Fong for fill outdoors?

heatherfeather

I just saw a photo of a photographer I respect shooting outdoors with a Cloud LS for fill. The flash was rotated forward with the dome facing the subject... Anyone else ever tried this? I was super surprised to see it, since I was under the impression that it would just eat too much light to be of any use to anyone...

Thoughts?

Qarik

heatherfeather wrote:

I just saw a photo of a photographer I respect shooting outdoors with a Cloud LS for fill. The flash was rotated forward with the dome facing the subject... Anyone else ever tried this? I was super surprised to see it, since I was under the impression that it would just eat too much light to be of any use to anyone...

Thoughts?

To clarify...with the dome on or off? If the dome is off then its just regular fill flash..if it is on then the the light may be slightly more diffused then bare flash but not much. Even then if it is only for fill flash I don't think it is going to eat much more battery then bare flash.

rwells

Lot's of variable to consider, none of which we know.

Camera? Canon -
In AV, uses flash as fill only
Manual - can use flash as you see fit
+ or - FEC

Flash:
ETTL
Manual
+ or - FEC


Anyway, you'd loose about 2 stops of your power using the LS this way. The photog may not like to use -FEC for fill, and just lets the LS eat up the extra. Not efficient, but will work. Unless the flash/subject distance is really, really close, the LS won't diffuse enough outdoors to matter. (nothing to for the radiated flash to bounce off of)

Qarik

rwells wrote:

Lot's of variable to consider, none of which we know.

Camera? Canon -
In AV, uses flash as fill only
Manual - can use flash as you see fit
+ or - FEC

Flash:
ETTL
Manual
+ or - FEC


Anyway, you'd loose about 2 stops of your power using the LS this way. The photog may not like to use -FEC for fill, and just lets the LS eat up the extra. Not efficient, but will work. Unless the flash/subject distance is really, really close, the LS won't diffuse enough outdoors to matter. (nothing to for the radiated flash to bounce off of)

if the dome is on and pointed a teh subject then the size of the light source probably triples in size vs bare flash. Not much difference I would think but perhaps noticable in some closer shots.

heatherfeather

I couldn't tell if the dome was on or not... perhaps it was off and just used that way for quick in/outdoor use? But the photo was at least one year old, so who knows.

Canon shooter, not sure about the rest. Perhaps I will email her and see what she says. : )

angevin1

heatherfeather wrote:

I couldn't tell if the dome was on or not... perhaps it was off and just used that way for quick in/outdoor use? But the photo was at least one year old, so who knows.

Canon shooter, not sure about the rest. Perhaps I will email her and see what she says. : )

I saw the same thing two days ago with a photog at the spot where I was taking my third set. She had a Canon, with bracket about a 135 lens and was easily 20 ft. away with a GF and no top on it, pointing straight up. And grumpy.....grumpy!

Scott_Quier

Here's a couple I took EXACTLY 3 years ago (22SEP2006) using the GF LS as described. Did it work - a qualified yes. Could I do better now. Probably.



As a side thought - this practice is no worse then using a Stofen diffuser outdoors and may be better as the surface area presented to the subject as the light source is a bit larger with the GF LS.

Nikolai

heatherfeather wrote:

I just saw a photo of a photographer I respect shooting outdoors with a Cloud LS for fill. The flash was rotated forward with the dome facing the subject... Anyone else ever tried this? I was super surprised to see it, since I was under the impression that it would just eat too much light to be of any use to anyone...

Thoughts?

Heather, sometimes even nice people do strange things... All I can tell you is that according to my personal tests (I actually did methodically compare bare flash and various diffusers a few years ago) pretty much ANY small (i.e. speedlight-mounted) diffuser is ineffective outdoors after 5ft or so

Nikolai

Scott_Quier wrote:

Here's a couple I took EXACTLY 3 years ago (22SEP2006) using the GF LS as described. Did it work - a qualified yes. Could I do better now. Probably.

As a side thought - this practice is no worse then using a Stofen diffuser outdoors and may be better as the surface area presented to the subject as the light source is a bit larger with the GF LS.

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is flash vs no flash, not a LS vs bare bulb...

Scott_Quier

Nikolai wrote:

Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is flash vs no flash, not a LS vs bare bulb...

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Both of these images are with flash (you can see the catchlights and the shadow from the bill of her cap) and I further believe both are with the GF LS mounted. It's been a while but I distinctly remember the location and the "event". I know the brighter one is with the GF LS. I grant there could be some question about the first.

heatherfeather

Ok, so this is her answer:

Hi Heather! Good question We've had to play around a lot with the lightspheres to find when, where, and how they work best. In the shot you saw I don't think I had the flash firing - it was just on there still from the shots I did inside. We actually haven't used the lightspheres outside unless we are shooting at night and then we find that they help distribute the light evenly.

We do use the LS inside almost 100% of the time - bouncing off the ceiling.

Yes, we use of speedlights on ETTL - I think I've gone into manual a total of two times, but it's been right on besides that!

So I am not crazy. Phew. What a relief.

Nikolai

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Both of these images are with flash (you can see the catchlights and the shadow from the bill of her cap) and I further believe both are with the GF LS mounted. It's been a while but I distinctly remember the location and the "event". I know the brighter one is with the GF LS. I grant there could be some question about the first.

First (leftmost) image has almost a natural look (and at this resolution I really can't see any catchlights).
Second one is simply flooded with flash, trumping the ambient . If that was LS, more reasons to dump it :-)

jeffreaux2

Heather I have used one in the manner you describe....

It will work okay with the camera in a landscape orientation but has a weird effect when rotated to vertical...especially on full length portraits. Normally the flash(bare) will focus itself to allow for even coverage of your focal length. The fong pointed forward, though, seems to concentrate the light to the center of the frame. It looks like crapola on a full length portrait.:D

...and Im with Nik. I dont think a diffuser is needed or very helpfull for fill outdoors. Doesnt hurt, but really offers no benifit.

Here are a few from my experiment...

...oh...and I agree with Scott too....I could do better now.....but Id forego the fong in these shots!

marikris

You know, I saw a picture of a bride in Flickr that had me wondering about how the photog used the cloud outside. Here's the pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamainsley/3816570544/

And what he said is: " am using this at the oppoiste 45 degree angle to the sun, (almost like a "V" pattern, with the talent being in the middle). I am shooting through the Clouds white Cap to help diffuse some of the light. Just a soft fill, kick, etc."

He has a whole set lighted this way via OCF.

Swartzy

Nikolai wrote:

Heather, sometimes even nice people do strange things... All I can tell you is that according to my personal tests (I actually did methodically compare bare flash and various diffusers a few years ago) pretty much ANY small (i.e. speedlight-mounted) diffuser is ineffective outdoors after 5ft or so

+1

Enitsugua

heatherfeather wrote:

I just saw a photo of a photographer I respect shooting outdoors with a Cloud LS for fill. The flash was rotated forward with the dome facing the subject... Anyone else ever tried this? I was super surprised to see it, since I was under the impression that it would just eat too much light to be of any use to anyone...

Thoughts?

http://picasaweb.google.com/garyfonginc/AmberdomeInOpenShade?authkey=Gv1sRgCKC_5uf-3bLABA#5335102425095586994

http://picasaweb.google.com/garyfonginc/AmberdomeInOpenShade?authkey=Gv1sRgCKC_5uf-3bLABA#5335102437556951058

wadesworld

The guy who does our kids photos uses one outdoors. It's horizontal in position, on the side away from the sun. Of course he's generally shooting at about 5 feet or less, doing tight B&W closeups.