View Full Version : Gary Fong LIGHTSPHERE
Gidday
Anyone have any experience with this gear?
I'm going to need some wedding shots in July, and something that works better than bounce flash would be an asset.
TIA
ricktas
23-03-2009, 8:35pm
i don't have one, but have seen one in use, and the resultant wedding photos. Works brilliantly, you just look like an idiot (hehe)
i don't have one, but have seen one in use, and the resultant wedding photos. Works brilliantly, you just look like an idiot (hehe)
Thanks Rick.
That wouldn't be a problem - I'm used to that! :p
NickMonk
23-03-2009, 9:10pm
Ya they are very good. I use mine all the time for people shots and excellent results at weddings. Expensive for what they are, but good results.
Lost mine:confused013
Might be getting used for a salad mixer by now
It was good, but I know prefer the Aurora Lite Softboxes I recently bought from Kayell
JM Tran
23-03-2009, 9:22pm
highly recommended from me too, works better than the smaller and more portable omni bounce on the 580EXII
the lightsphere will diffuse light to give it a softer feel to the photos compared to what I have used, as well as throws out more light around the room
only problem is that its good for weddings and anything that is not photojournalism, due to the size and the look on ppls faces:)
latino
24-03-2009, 12:44pm
Yeah might be getting one of these when I purchase my SB600. Does the flash need to be adjusted so it is facing the ceiling as a bounce or does it work well and diffuse well enough when used directly on the subject?
I've also heard that it can be heavy and possibly bad for the flash and flash bracket if used in the direct flash position?
Any opinions?
To use you typically just point your flash directly at the ceiling and mount the lightsphere on top. It spreads the light much like a lamp. You can "point" it also for a different more direct light. I think Gary has a few videos on his website that goes through all that.
I've never heard of it damaging the flash at all, it's not that heavy
JM Tran
24-03-2009, 1:28pm
I've also heard that it can be heavy and possibly bad for the flash and flash bracket if used in the direct flash position?
nope not heavy at all, does not put any strain on the flash or anything, weighs maybe like 200grams!
Another one in favour of it here. I got the cloudy.
It works ridiculously good, but for the price, being two pieces of cheap plastic.... I still recommend it however.
And agreed about it making you look like an idiot. A dslr with a big lens, 580ex and lightsphere on it, you may as well be holding a microwave in front of your face.
MarkChap
24-03-2009, 3:09pm
Great bit of Kit,
You will get a DVD with the unit that runs through the how and why, but generally you use it with out the lid and point it up and bounce when inside and use it with the lid and direct when out side.
Creates very good soft all round light
I got mine from Stu at Quality Camera Sales as the freight was way cheaper than buying direct from Gary Fong
Thanks everyone.
Sounds like the way to go.
Regards
smorter
24-03-2009, 7:41pm
I think it is a waste of money.
Gidday
Anyone have any experience with this gear?
I'm going to need some wedding shots in July, and something that works better than bounce flash would be an asset.
TIA
The Gary Fong does not work better than bounce flash
I may not be the best photographer in the world, but prior to starting Weddings I worked in excess of 50 indoor photography events (corporate functions, parties etc) and there is nothing I have ever used that is as nice and practical as bare bounce flash
I tried Sto-Fen Omnibounce (too harsh, useless)
I tried Demp Flipits (Useful if you can't bounce, but didn't do much if you could bounce the light)
I tried a Gary Fong (Unless if you can just bounce)
Homemade Diffusers (useless)
The biggest issue is they make you look silly, the second biggest issue is that they don't do anything that bare bounce flash can't
Anytime you see someone with a Gary Fong you can usually be sure they don't know how to use bounce flash properly
Buddah
24-03-2009, 10:00pm
The biggest issue is they make you look silly, the second biggest issue is that they don't do anything that bare bounce flash can't
Lol! I have to agree. If you (or your wedding photographer) want to look silly, I'll give you my home-made jobbie, Shane. Will probably give you the same results as the GFL.
Put the money you save into something nice for Linda. ;)
Yeah but what if you can't bounce the flash ?
Well I'm going to disagree here. Of course I don't have the prior experience and qualifications that you possess in the field of portraiture and wedding shots.
But, as you've said in your original post if you can't bounce due to no ceiling, then it's already plus 1 point to the Lightsphere.
If you do have a ceiling, high/low, white/wooden/coloured, all of the variables that come into bouncing. I guess most of which you can get by via post processing, but I shall continue. The lightsphere with one shot, can get guaranteed, effortless results.
As a newbie to strobe work in general, I found that bounce left me with too many shadows under the eyes/nostrils/neck. Even when using the bounce card that came with the camera, I'd get similar results. Once again maybe you can suggest ways to avoid this?
But I found that if I just clipped on the lightsphere I could close my eyes and get good results. It's really effortless and that's what I like about it.
Yes, it does look a little stupid, but are we really worried about that? One of the first things I learnt was not to care what people are thinking, just go out and do what you have to do.
JM Tran
24-03-2009, 11:46pm
As a newbie to strobe work in general, I found that bounce left me with too many shadows under the eyes/nostrils/neck. Even when using the bounce card that came with the camera, I'd get similar results. Once again maybe you can suggest ways to avoid this?
But I found that if I just clipped on the lightsphere I could close my eyes and get good results. It's really effortless and that's what I like about it.
its a good compromise to having no flash bracket, which is fundamental to remove shadows under features and in the background. As some time during the 70s photographers found that by mounting the flash a few inches above the camera, they could get rid of shadows much much better than ever before, hence the flash bracket became a common tool for wedding and event photography
the Lightsphere on the other hand, can do that effectively but not as good, but its a lot more portable and lighter than an unwieldy flash bracket and sync cord
smorter
25-03-2009, 1:01am
Yeah but what if you can't bounce the flash ?
The Gary Fong Lightsphere is a Bounce Modifier though... you should only be using it when you can bounce
And if you aren't using it when bouncing...well the laws of physics state that softness of light is dependent of size of light source and distance to subject. The former is the more relevant point, and with the relative size increase of the Fong Dong over a flash head, you might as well use a 10c piece of A5 cardboard taped behind your flash...that would give better results and likely won't cut down on range as bad as the Fong Dong.
Well I'm going to disagree here. Of course I don't have the prior experience and qualifications that you possess in the field of portraiture and wedding shots.
Hi Bax, I don't have any qualifications...well none that count in photography :( Sorry I didn't mean to sound conceited, just trying to give more credibility to my opinions because there were generally positive comments that I wanted to refute.
But, as you've said in your original post if you can't bounce due to no ceiling, then it's already plus 1 point to the Lightsphere.
No I never said that.
And in any case, if you can't bounce, you can't use the Lightsphere (or at least, there's no point using the Lightsphere because it is a bounce modifier)
If you do have a ceiling, high/low, white/wooden/coloured, all of the variables that come into bouncing. I guess most of which you can get by via post processing, but I shall continue. The lightsphere with one shot, can get guaranteed, effortless results.
I disagree here, the Gary Fong is a bounce modifier, meaning that it is designed to act as a bit of fill whilst the primary light is still coming from bounce flash. Any issues you have from bouncing without a Gary Fong, will still exist if you bounce with a Gary Fong, though to a slightly lesser extent because the Gary Fong will send some direct flash to the subject, so the colour cast will be slightly reduced as the relative intensity of the light reflected off a wooden or coloured wall/ceiling would be lower. And also bouncing off the ceiling is very ineffective and inefficient.
As a newbie to strobe work in general, I found that bounce left me with too many shadows under the eyes/nostrils/neck. Even when using the bounce card that came with the camera, I'd get similar results. Once again maybe you can suggest ways to avoid this?
But I found that if I just clipped on the lightsphere I could close my eyes and get good results. It's really effortless and that's what I like about it.
How are you bouncing? Are you pointing your flash straight up to the ceiling? If so, don't.
I don't do much indoor events anymore, but here are some examples from my earlier work (mostly last year so a bit old and noisy). These are all plain bounce flash, and there's no nasty eye, nostril and neck shadows (that I can detect).
http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p155514606-5.jpg
To avoid it, you just have to point your flash slightly behind you so that light comes from the back hitting their faces front on
Yes, it does look a little stupid, but are we really worried about that? One of the first things I learnt was not to care what people are thinking, just go out and do what you have to do.
I wish I had your self confidence, but the issue that I've found is that it damages your credibility in the eyes of the client and other professionals if their image of you is impaired by you looking a bit odd. Having said that though, there are worse things than a Fong Dong (e.g. homemade bottle over the flash)
Lol! I have to agree. If you (or your wedding photographer) want to look silly, I'll give you my home-made jobbie, Shane. Will probably give you the same results as the GFL.
Put the money you save into something nice for Linda. ;)
This is so true, you can do as good with a piece of white foam stuck behind your flash.
I personally think the Gary Fong Lightsphere is money down the drain. It does its job of providing forward fill, but so does a 10c piece of paper or a $1 piece of foam, or wrapping a large piece of bubble wrap around the flash, or using a homemade device. If you ask about this on FM or something, you'll people blasting the product which makes my reservations about it look ultra tame.
One question that begs to be asked is that if it was a good product, why didn't any of the photographers at Gary Fong's wedding use it? (And there were a LOT there...)
arthurking83
25-03-2009, 1:04am
I'm just thinking about it's ability and what it's supposed to do, and can't help but think that it should kind of do the same thing as the white flip out card you may have on your uber external flash??
I placed should in italics, because I've never used a third party diffuser of any kind, let alone the Gary Fong version, but I do use that lil white card when I bounce as it projects enough light forward of the flash even though the flash is pointing towards the ceiling.
Of course I am assuming all external flashes have that flip out lil white card to assist with bounce flash.
JM Tran
25-03-2009, 1:22am
One question that begs to be asked is that if it was a good product, why didn't any of the photographers at Gary Fong's wedding use it? (And there were a LOT there...)
lol thats cos everyone there who is a photographer was a guest and a friend
and what Gary did was set them to concentrate on one aspect of photography
one friend shot in monochrome, one in B&W, one in IR, one in velvia slides, and so on
everyone was there for fun not for work, and to use the groom's product at his own wedding, feels a bit weird dont u think? haha
Analog6
25-03-2009, 7:37am
Is there anything like this (I also saw the LumiQuest one - much cheaper - on my google travels) that fits over the camera flash? Currently I use a sock (looks really daggy) but a 'device' would be much easier.
OK. I found it, the Gary Fong 'puffer'. I saw them at $35 everywhere but picked one up on eBay for $19.95 (but plus $9.95 postage). There would have been postage on top of the $35 ones from shops too, I assume.
The seller, daza_888 had some lightsphere items too for about 1/2 retail.
ricktas
25-03-2009, 8:27am
everyone was there for fun not for work, and to use the groom's product at his own wedding, feels a bit weird dont u think? haha
Umm NO, If you owned a vineyard, you wouldn't offer up the competitors wine?
I think the Gary Fong has its place and for what it does, it works well. The issues occur when people want/expect it to do everything and more, rather than accept it has a purpose and use it for that.
The Gary Fong Lightsphere is a Bounce Modifier though... you should only be using it when you can bounce
Where'd you get that? On the fong website it calls it a diffuser. With the top lid on and pointed directly at the person its a diffuser, and even without the lid bouncing, it still provides diffusion as the bowl actually catches the light.
And if you aren't using it when bouncing...well the laws of physics state that softness of light is dependent of size of light source and distance to subject.
That's not taking into account diffusion. Which would be a huge change.
Hi Bax, I don't have any qualifications...well none that count in photography :( Sorry I didn't mean to sound conceited, just trying to give more credibility to my opinions because there were generally positive comments that I wanted to refute.
Not sounding conceited at all, and yes, I understand that they are opinions. I'm just throwing mine back at you. Nothing wrong with a little bit of rebuttal.
How are you bouncing? Are you pointing your flash straight up to the ceiling? If so, don't.
When I tried bouncing before buying the Fong, I was pointing the light source at a 45 degree angle forwards towards the subject. This is where the Fong comes in handy again, as well as the initial bouncing and diffusion, it catches and shoots the light out in every direction. You say you used to aim it behind you? I'm not sure how that would work??
I wish I had your self confidence, but the issue that I've found is that it damages your credibility in the eyes of the client and other professionals if their image of you is impaired by you looking a bit odd.
Yeah that's a fair point, in an ideal world credibility should come from results, not what you look like getting them.
I personally think the Gary Fong Lightsphere is money down the drain.
That's fair enough, all your opinions after all, but out of curiosity, have you ever tried one?
Understandable that there are a lot of negative reviews towards the subject, last time I was reading on FM or another Photography site there seemed to be a fair bit of dislike for Gary Fong getting spread around, something about him being an average photographer but made it big thanks to selling his product, but I remember not many people liked him.
smorter
25-03-2009, 11:57am
No, "Diffusion" as a concept is often warped by manufacturers of these devices. You don't get any diffusion (or softness of light) by putting translucent materials in front of the light source. It is the relative increase in size of the light source that causes the diffusion. A Gray Fong Head is only about 10cm^2 larger than a flash head...a trivial amount. The diffusion comes from the fact that the Gary Fong sends light scattering in other directions, which bounces off the walls and ceiling...thereby creating the diffuse light. Hence, it is a bounce modifier. In the abscence of a wall or ceiling or object to bounce light off, it is just a piece of plastic on your flash...it has negligible diffusion value. This is not opinion or photographic knowledge...just the laws of physics which have not yet been disproven
A lot of people do things like put a piece of tissue paper in front of their flash. This does nothing for diffusion unless that piece of tissue paper is like 1 X 1 metre or something. Otherwise, all it does is just cut down range, so you have less flash light hitting the subject and you think it is more diffused but it's not (just less light coming from the flash)
The lid bouncing goes against the laws of physics. When bouncing a flash, you aren't literally bouncing, you're actually using a wall or ceiling as a reflector. Light doesn't "bounce" per se, it hits the wall/ceiling and is reflected back. This gives a softer light because the light source becomes huge (i.e. a massive ceiling/wall).
If you're bouncing off a lid that is marginally larger than the flash head itself, then there really is no noticeable difference...you might as well use direct flash
The reason you sometimes see a diffusion effect from the Gary Fong is that what it does is it spreads the light around the room (since the bulb nature sends light in all directions), so some of that light bounces off nearby walls and ceilings and reflects back to the subject, filling in shadows (i.e. diffuse light). Which leads to two points:
1. The Gary Fong is useless if you aren't in an environment where you can bounce flash (you may as well use direct flash instead...it's cheaper)
2. If you are in an environment where you can bounce, why not bounce the flash yourself into the walls and ceilings, to create your own directional fill (diffuse light with areas of subtle contrast)
The Gary Fong takes a sledge hammer approach to bouncing flash, in that it sends light in all directions, bouncing it off side walls, rear walls and ceiling. But if you were in a studio, would you flood the subject with light in all directions? No. You would have a main light, a fill, maybe a hair light (in other words selective, directional lighting) Plain bounce flash lets you do this, because you can point your flash head in any direction
When you say that you bounce 45 degrees forward...why? What that would do is to create a massive light source above the subject...causing massive shadows under their nose and eyes and chins...I can see why you are averse to plain bouncing now. Try spinning the flash 45 degrees behind you like this (diagram on the right):
*** Image removed, breaches site rules on size - was 1100 pixels wide - Rick ***
Yeah I tried one, it does exactly as advertised, but my main point so far is not that it is a paper weight, but that you can achieve better results with just plain bounce flash, and you don't have to pay $70 to get those results.
Also the Gary Fong is costly in terms of batteries too, since it cuts down on your range so much. At events I used to often take 1500+ flash photos in one night, I would have exhausted my battery packs had I used modifiers, so I have a natural bias against them
Interesting discussion. To me the Lightsphere's front facing surface area is significantly (4x?) the surface area of the flash head alone so should offer some diffusion regardless of the bouncing light effect.
But, I defer to you Smorter who have far more experience in this area than I (1500 shots a night ? let's see 4 hours = 240 minutes and 1500 shots = 6 shots a minute, one every 10s ? Phew. Heavy duty.
I'm not sure about your tilting back 45", are you assuming that there is somewhere further back that will bounce the light back, surely in this scenario, as beautifully illustrated, there will be no light going to the target at all.
What do you think about a Stofen Diffuser or Softbox ? Effective ? I have both and think either do soften the light somewhat when not using bounce
Daz
Thread moved to Flash/Strobist. For obvious reasons.
trigger
25-03-2009, 12:17pm
a bit off topic but about spreading the light diffusing.
http://blog.glnphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/IMG_3404.jpg
I find that this does a better job then the GF LS2. You can actually adjust the foil or gel inserts / perspex in side to deflect the light forward according to your needs.
The best so far i find is the new Pura milk cartons that are thicker in material and more opaque and soften the light significantly drops off just enough to "touch the subject" while the bounced light hits the back ground.
I've recently noticed that the Dairy farmers carton bottom half is "textured'. So i might give this a go and post results here.
Any one have a GF LS1/2 Whale tail LS2 i can borrow to test results?
the good old milk carton trick, i have tried that too. works pretty good.
havent tried anything else tho.
JM Tran
25-03-2009, 12:59pm
Umm NO, If you owned a vineyard, you wouldn't offer up the competitors wine?
I think the Gary Fong has its place and for what it does, it works well. The issues occur when people want/expect it to do everything and more, rather than accept it has a purpose and use it for that.
thats an entirely different analogy and context
Im asking would YOU, being his friend, use a lightsphere at his own wedding?
but you also answered that too, it has its place and purpose, and seeing the wedding was mostly outdoors, the photographer friends had no use for it, did not need it, or had other alternatives. Or simply did not want to walk around with his product waving in his face.
What do you think about a Stofen Diffuser or Softbox ? Effective ? I have both and think either do soften the light somewhat when not using bounce
I have seen results from the softbox, its quite nice, but once again quite bulky in size and dimension, even more so than the lightsphere.
The thing about the softbox though is that it extends outwards over the lens rather than up like the lightsphere so to me is more "compact" and less likely to get knocked off/around/laughed at
Tell you what though that the Lightsphere is good for - as an icebreaker - everyone wants to know what the hell it is. I usually just said it was where I kept my salad fresh. Always got a smile and a good shot. ;)
JM Tran
25-03-2009, 1:09pm
Tell you what though that the Lightsphere is good for - as an icebreaker - everyone wants to know what the hell it is. I usually just said it was where I kept my salad fresh. Always got a smile and a good shot.
well this one time at a greek night event with the lightsphere on, I gained about 5 dollars in coins after a bunch of cheeky greek men decided the lightsphere with no dome on is there for money donation:) and kept running up to me and putting money in the cup just for a laugh
but when I use it, it would be taped up and never be able to get knocked off, as it can come off quite easily
ricktas
25-03-2009, 1:10pm
Im asking would YOU, being his friend, use a lightsphere at his own wedding?
.
Yep I would, if it would have been the best thing to use to produce the results needed.
smorter
25-03-2009, 7:10pm
Interesting discussion. To me the Lightsphere's front facing surface area is significantly (4x?) the surface area of the flash head alone so should offer some diffusion regardless of the bouncing light effect.
But, I defer to you Smorter who have far more experience in this area than I (1500 shots a night ? let's see 4 hours = 240 minutes and 1500 shots = 6 shots a minute, one every 10s ? Phew. Heavy duty.
I'm not sure about your tilting back 45", are you assuming that there is somewhere further back that will bounce the light back, surely in this scenario, as beautifully illustrated, there will be no light going to the target at all.
What do you think about a Stofen Diffuser or Softbox ? Effective ? I have both and think either do soften the light somewhat when not using bounce
Daz
I guess yes the lightsphere is more diffuse than direct flash in the absence of bouncing surfaces, but I personally don't think it's worth the money to be used in this fashion, because you can just stick an A5 piece of cardboard behind your flash and that's even larger than the Gary Fong and costs about 10c.
I reckon 4X larger is a bit of an exaggeration, maybe the Nikon flashes, but the Canon flash heads are fairly large.
Nah I don't literally take a photo every 10 seconds...I'm a bit crazy, I use FEB, so its more like 2 shots a minute based on your calculations (500 unique photos a night), because each shot is sprayed at 6.5fps for 3 shots bracketed at +/- 2/3 FEB :) Waste of flash, waste of memory, waste of actuations, but it saves me grief incase the exposure stuffed up or if someone blinked (which they always do because of the flash :( )
The Stofen is even worse than the Fong Dong in that it doesn't even increase the surface area of the direct flash component, but it does the same thing in that the bulb becomes the light source and spreads light in all directions, giving a softer light when that light is then reflected off the adjacent walls and ceilings. Again, it's useless and not designed to be used in the absence of bouncing surfaces. It's funny because a lot of Photojournalists use it inappropriately...but I suspect its because their too lazy to take it off, because it is totally illogical to use them in the open, and I guess heaps of Pros aren't the brightest sparks when it comes to basic physics
RE: The backwards flash, 45 degrees is perhaps a bit extreme, I'd say my flash head is usually more like 120 degrees from the lens axis, so that it's sort of over the shoulder (you don't want it pointing exactly backwards because if you have a big head your flash will be blocked by your hair), but its dependent
This is where its important to note you don't actually "bounce" a flash per se but the light actually gets reflected from a surface. Whether that surface is above you (generally undesireable due to heavy shadows) or the roof behind you (enables better fill of the front of the subject, but cuts your flash range)
The thing about pointing the flash backwards or in other directions, that was actually popularised by Dennis Reggie, the grandfather of Photojournalistic Wedding Photography, and in modern times by Neil Van Niekerk. Here's the bible on flash bouncing: http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/4-bouncing-flash/
I pretty much follow the same principles, but obviously not as good, this guy's got some good vision
waste of money in my opinion. there are better and cheaper options out there...here is but one.
http://abetterbouncecard.com/
Norton
30-03-2009, 12:38am
waste of money in my opinion. there are better and cheaper options out there...here is but one.
http://abetterbouncecard.com/
yep been using this for three years now, works like a charm.....imo the Lightsphere is a waste of money.....Gary Fong's marketing is what's excellent, not the product.
Gidday
Thanks for all the feedback and advice.
A bought one and tried it on herself today. In the tight conditions of our tiny kitchen, it worked a treat - nice even light compared with the magnesium flare effect of the SB600 alone.
Regards
I haven't used one, but it look's suspiciously like a take-away container stuck on top of the flash would work just as well. ;)
What about the Lumiquest 80/20? I've heard they are pretty good.
Darvidanoar
12-12-2009, 1:57am
oops replied to wrong post :)
I've actually went and bought one myself. I bought the Lightsphere II Clear version.
I knew the Cloud version would works better in diffusing the light (make it softer) however I thought that in situation where I would need stronger lighting then the Cloud version would be a limitation because then I will have to dial the flash output up, where as in the Clear ones, I can just dial it down.
The Lightsphere is excellent, however it doesn't always do what it is supposed to do, or what people think it could do. From my experience, it still works best with some bounce lighting off the ceiling, meaning, you use it without the top cap.
When you put the top cap on, it cast the light at eye level only. So when you take potrait photos with the Lightsphere cap on, you are literally casting more light around the shoulder/chest area than you do for the face (it's main intention). Unless you are willing to use extension cord and hold it up high above head level, there is no way with the flash sitting on your camera upright that you are going to light up your subject faces appropriately.
However, what I do find useful, is that, when you got a reasonabe ceiling height, use the Lightsphere without the cap, and it works brilliantly. It acts like a bounce flash effect, plus, the entire lightsphere itself acts like softbox.
Don't know about the pros who have used them with the cap on and can produce excellent results, because from my own personal experience, it won't work as it should. Sorry, maybe I am not experience enough or maybe I am not using it right, but I've tried it many times with the cap on and no, the light are bounced way lower than head level.
Also, it won't work well in wide-angle.
Edgar, I'm a Nikon user and find that with normal ceiling height I get a more balanced light with the cap on. For general indoor work on an SB600 I go Manual f4@1/60 and let the camera adjust the flash. If you're having trouble with wide angle, hold the camera very steady and reduce your shutter to 1/30, this will allow more of the ambient light to be shown in your shot.
Bear in mind that the use of the Lightsphere will greatly reduce the effective range of your flash. Experiment with the unit until you find its capabilities and its limitations. Used within its capabilities it is a very useful tool, but many people decry the unit because they expect too much from it, like any gear it has its limitations.
At a recent family wedding the hired tog was quite happy to have me shoot beside her. When she noticed that I was using the Lightsphere she wanted to compare shots, and after a bit of discussion on settings she went and dragged her Lightsphere out of the bag and started using it. Up till that point she hadn't taken the time to work out how to use it to its best advantage.
EDIT. Mine is the clear unit too.
It's good to hear you are getting pleasing results from the lightsphere, but you can get as good, if not better results, just by using directional bouncing techniques...and this doesn't cost a single cent
You guys seen the new multi-stack Fong for shooting in portrait ?
It's good to hear you are getting pleasing results from the lightsphere, but you can get as good, if not better results, just by using directional bouncing techniques...and this doesn't cost a single cent
You get what you pay for.:D
You guys seen the new multi-stack Fong for shooting in portrait ?
WOW that's great Darren, it even has graduated white balance.:cool:
I think if you have a choice of a Fong or no Fong and dont have a softbox or need mobility then shooting with a Fong is definately beneficialy.
If I don't have a softbox, I just use bare bounce flash, not sure why many want to buy something to give them forward fill when they can just bounce slightly behind them for the same effect
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.