At 08:00 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, John wrote:
At 15:59 12/4/02, Robert F. Man wrote:
At 09:06 AM 12/4/2002 -0800, Winsor Crosby wrote:
...I read an informative article with lots of pictures some time ago
that dealt with diffusers. They don't really work unless they are
really large and really close like umbrellas and light boxes. The
harshness is inversely dependant on the size of the light source and
directly dependant on the distance. Notwithstanding all the gadgets for
sale out there, unless you can bounce a lot of light off other sources
like ceilings and walls you are pretty much stuck.
--
Well OK, but all I want is less harsh pictures, like the one my wife gets
w/ her digi-cam :-) I mean it is embarrassing for me to tout the virtues
of my OM system, while her dinky little C-3000 gets better flash pics!
I agree with Winsor about size of diffuser versus distance. For my
cousin's wedding I used a Sunpak 555 potato masher with a Lumiquest
Softbox (the full size one, not the mini). Near zero suitable ceiling or
wall to use for bounce in churches and large reception halls. When using
it I must watch to keep in close, otherwise its effect is lost. Stuck
with the fast 50mm for that reason, even though there's some perspective
risk getting in close.
Remember that not only is light quality important, but its direction is
also. Using the handle mounted flash for close in shots of dancing
couples created some nice modeling of facial features, and its offset
creates a different light direction compared to using the rotating camera
bracket that keeps the flash directly above the lens. I will likely use
it again for shooting dancing couples to see how consistent the effect
is. BTW, when using the rotating bracket, I usually have a Metz bounce
card mounted on the 40 MZ. Its panel is about the same size as the
Lumiquest Softbox panel and it raises the light source a little
more. Both are significantly better than a shoe mounted T series flash.
First of all, when you say rotating bracket, is the Metz G16 one of those?
You ought to be able to get better flash pix than the C-3000. Most
cameras with built-in flash are pretty harsh, provide very frontal
lighting and are high risk for red-eye.
One interesting thing is I just got the roll of Provia 100F slide back, and
it seems that the flash pictures look BETTER than the Kodak 100. Is it
possible that the film can make a difference?
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site.
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|