Demb Flip-It and Flash Diffuser

ziggy53

Anybody using this stuff? It looks like a neat system.

http://www.joedembphotography.com/flipit/
http://www.dembflashdiffusers.com/
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&message=18568855

ziggy53

Blurmore

I saw a guy a month ago using one on a D200 at a wedding, I was intrigued by what it was or what purpose it served beyond what a regular bounce card does, but not enough to ask him. From the examples on the webpage it doesn't produce anything I couldn't do with a sto-fen omni or the built in white card. The light is no softer really just more directable, not like the soft diffuse difference I've seen with the lightsphere.

Antonio Correia

But... but ... this is what I have been doing latelly ... huh

With good results !!!! rofl
As you can see

Antonio Correia

And here goes a link ...
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=33703&page=5

nikos

I like mine
Here's a site with lots of photos taken with various flash diffusers

http://www.the-meissners.org/2006-small-albums/2006-flashmod/index.html

Nikos

Antonio Correia

nikos wrote:

Here's a site with lots of photos taken with various flash diffusers

http://www.the-meissners.org/2006-small-albums/2006-flashmod/index.html

Nikos

thumb

Antonio Correia

The link is very interesting ... :
My solution, which is not to be sold but given, offered fir free, is very low oriced...
It does good pics ...

ziggy53

Antonio Correia wrote:

The link is very interesting ... :
My solution, which is not to be sold but given, offered fir free, is very low oriced...
It does good pics ...

Antonio,

I am a big believer in both bounced flash and bounced flash with reflector card. This is a single bounced flash with (large-ish) reflector.





ziggy53

Antonio Correia

But ziggy: this is great !!
Can you be more specifique when you talk about reflector card ?
Is it something like I've done ?
I have observed that the card in light gray gives good results.
With high ISO !
Can we see a photo of the reflector ? Please ...

ziggy53

nikos wrote:

Here's a site with lots of photos taken with various flash diffusers

http://www.the-meissners.org/2006-small-albums/2006-flashmod/index.html

Nikos

Nikos,

Awesome comparison! Thanks for the link.

I think I might like the Big Flip-It (4" x 4") and Diffuser combo because:

1) I believe in the basic concept of its design simplicity; remarkably effective and versatile.
2) It works on the flash regardless of the flash-head orientation (narrow side forward or wide side forward. This means you can have the head at an angle, up and to one side.)
3) It works with many different sized flash heads. I have three different flashes I'd like to use it with, all different sizes.
4) The diffuser is too small for any shot beyond a few feet, but easily attached when needed.
5) It looks like it belongs on the flash as a professional piece of equipment. (In actuality, I'll use whatever works.)

ziggy53

ziggy53

Antonio Correia wrote:

But ziggy: this is great !!
Can you be more specifique when you talk about reflector card ?
Is it something like I've done ?
I have observed that the card in light gray gives good results.
With high ISO !
Can we see a photo of the reflector ? Please ...

Antonio,

Thanks for the kind comments.

It was just a sheet of paper I found at the site, 8 1/2" x 11" (close to A4), folded into quarters, 4 1/4" x 5 1/5" (close to A6), and one corner stuck into a rubber band wrapped around the flash head (so the sheet remained flat.)

That size works pretty well for this sized group, down to around 3 people in a more intimate room, with a lower ceiling.

I like your idea of using a "gray" card for even closer use (one or two people.)

ziggy53

saurora

Looks interesting, and the price seems reasonable. Report back your results if you decide to get it Ziggy. I just received my Lightsphere II this week and haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

nikos

Both the LS and the FI do a great job diffusing light. I went with the FI since it looks less "distracting" than the LS and the hinged reflector gives me a bit more versatility as to where I can bounce the light. Additionally, I can simply flip it back when it's not needed which is a big plus.

For close up portraits, I've seen a simple device that produced softer shadows than the Flip-it and the LS; it was waxpaper that was rolled as a 12" tube and placed over the flash head which was pointing straight up for ceiling bounce. Does it look weird? Ofcourse but the final results were impressive.

Nikos

ziggy53

nikos wrote:

... For close up portraits, I've seen a simple device that produced softer shadows than the Flip-it and the LS; it was waxpaper that was rolled as a 12" tube and placed over the flash head which was pointing straight up for ceiling bounce. Does it look weird? Ofcourse but the final results were impressive.

Nikos

The ends justify the means. Some of my DIY light modifiers and their orientations:













ziggy53

Antonio Correia

Ziggy.
Many forms of diffusing the light.
Of course, better than I did ... :

Antonio Correia

At this thread
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=36568
I made an analysis of the influence of the ISO and flash range regardless of shutter speed
Tomorrow I will post here a graphic presentation on the tables ...
I think it is a matter of some interest within this matter ... :

Nikolai

Great linky!

nikos wrote:

Here's a site with lots of photos taken with various flash diffusers

http://www.the-meissners.org/2006-small-albums/2006-flashmod/index.html

Nikos

While I applaud a very nice comparison work made by the author, I must say one thing: with the ceiling available, pretty much "bare flash in the skies" does the job. The difference (or the lack of there of) should, IMHO, be also tested in the ceiling-less (and wall-less) environment, such as outdoors or a large hall (I myself tested stofen and mini-softbox in a room with 13+ ft ceiling). In which case (again, strictly IMHO) all those tiny 4"x6" diffusers make pretty much no difference compared to a bare flash (unless you're talking 3 ft distance or less).

Besides, all the diffusers that require flash be turned upward (or 90 degrees from the subject in any direction) eat your batteries in no time, since in most cases you'd have to use the full power..:-(

Umbrellas, softboxes and alike were not invented for nothing!

No pun, all due, ymmv, etc...

Antonio Correia

Nikolai wrote:

While I applaud a very nice comparison work made by the author, I must say one thing: with the ceiling available, pretty much "bare flash in the skies" does the job. The difference (or the lack of there of) should, IMHO, be also tested in the ceiling-less (and wall-less) environment, such as outdoors or a large hall (I myself tested stofen and mini-softbox in a room with 13+ ft ceiling). In which case (again, strictly IMHO) all those tiny 4"x6" diffusers make pretty much no difference compared to a bare flash (unless you're talking 3 ft distance or less).

Besides, all the diffusers that require flash be turned upward (or 90 degrees from the subject in any direction) eat your batteries in no time, since in most cases you'd have to use the full power..:-(

Umbrellas, softboxes and alike were not invented for nothing!

No pun, all due, ymmv, etc...

Can you please tell what INHO stands for ?
Thank you.

ivar

Antonio Correia wrote:

Can you please tell what INHO stands for ?
Thank you.

In My Humble Opinion

Antonio Correia

Thank Ivar...
The photo herewith was taken yesterday evening with bounced flash when we were ready for a fancy dinner ... :
I do not like my ownface
There was natural light comming from the back of the camera and I shot in P with adjustment of the aperture ...

Nikolai

Antonio,

Antonio Correia wrote:

The photo herewith was taken yesterday evening with bounced flash when we were ready for a fancy dinner ... :

I'd say light was very even, which is usually the goal of all the diffuser-type devices. As you can see for yourself, it's hard to beat a low/normal ceiling, and you don't need any diffuser at all in this case.

I must also add, purely from the academic point of view, that when you shoot portraits you do NOT want your light be absolutely even. Shadows play an important part in portraiture (as in many other aspects of photography). But this is a topic for a whole different discussion.

Hope your dinner was nice and you and your SO ("significant other", politically correct gender-and-marital-agnostic version of the ole gud "hubby" or "wifie":-) enjoyed it

Cheers!

Joe Demb

battery issue
Nicolai, It is true that devices requiring you to point the flash up use batteries quicker than direct flash. But this begs the question of what may be reasonably expected. Sure, if you are in the habit of shooting a wedding at ISO 100, F16, with telephoto lenses that put yourself at a distance of 30' from your subject, you had better bring a carton of batteries or bring power packs. I consider an ISO of 400, f 5.6, and a practice of taking most shots within 18' to be a reasonable goal. Doing this, (shooting TTL) I change batteries a couple of times in the course of a job, shooting 400-450 shots.

Nikolai

Welcome to DGrin!

Joe Demb wrote:

Nicolai, It is true that devices requiring you to point the flash up use batteries quicker than direct flash. But this begs the question of what may be reasonably expected. Sure, if you are in the habit of shooting a wedding at ISO 100, F16, with telephoto lenses that put yourself at a distance of 30' from your subject, you had better bring a carton of batteries or bring power packs. I consider an ISO of 400, f 5.6, and a practice of taking most shots within 18' to be a reasonable goal. Doing this, (shooting TTL) I change batteries a couple of times in the course of a job, shooting 400-450 shots.

Joe, glad you've joined us!

No, I'm not shooting weddings at F16, not sure who'd do this and why (I mean, except of getting the whole length of the table sharp:-) .
For this type of shooting I use my two 555EX potato-masher sunpacks triggered with pocket wizard, and trying to go with as low f values as I possible can (70-200 f/2.8L IS is especially good for this:-).
And since I'm shooting Canon and RAW I can also easily crank ISO up to 800 (or even 1600, if it's not a bride's headshot:-) and safely get away with it.:):

However, since we're talking about portable flash units and portable diffusers... I'm not a big fan of LS. Tastes differs, you know. I normally use my 580EX on a StroboFrame Press-T bracket. Then, depending on the environment, I may add either omnibox or mini-soft box. Both require a little bit of an extra power (but not a whole lot), yet may improve results at a close range while not taking half of my bag when not in use...

Just my 0.000002 of the f/stop..:):

Cheers!

Antonio Correia

Nikolai wrote:

I'd say light was very even, which is usually the goal of all the diffuser-type devices. As you can see for yourself, it's hard to beat a low/normal ceiling, and you don't need any diffuser at all in this case.

I must also add, purely from the academic point of view, that when you shoot portraits you do NOT want your light be absolutely even. Shadows play an important part in portraiture (as in many other aspects of photography). But this is a topic for a whole different discussion.

Hope your dinner was nice and you and your SO ("significant other", politically correct gender-and-marital-agnostic version of the ole gud "hubby" or "wifie":-) enjoyed it

Cheers!

Thank you Nikolai.
The dinner was nice.
I agree with you about the light in portraits ...

Joe Demb

taking Q's
Seeing as how this thread was originally about me, I'll take any questions. If the answers would require me to go into promotional mode, I'll deliver the answer as a personal message & the recipient may report it, or not.