BrianO wrote: 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.
What are you saying I\'m redefining? How is the description of the cause and effect inaccurate with regard to the way the various sources create shadows?
There\'s no \"right\" way to do anything just different tools, each with different cause and effect. Its possible to create light shadows by wrapping a single large source around an object and also possible to create equally light shadows with two direct sources.
Why don\'t you try it both ways in a systematic way and see for yourself? Starting from a baseline of no modification makes it easier to actually understand what progressively larger diffusers do on a cause and effect level. To the extent there are differences in the shadows with the two methods they will be as described: two-toned (umbra / penumbra) when wrapped and more even when a second axis fill is used.
Because the brain is easily fooled it will interpret both similarly. If the brain wasn\'t easily fooled patterns of contrast in photographs wouldn\'t be perceived as representing real 3D objects. Our eyes can\'t track focus to judge space on a photo as in person so most of the clues come from contrast patterns. That is why flat lit objects are perceived as flat in photos and backlit objects look 3D. In person the object would be perceived as 3D in any light because the eyes could track focus over it; even in near darkness.
I learned flash photography with direct flash in an overlapping key over fill patten from a PPofA Master photographer who learned the technique from another older and wiser PPofA Master photographer, so I\'m not inventing anything new or redefining any terms. Direct sources and neutral fill where the norm back in the golden age of Hollywood photography. The move to larger and larger modifiers was in large part response to compensate for the shorter and short ranges as photography transitioned from B&W neg, color negative and transparency. As the dynamic range gets shorter you need more diffuse light sources to keep the tonal transitions smooth.
Now its a knee-jerk reaction to think bigger is better. Bigger is better for many things, smaller and more controlled is better for others. There\'s also the consideration of logistics and common sense when it comes to modifying hot shoe flash, the topic here.
At some point the climb is no longer worth the view. A point is reached where modifier size negates the logistical advantages of using hot shoe flash. If you want to haul around a huge modifier because you think its necessary to get the results you want then all things considered you\'ve be better off illuminating it with a studio flash unit powered by a battery inverter if a wall socket is not available.
How big of a modifier is big enough for hot shoe flash? The best way to find out is to start with none and try progressively bigger ones. By the time you get one large enough to wrap the light you\'ll be in the range where the power of the flash becomes a limiting factor. The use of smaller modifiers with two flashes instead of one flash off camera with a big modifier is a viable alternative to get a similar perceptual result.
