed an arm span (5-1/2 ft.) from center of diffuser to subject's nose then I step back to 8ft to shoot. The difference in light distance makes the off camera flash 2x brighter. Since it overlaps the fill that produces a 3:1 highlight/shadow ratio (2k+1f: 1f). The white towel is my exposure guide, but with this set up since the power and light distances are always the same so is the exposure: f/8 at ISO100. I shot over 300 head shots for a church directory with that set-up and the results were very consistent. Because the flashes don't react to scene reflectance the color of clothing or complexion doesn't affect exposure.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DS01.jpg
http://super.nova.org/TP/DS02.jpg
This final example shows how the diffusers compare to studio lights. When friends dropped by after a day of sightseeing I grabbed the camera and took some shots of their kids. The camera was on the bracket so I did the boy with the 580ex flashes and diffusers, but then decided to set up the ABs to shot the others.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DIYvsSB.jpg
The light from the larger studio flash diffusers is more diffuse, but the only place there is a significant noticeable difference is under the chin where fact the 580ex fill was up on the bracket created more of a shaded fill situation. As I mentioned earlier, flattering a face in a photo is more about finding a well balanced camera angle and placing the key light in a way which models the face naturally. Making the lighting look soft or hard is a matter of dialing in more or less fill flash.
Chuck
In rooms with 8ft ceilings there is usually spill off the ceiling, even with the flap down all the way. I like to shoot portraits from above subject eye level so often the top of the diffuser is only a few inches from the ceiling. For the shot below for an employee of the month poster at work I stood on a chair with the diffuser pressed against the ceiling for maximum fill assist from the ceiling...
http://super.nova.org/TP/Ray02.jpg
For this shot at my church I had my slave 580ex with diffuser up on the stage, just out of frame on the left with Master / fill on the camera bracket with diffuser.
http://super.nova.org/TP/PSurge4.jpg
I wanted to minimize the fill of the foreground figure so I flipped open the top flap, zoomed the flash on the bracket to the max 105mm position and tilted the head slightly forward so the master / fill light was aimed at the ceiling about 20ft in front of me. It was shot in ETTL ratio mode. No problem with signaling because the sensor on the slave wasn't blocked by the modifier.
Here's a typical portrait shot of the type I do with the 580ex and diffusers.
http://super.nova.org/TP/TowelGary.jpg
I put both flashes in M mode at 1/2 power. The off camera light is placed an arm span (5-1/2 ft.) from center of diffuser to subject's nose then I step back to 8ft to shoot. The difference in light distance makes the off camera flash 2x brighter. Since it overlaps the fill that produces a 3:1 highlight/shadow ratio (2k+1f: 1f). The white towel is my exposure guide, but with this set up since the power and light distances are always the same so is the exposure: f/8 at ISO100. I shot over 300 head shots for a church directory with that set-up and the results were very consistent. Because the flashes don't react to scene reflectance the color of clothing or complexion doesn't affect exposure.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DS01.jpg
http://super.nova.org/TP/DS02.jpg
This final example shows how the diffusers compare to studio lights. When friends dropped by after a day of sightseeing I grabbed the camera and took some shots of their kids. The camera was on the bracket so I did the boy with the 580ex flashes and diffusers, but then decided to set up the ABs to shot the others.
http://super.nova.org/TP/DIYvsSB.jpg
The light from the larger studio flash diffusers is more diffuse, but the only place there is a significant noticeable difference is under the chin where fact the 580ex fill was up on the bracket created more of a shaded fill situation. As I mentioned earlier, flattering a face in a photo is more about finding a well balanced camera angle and placing the key light in a way which models the face naturally. Making the lighting look soft or hard is a matter of dialing in more or less fill flash.
Chuck
Jun 27, 2009 at 03:57 PM
p.1 #13My First DIY SoftBox
cgardner
thnx for the reply.
I realy love the DIY stuff as that is a very good way to learn and test your abilities.
I know this article well,as i remember reading it lots of times when I started walking the photography way.
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:35 AM
p.1 #14My First DIY SoftBox
bacilonur wrote:
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the irony of spending $400+ on a 580 and then hooking it up to something like that is just a little overwhelming. I don't know what sort of stores are available in Israel or if you can order from B&H easily, but $60 is all it takes to buy the real thing: (flash speedring is included) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90032-REG/Morris_32600_Soft_Box_15x18_.html
Cheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the...Show more →
I totally get this point. However, it's like telling race car drivers to go to the local dealership to pickup a race car instead of building it with the available parts.
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see? After all, this DIY softbox doesn't look all that bad. Though some people like telling clients they only use the sun (available light) to capture images....results can be pretty darn bad at noon. I'll take this lil DIY SB over perceived available light any day to add a lil fill to the eyes.
Cordell
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the irony of spending $400+ on a 580 and then hooking it up to something like that is just a little overwhelming. I don't know what sort of stores are available in Israel or if you can order from B&H easily, but $60 is all it takes to buy the real thing: (flash speedring is included) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90032-REG/Morris_32600_Soft_Box_15x18_.html
Cheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the...Show more →
I totally get this point. However, it's like telling race car drivers to go to the local dealership to pickup a race car instead of building it with the available parts.
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see? After all, this DIY softbox doesn't look all that bad. Though some people like telling clients they only use the sun (available light) to capture images....results can be pretty darn bad at noon. I'll take this lil DIY SB over perceived available light any day to add a lil fill to the eyes.
Cordell
Jun 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM
p.1 #15My First DIY SoftBox
cordellwillis wrote:
Cheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the fact that, if you really are a pro, there's no possible way that I'd ever hire you if I saw you using a softbox like that. :)I totally get this point. However, it's like telling race car drivers to go to the local dealership to pickup a race car instead of building it with the available parts.
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see? After all, this DIY softbox doesn't look all that bad. Though some people like telling clients they only use the sun (available light) to capture images....results can be pretty darn bad at noon. I'll take this lil DIY SB over perceived available light any day to add a lil fill to the eyes. :)
Cordell
Thnx Cordell
As I said before,this just toying and having fun.
I only learn about the use of the gear.
(| don't want to think what he will have to say when I will publish my DIY 20cm*20cm softbox with grid...)
P.S.
1.Cordell,I realy like the photos in your website!
2.bacilonur ,This isn't a junky stand...
bacilonur wrote
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the irony of spending $400+ on a 580 and then hooking it up to something like that is just a little overwhelming. I don't know what sort of stores are available in Israel or if you can order from B&H easily, but $60 is all it takes to buy the real thing: (flash speedring is included) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90032-REG/Morris_32600_Soft_Box_15x18_.htmlCheaping out by buying junky stands or using tape instead of proper adapters is a sure way to end up spending even more later on just to repair your gear. And that's all beside the fact that, if you really are a pro, there's no possible way that I'd ever hire you if I saw you using a softbox like that. :)
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see? After all, this DIY softbox doesn't look all that bad. Though some people like telling clients they only use the sun (available light) to capture images....results can be pretty darn bad at noon. I'll take this lil DIY SB over perceived available light any day to add a lil fill to the eyes. :)
Cordell
Thnx Cordell
As I said before,this just toying and having fun.
I only learn about the use of the gear.
(| don't want to think what he will have to say when I will publish my DIY 20cm*20cm softbox with grid...)
P.S.
1.Cordell,I realy like the photos in your website!
2.bacilonur ,This isn't a junky stand...
Jun 29, 2009 at 09:14 PM
p.1 #16My First DIY SoftBox
weddingypp you're in good company. Edison was roundly criticized for years. He did pretty well for himself. Keep Rocking that DIY!!!
Jun 30, 2009 at 12:28 AM
p.1 #17My First DIY SoftBox
I am trying to figure out how this works to soften the light. There does not appear to be any fabric between the flash and subject. If that is the case this is more of a gobo than a softbox.
If you look at something like a Westcott Apollo the flash can fire into a reflective surface and then onto a fabric diffuser. The light is very soft and directional.
The other issue is portability. The Westcott folds to the size of an umbrella.
Jerry
If you look at something like a Westcott Apollo the flash can fire into a reflective surface and then onto a fabric diffuser. The light is very soft and directional.
The other issue is portability. The Westcott folds to the size of an umbrella.
Jerry
Jul 02, 2009 at 06:37 AM
p.1 #18My First DIY SoftBox
cordellwillis wrote:
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see?
Some clients are, yes.
In my video work, I often had to buy larger ENG-style cameras even though the smaller and newer cameras produced a better picture...because the clients had a greater sense of "getting their money's worth" when they saw more impressive-looking gear. Likewise, there are times I have to bring out a whole rolling Anvil rack of test tools and CRT preview monitors even though I can accomplish the same thing with a laptop just because it helps a client justify a budget.
Same goes for photo work. Some clients only care about the end result, some clients need to look at the resources you bring to bear and do the mental math in order to feel good about what they're paying you. I'll bring gear I don't plan on using or more labor than necessary if it's the kind of client that likes to see "a lot of stuff".
You have to evaluate your own clients. In my experience, some only care about the product you produce and some base their happiness on how impressively you roll in.
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see?
Some clients are, yes.
In my video work, I often had to buy larger ENG-style cameras even though the smaller and newer cameras produced a better picture...because the clients had a greater sense of "getting their money's worth" when they saw more impressive-looking gear. Likewise, there are times I have to bring out a whole rolling Anvil rack of test tools and CRT preview monitors even though I can accomplish the same thing with a laptop just because it helps a client justify a budget.
Same goes for photo work. Some clients only care about the end result, some clients need to look at the resources you bring to bear and do the mental math in order to feel good about what they're paying you. I'll bring gear I don't plan on using or more labor than necessary if it's the kind of client that likes to see "a lot of stuff".
You have to evaluate your own clients. In my experience, some only care about the product you produce and some base their happiness on how impressively you roll in.
Jul 02, 2009 at 07:30 AM
p.1 #19My First DIY SoftBox
shatterkiss wrote:
Some clients are, yes.
In my video work, I often had to buy larger ENG-style cameras even though the smaller and newer cameras produced a better picture...because the clients had a greater sense of "getting their money's worth" when they saw more impressive-looking gear. Likewise, there are times I have to bring out a whole rolling Anvil rack of test tools and CRT preview monitors even though I can accomplish the same thing with a laptop just because it helps a client justify a budget.
Same goes for photo work. Some clients only care about the end result, some clients need to...Show more →
I agree with SOME of this. But in all honesty I can't believe that any significant number of your paying clients contact you based on the gear they know you use. They contact you because the work you have produced and can produce for them. Unless of course you are speaking of something like an ad agency that need specific file types that a MF can produce....that's a different story.
If after looking at your portfolio you walked in with a Kodak EasyShare I would be surprized. However, I would not doubt that you know what you are doing with what you have because I've seen the end results. This is to say that the SB created here is not bad at all. Heck, there is gear with gaffers tape and bungie cords all over it. Does that mean the gear is falling apart or does it mean there maybe something attached to it to alter the light?
cordellwillis wrote
If you are a client are you really concerned with the gear you see?In my video work, I often had to buy larger ENG-style cameras even though the smaller and newer cameras produced a better picture...because the clients had a greater sense of "getting their money's worth" when they saw more impressive-looking gear. Likewise, there are times I have to bring out a whole rolling Anvil rack of test tools and CRT preview monitors even though I can accomplish the same thing with a laptop just because it helps a client justify a budget.
Same goes for photo work. Some clients only care about the end result, some clients need to...Show more →
I agree with SOME of this. But in all honesty I can't believe that any significant number of your paying clients contact you based on the gear they know you use. They contact you because the work you have produced and can produce for them. Unless of course you are speaking of something like an ad agency that need specific file types that a MF can produce....that's a different story.
If after looking at your portfolio you walked in with a Kodak EasyShare I would be surprized. However, I would not doubt that you know what you are doing with what you have because I've seen the end results. This is to say that the SB created here is not bad at all. Heck, there is gear with gaffers tape and bungie cords all over it. Does that mean the gear is falling apart or does it mean there maybe something attached to it to alter the light?
Jul 02, 2009 at 08:52 AM
p.1 #20My First DIY SoftBox
cordellwillis wrote:
I agree with SOME of this. But in all honesty I can't believe that any significant number of your paying clients contact you based on the gear they know you use. They contact you because the work you have produced and can produce for them. Unless of course you are speaking of something like an ad agency that need specific file types that a MF can produce....that's a different story.
If after looking at your portfolio you walked in with a Kodak EasyShare I would be surprized. However, I would not doubt that you know what you are doing with what...Show more →
Sure, I get hired based on what results I'm capable of. But the real question is, would they hire me again after the first gig? And with any client their final satisfaction with your service is going to be a matrix of a number of factors...personality, how comfortable/happy they were with pricing and the business side of the process, your demeanor and comportment during the job, how they felt about the balance of pricing to value. Everyone defines "value" differently, and that's where an issue like this arises.
I've definitely had clients fail to hire me again because they felt that, at the rates I charged, I should have had better gear. In some cases that may be based on their knowledge of equipment (I call it "knowing just enough to be dangerous") or the quality of tools being visible in the final product...or just based on not showing up with enough stuff. I can roll in with 4 Profoto heads and still not make the right impression because the client would have been more jazzed with 1 head and 3 assistants. I have one client that's more impressed when I can do more with LESS equipment, because it means logistics won't be as much of an issue for her - I can shoot her jobs in smaller spaces with less setup time, which means lower corollary expense on things like hotel meeting rooms. Honestly, you never know.
That said, I've never seen the situation where a client is more impressed with me showing up with DIYed and MacGuyvered gear. It may be a fun exercise for your off-hours, but a client generally will feel like they're paying you to own the right tools for the job...or to not be taking the job.
Edited on Jul 02, 2009 at 10:44 AM · View previous versions
I agree with SOME of this. But in all honesty I can't believe that any significant number of your paying clients contact you based on the gear they know you use. They contact you because the work you have produced and can produce for them. Unless of course you are speaking of something like an ad agency that need specific file types that a MF can produce....that's a different story.
If after looking at your portfolio you walked in with a Kodak EasyShare I would be surprized. However, I would not doubt that you know what you are doing with what...Show more →
Sure, I get hired based on what results I'm capable of. But the real question is, would they hire me again after the first gig? And with any client their final satisfaction with your service is going to be a matrix of a number of factors...personality, how comfortable/happy they were with pricing and the business side of the process, your demeanor and comportment during the job, how they felt about the balance of pricing to value. Everyone defines "value" differently, and that's where an issue like this arises.
I've definitely had clients fail to hire me again because they felt that, at the rates I charged, I should have had better gear. In some cases that may be based on their knowledge of equipment (I call it "knowing just enough to be dangerous") or the quality of tools being visible in the final product...or just based on not showing up with enough stuff. I can roll in with 4 Profoto heads and still not make the right impression because the client would have been more jazzed with 1 head and 3 assistants. I have one client that's more impressed when I can do more with LESS equipment, because it means logistics won't be as much of an issue for her - I can shoot her jobs in smaller spaces with less setup time, which means lower corollary expense on things like hotel meeting rooms. Honestly, you never know.
That said, I've never seen the situation where a client is more impressed with me showing up with DIYed and MacGuyvered gear. It may be a fun exercise for your off-hours, but a client generally will feel like they're paying you to own the right tools for the job...or to not be taking the job.
Edited on Jul 02, 2009 at 10:44 AM · View previous versions
Jul 02, 2009 at 09:06 AM