GARY FONG?

Richard Polhill wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
dmac wrote:

As other's have said in the earlier thread, these 6¢ plastic wonder
caps - first the "Sto-Fen" now the "Fong" all have one thing in
common... The producers are out to make a big buck from those stupid
enough or lazy enough to think this will cure their lighting problems.

BRAVO! I'm glad another person out here understands this. What's really
perplexing is Bret uses a Fong and claims it has improved his
photography so
it has to be good.


Well I'm sure Bret's photography can be improved by it. He just has to
put it over the lens.
Apparently, you mistakenly put one over your eyes.
Allen

On Jul 30, 6:02 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
dmac wrote:
As other's have said in the earlier thread, these 6¢ plastic wonder
caps - first the "Sto-Fen" now the "Fong" all have one thing in
common... The producers are out to make a big buck from those stupid
enough or lazy enough to think this will cure their lighting problems.

BRAVO! I'm glad another person out here understands this. What's really
perplexing is Bret uses a Fong and claims it has improved his photography so
it has to be good.


I made no such claims. I said it gives excellent results, much better
in fact that bounce cards, alcohol bottles, tracing paper, and even
some other commercial diffusers. I've used all of those tricks and
more.
You, and the others who argue the point, claim to know differently
even though you've never used a LightSphere. Thus, your opinions are
suspect.

I have no financial interest in touting Gary Fong's product. I tout
it because it does what it says and I encourage anyone looking for a
lighting solution to try it. You rag on it only because I tout it,
not because you have any expert knowledge of the subject.

You are slowly sinking down into the loony Troll Hole with D-Mac.

On Jul 30, 5:01 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/sigphotography/image/82704544(this room is about
220' long, for reference)

Not bad, but you lost intensity and even distribution of the light. This is
the perfect situation for Larry Thong's LightBag! The LightBag would have
evenly lit that room without hotspots or harsh shadows. And 220' is a spit
in the bucket for the LightBag.

Riiiight. But really, that shot was just fine for the purpose at
hand. It wasn't a photo shoot, I only had one light, the SB800, and
save for one or two minor instances, the shadows aren't harsh at all.

To be fair, Eric, your shot doesn't exactly scream out for large soft-
box type lighting..! I'm not having a go at the shot - it's lovely
and you have balanced the light very well. But it's not like she has
complexion issues to hide, she is fully face on with an up-tilted
button nose (so it's really just under her jaw that a shadow is
obvious), and you obviously have nice soft indirect window light
(bouncing off all those white walls!) - so it looks as if the flash
contribution is not that great (which is backed up by the flash shadow
not having an awful lot of contrast...


I have now posted one of the shots taken without flash for comparison.
The window isn't all that big, given the size of the room. I think the
difference is fairly noticeable. Same link:

http://www.dyesscreek.com/hidden_pages/diffuser.html

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Cream colored business card and tape







"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
Having just wandered from the political thread, I thought I'd toss out a
puzzle of sorts that might get back OT. Does the type of diffuser really
matter? If you think so, then tell me what kind of diffuser was used in
this photo? Heck, if you can't tell, just give your opinion as to whether
you think it did a good or even adequate job.

http://www.dyesscreek.com/hidden_pages/diffuser.html

Here is some additional info:

Camera Canon EOS 5D
Lens Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Aperture 1.8
Shutter 200
ISO 100

Clues: The model, my daughter, is sitting on a bed in our upstairs
bedroom. To her left, camera right, is an open window. The room has white
walls, a low white ceiling and light carpeting. The room was a bit dark
and it was cloudy today, so without flash her right side would have been
in shadow. That was filled with a canon flash with a diffuser on it.

If you need a hint, I'll narrow the choices:

Gary Fong Lightsphere
White Post-it note
Larry Thong Light Bottle
Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer
Cream colored business card and tape
Sto-Fen Omni-Bounce

There you have it. No doubt the people who think the equipment matters
will nail this one.

Incidentally, this isn't being offered as an example of a good photo, but
if you want to critique or flame me, go for it. I will post the answer
later if anyone is interested.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 30, 6:02 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

dmac wrote:
As other's have said in the earlier thread, these 6¢ plastic wonder
caps - first the "Sto-Fen" now the "Fong" all have one thing in
common... The producers are out to make a big buck from those stupid
enough or lazy enough to think this will cure their lighting problems.

BRAVO! I'm glad another person out here understands this. What's really
perplexing is Bret uses a Fong and claims it has improved his photography so
it has to be good.

I made no such claims. I said it gives excellent results, much better
in fact that bounce cards, alcohol bottles, tracing paper, and even
some other commercial diffusers. I've used all of those tricks and
more.
You, and the others who argue the point, claim to know differently
even though you've never used a LightSphere. Thus, your opinions are
suspect.

I have no financial interest in touting Gary Fong's product. I tout
it because it does what it says and I encourage anyone looking for a
lighting solution to try it. You rag on it only because I tout it,
not because you have any expert knowledge of the subject.

You are slowly sinking down into the loony Troll Hole with D-Mac.

The curious thing about you Bret, is the way you make wild asumptions
without a shred of evidence to support your statement. You know
absolutely ZERO about me or my equipment yet you make statements as if
you had walked through my studio and done a stock take of all the gear
in it.

Can you tell me now, how you get your foot into your mouth so it's
already there when you open it? Is it something to do with anal thing?
do you sit on it like a lady and take a deep breath with a peg on your
nose? Come on mate, you can share it with us.

Doug

On Jul 30, 4:31 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/sigphotography/...04544(thisroom is
about 220' long, for reference)

Not bad, but you lost intensity and even distribution of the light.
This is the perfect situation for Larry Thong's LightBag! The
LightBag would have evenly lit that room without hotspots or harsh
shadows. And 220' is a spit in the bucket for the LightBag.

Riiiight. But really, that shot was just fine for the purpose at
hand. It wasn't a photo shoot, I only had one light, the SB800, and
save for one or two minor instances, the shadows aren't harsh at all.

I wasn't complaining or criticizing the shot, in fact it is very good. You
just reached the limitations of the flash, that's all I'm saying. The SB800
is a superior and powerful flash and does a great job for its size. My only
point is striving to maximize performance and versatility from our flash
units.

No, I know that. I'm just not buying that an alcohol bottle over a
speedlight is going to evenly and sufficiently light up a hall from
end-to-end that's over 200 feet long...

On Jul 31, 12:00 pm, Julian wrote:
...
Doug

Umm, "Julian" - meet "Douglas 'Tanglefoot' MacDonald", having the
usual difficulty of forgetting which sock is on which part....


(O:

On Jul 30, 10:15 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
Ben Miller wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/sigphotography/...544(thisroomis
about 220' long, for reference)

Not bad, but you lost intensity and even distribution of the light.
This is the perfect situation for Larry Thong's LightBag! The
LightBag would have evenly lit that room without hotspots or harsh
shadows. And 220' is a spit in the bucket for the LightBag.

Riiiight. But really, that shot was just fine for the purpose at
hand. It wasn't a photo shoot, I only had one light, the SB800, and
save for one or two minor instances, the shadows aren't harsh at
all.

I wasn't complaining or criticizing the shot, in fact it is very
good. You just reached the limitations of the flash, that's all I'm
saying. The SB800 is a superior and powerful flash and does a great
job for its size. My only point is striving to maximize performance
and versatility from our flash units.

No, I know that. I'm just not buying that an alcohol bottle over a
speedlight is going to evenly and sufficiently light up a hall from
end-to-end that's over 200 feet long...

200' is stretching it for the LightBottle, but I was talking about Larry
Thong's newly developed and yet to be released LightBag for which 200' is
effortless.

Keep us posted...

Allen wrote:
Richard Polhill wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
dmac wrote:

As other's have said in the earlier thread, these 6¢ plastic wonder
caps - first the "Sto-Fen" now the "Fong" all have one thing in
common... The producers are out to make a big buck from those stupid
enough or lazy enough to think this will cure their lighting problems.

BRAVO! I'm glad another person out here understands this. What's
really
perplexing is Bret uses a Fong and claims it has improved his
photography so
it has to be good.


Well I'm sure Bret's photography can be improved by it. He just has to
put it over the lens.
Apparently, you mistakenly put one over your eyes.
Allen

Oh he just loves the attention.