People keep asking me about Gary Fong Lightsphere. Some of them are new to flash, some are new to photography in general.
Lightsphere appears to be a "magic" product, which it is... but only under certain conditions.
Your review was quite accurate. I have two - the cloudy and clear. Since recently taking an excellent lighting course I have put them away. In a room with low white white ceiling and white walls it can do a great job, however I can probably do just as well swiveling my 580 and bouncing it. If there is nothing to bounce off it does not do much I don't think. As fill yes there is a lot of light wasted not to mention it is translucent so you have to power up your flash even more to expose your subject.
Many people swear by it so by posting it this so I'll probably anger someone. Gary Fong is a brilliant marketer. I think that as long as people are aware of what it can and cannot do that is great. When I first read about it and seen the word diffuser I thought it was this miracle device. If it was all the Strobist masters (Joe McNally to mention one) would be using it. Of all the books, articles and tutorials I have read not one of those masters uses it.
Someone has to convince me the Garry Fongs puffer can diffuse light to remove shadows this effectively.
“If you want to achieve soft lighting, your light source must be larger than your subject”
After my lighting course and everything I have read I decided the Lightsphere is a bounce attachment, not a diffuser.
Personally I think all of those on camera flash diffusers should be called bounce attachments. I'm not including reflectors in this category.
If I can't bounce my flash I have a bracket to get my flash higher off my camera. I find it adds some weight so I was looking for a reflector as a back up. I really like the ones Chuck Gardner shows on his site.
So many are writing reviews and posting links to them in forums these days. It is a good SEO practice, concealed behind the "I just want to help others" facade.
I have the LS Collapsible. Not bad for on camera work, and it can act as another flash modifier for off camera work as well. I haven't really put it through the paces just quite yet but it certainly helps eliminate the raccoon eyes you get from a straight bounce flash. Also it adds a larger catch light in the eyes. It certainly is not a miracle piece of equipment, but it does help a little bit.
The LS is very good at what it does. Shooting light everywhere. If that is what you want then it is good for that. If you do not want that then it is not good. The idea that any photographic tool is better or worse period is silly. You choose the correct tool for the job and the look you wish to create. Realise what a tool does (whatever the manufacturer says) and use it appropriately for the task that it is required for. Do not let others tell you that a tool is useless just because they cannot stretch their imagination towards a use for it.
No disrespect to the Lightsphere owners that posted images but I just looked through my images from a fashion show I shot last week. I have images from 1 model to groups of 25 shooting direct flash, no modifier, with a bracket and it did just as a good a job. No wasted power. I cannot post images yet as I signed a waiver and I first need permission. I've had busy week but I'll try to get to that next week.
I shot with a 5D2 and 580II. This was the bracket I used. I was not too sure about it at first but I'm sold now. If I can't bounce this will be what I will use. I'm still experimenting with reflectors as I have seen great results posted here.
What I really liked was because the flash was in the 90 degree position and as I was zooming the moving models the flash auto zoomed as well. It was great for that situation and gave me consistent exposures.
I'm dying to post just one but I'd hate to get sued. Besides it is disrespectful to the group that allowed me to do this.
This was an experiment in flash so there are a few poorly cropped images like arms cut off between elbow and wrist, etc. I did not do any cropping.
Camera 5DII, 24-105 and 580EXII flash with RSS wedding flash bracket. Camera on manual and flash was on ETTL with FEC +1. Actually I preferred shooting direct flash because vertical and horizontal the flash auto zoomed with the lens. This really helped with moving targets.
If anyone is interested I used Canons DPP and had it on Faithful, Contrast -1, Color Tone 0, Color Saturation +1 and Sharpness on 3. WB was set to flash. No post processing in DPP or PS aside from resizing for the web viewing. I took 363 images and has about a 70 to 80% keeper rate.
Can't say you're actually making a good point here. Firstly your white balance is off because you're shooting your subjects with daylight in a tungsten environment. Mixing light gives inaccurate colours of skin and more importantly the clothing. It's not always a major issue if your subject is well exposed by the flash but if if you under expose it's more obvious. Also your backgrounds are very orange as a result. So before you criticise a product you obviously don't use or understand may I suggest you ensure you show more accurately shot example sin the future. this will add to your credibility when making such claims. ....btw the lightsphere is designed to be a bounce devise, not a diffusion device ;-) Although it's marketed in a way that shows you can shoot subjects directly with it, it really only works as a bounce modifier and should mainly be used in this purpose only.
Thanks for your honest feedback. I'm fully aware that the LS is a bounce attachment not a diffuser although many people do not agree with me. I recently took a very great lighting course and that was explained. After those lessons my friend and myself put on a few basic flash workshops for a local camera club. We used statements from this.
Obviously I worded something incorrectly. The point I tried to make was that unless there was something to bounce off I could get as good results with direct flash with a bracket and not waste light and power. I'm not trying to criticize the the product although I myself do not use the LS anymore. Each to his own. If I was shooting in incandescent light I would have applied a gel but the lighting was mixed and I don't have the equipment to measure and select the correct gel. It was too difficult to set up another flash and I was mobile. I know one light source will produce flatter light.
I'm not trying to be defensive (I could not think of a better word) but do the orange backgrounds matter that much? I thought the designer is selling the product not the background. That only comes from over 30 years in the print industry. When setting color we always focused on the product first. I'm only asking because I don't know any better. I'm just a hobby shooter and trying to learn.
You know what that is a very impressive response. I do agree with you was my comments were not meant to be an attack and I know all too well that it's not always possible to correctly measure colour temperature when there is mixed lighting - there is NOTHING that can be done.
As a hobby shooter, not a bad job at all, although I'd recommend losing the 45 degree camera angles. It's not an industry standard and doesn't make an average image creative, IMHO. All the best.
Zenon Char wrote:
This was an experiment in flash so there are a few poorly cropped images like arms cut off between elbow and wrist, etc. I did not do any cropping. .....
Zenon Char wrote:
...do the orange backgrounds matter that much? I thought the designer is selling the product not the background.
The entire scene will be seen by prospective buyers, so the entire scene matters. The background needs to compliment the product as best as it can be done, or else it can distract/detract from the perception of the product.
In the samples you posted, I don't think the background color is so far off that it's a problem; a little warmth isn't neccesarily a bad thing. The first and last shots are the most problematic, but the others look okay to me.
Several people have mentioned the angles were not too appealing so I'll remember that. The head photographer said be creative so I tried something different. I realize I'll never sell these and I'm always just going to be a hobby shooter but from a fellow who was afraid to take the camera and flash out of auto (I had no problem shooting cam alone in manual) a few months ago I'm pretty happy. Just prepping to get myself past a few weddings this summer. I don't get to many opportunities to practice on so many subjects at one time. I am going to try bumping up the ISO the next time I do some practice shooting. Also I have hired a pro wedding photographer and I'm going to spend an afternoon with him next month for the outdoor shots. I emailed him these and we are going to go over them as well.
Mar 22, 2010 at 08:46 PM
Mar 31, 2010 at 01:17 PM