Watching Gary do the test, it's no wonder there is a shadow. for all of the competing products, he pointed the diffuser directly towards the model. That's not going to soften light because it's still just a small light source. But with the light sphere, he pointed it to the ceiling, so it's using the ceiling as a large light source, and the "bulb" nature of the "light sphere" provided direct light to the model. By positioning the other diffusers differently, similar results could have been gotten. Lets see you do that in a room with a high dark ceiling. The results would not have been so different.
Gary used most of these modifiers incorrectly. He incorrectly used the Sto-Fen diffuser which should never be pointed directly at your subject. Even his angled shot cut down on the total effect of the Sto-Fen since he had the head at a vertical angle to the subject. Only the soft-box should be used pointed directly at the subject, and even then a soft-box on the head of a flash is still a very small light source that's guaranteed to give you shadows with harsh light. This was a pretty bogus test.
Kinda unfair review as exposure is all over the place and not even out correct exposure and of course the brightest one looks better than the rest as the rest are quite under exposed.
Nice video Gary. I own two of your collapsible Lighsphere's & they are by far, my favorite on-camera modifier. For scenario's where OCF isn't possible, they do a superb job softening a bounced speedlite & rarely do they leave noticeable shadows under the chin....
I feel that this is a biased test. Yes, with your lightsphere you are creating omnidirectional lighting, via the white ceiling. Would you achieve the same results with the lightsphere pointed directly at the model? How much of a "harsh shadow" would you receive? For a "scientific study in a controlled lab", would it have been more beneficial to also point ALL OF the other modifiers straight up in a 90 degree fashion as well as directly at the model? (i.e. I'd be interested to see both the graslon and lightsphere here) I understand your product and am in no way knocking it....just knocking the steps taken to show potential consumers certain results to explain a perspective that you want them to see. Gary, this is not unlike trying to sell an automobile that you have created....and showing 0-60mph (0-96km/h) times....upon which your "lightsphere car" is driving forwards, and the other ones you compare it to, you are driving backwards...lol
I was wondering the same thing. Additionally, what if the ceilings aren't white, or they are too high for bounce? Also, I almost never pose anyone right against a wall. Also, the reason that I choose certain modifiers in studio or OCF work is that I want to control the spread of the light, that's not possible with an omni-directional modifier such as this. As with other diffusers this has it's place, and does what it was intended to do very well, but this comparison is apples to oranges in some ways.
I find it interesting that these were all shot vertically. Of course most photos are shot horizontally, and therefore a decent light diffusion designer would make their product for the most often used position. I know that the harsher shadows will be more apparent if the light source is off to the side, like when shot vertically. So it makes for better comparisons of how harsh the shadows can be. I'd prefer these comparisons were done in the more traditional, horizontal direction. The way the diffusion devices were designed to be used.
Exactly light sphere is no better than bouncing from the ceiling. It does not do anything except waste your light power. It is common knowledge that you need a BIG light source to great soft light. His "bounce" test is horribly done to make it look bad. I have yet to take a bounce photo that look that horrible. disappointed with his "test" but expected due to the conflict of interest
at least you could test the modifiers in the mode they are designed to be used in Gary. The lumiquest 80/20 is meant to be used in landscape orientation so 80% of the light bounces off the ceiling, not as you've used it.
This reminds me of poll stating 90% of all woman asked said they judge a man first by the shoes he wears. Reading the fine print, you find out the creators of the poll was a shoe company. When one uses devices or bounces flash they have to put some thought into where will it flatter your subject the most and stay away from what will produce the worst results/shadows. Simulate studio photographers, who position their light sources at 45 degree angles to the person slightly above the subject's head. Aim your bounce flash the same way (behind you at a 45 degree angle to the subject and above their head), and you'll find bounce flash produces the most pleasing, most studio like results and is still completely portable.
yeah, that is majorly tough for me. We do locations with 30+ foot brown arched ceilings that have purple glowing lights. Been a tough go to find the right combo of skills to get great pics. Still learning and hoping to come up with something that is a consistent shoot flow.
All the sphere does is spread the light in all directions evenly. If there is a light coloured surface near enough to it, front back or sides, of course it will deliver a softer light. In real life situations this is not the case. This thing is great if shooting in a white box. A bounce card is more directional, but if shooting at a closer, more realistic distance for event photography, it will be much softer than examples shown in this video. Softness of light, or, more gradual gradation from highlight to shadow, is directly related to the size of the light source. If the sphere has a big old white wall and ceiling to bounce from it works a treat, but without the wall, a big bounce card is a great substitute. A shorter distance from the subject helps too.
In older versions of the LS that was more accurate, but the internal texture of the Lightsphere Collapsible refracts more light forward toward the subject. An "ideal" room (ceiling height, close walls, white surface) is not needed whatsoever to get great results. Plus, the color from the diffuser is more appealing for skin tones. A bounce card is good in a jam, but doesn't compare at all to the Lightsphere from any distance.
Your diffuser is definitely a great buy. I swear by it in almost every lighting condition. It worked out especially well for me when photographing a group of 20 people recently. Excellent work. And tell your model to look a little more enthusiastic that she gets to work with Gary Fong! Excellent tutorial as always.
Great comparison Gary...been using your Lightsphere since 2008 for my nightlife and event shoot and every time i tried using a different brand--nothing can give me the flexibility and results that your modifiers put out. Keep up the good work!
My only thought when the Rogue Flashbender was being compared to the Light Sphere, should it have been bent forward? I am still impressed with the Light Sphere as a modifier.
I've used the LS collapsible often and it works great in small to medium rooms where you can get nice bounce. I always carry it. I also have a Rogue with diffuser panel. The Rogue is very versatile, especially for off camera. The Lightsphere is much more convenient as a walk around diffuser. It won't come off by accident. I love your product!
This video also shows why you need a flash bracket. He mentioned he doesn't have one right now and I know that's not the point of the video but man. A bracket makes a huge difference
I have an older Light Sphere and it works well, no complaints but the test is not fair. Shooting from the side assures there is a shadow to the rear camera right. With a shoe mounted flash, having the flash vertically over the lens axis would prevent a visible shadow with all these. The soft box being very small is used close so the relative cross section of light source is large, and in that case would work very well. They all have an advantage in some situations. Typically I have 4-5 light modifiers for events including the LightSphere but for best head shots a off camera flash with a hand held 40x40cm softbox is best. Photographers will do best with flexibility using a variety of lighting aids and using what works best in the scene they are shooting at that moment.
Impressive results with the lightsphere. It seems to be best at indoors and tight. I would usually use a bracket if I could with flash on up high to avoid the shadow in background. I am guessing but I think the lightsphere on a flash bracket in vertical if not with some forward tilt would yield great results. Ceiling height is very crucial here since it buries the subjects shadow.
All great observations. Please note, ceiling height doesn't have to be a factor. The natural elevation of the Lightsphere based on the proper orientation elevates the source and cast shadows down and behind. With a flash bracket, as you've suggested, you absolutely will get even better results!!!
If there were no nearby walls and ceilings to bounce off of, only a small area of the sphere would be lighting the the model, so the shadow would be much harsher. Therefore, the Lightsphere would not necessarily be better than the others that don't rely on bounce flash. I think if you had tested the Graslon Prodigy with its 5x8" flat panel lens (instead of the small one), you would have found that that one casts softer shadows, whether inside or outside, than the other ones.
Gary, Thank you for your sharing. I'd love to see Ringbox Ringflash Adapter included in test. Also, room is ideal for this type of test, unfortunately it's almost never happens in real life.
I really appreciate you doing this Gary. Its a testament to the confidence you have in your product and its performance. Unfortunately I shoot in dark bars with no white ceilings.. they are usually black. So I tend to use the rogue products to create pools of light in the bar. However, having been both a lumiquest and stofen user in the past to fill in the light of a lighter room, I am really impressed with the light quality of the light sphere. Just glancing at your thumbnails at the end my eye goes to the lightsphere thumbnail as the most pleasing. It also appears to allow the use of gels pretty easily. Thanks again for the video.
Great comparison.. ;) i will loved to see also the stofen in 90 degree insted of just 45..i think that 45 still push the light straight forward and 90 kind of make it more softer. ;)
Regrettably, many subjects think that standing next to a wall will make for a pleasing photo. Such isn't the case. When I absolutely have to photograph people close to a wall (which should be avoided), I rarely shoot vertically, as the probability of harsh shadows increases. Shoot horizontally with enough resolution and cropping the image into a vertical is simple, and using most any diffusion device minimizes the shadow issue. That being said, if you have to shoot vertically, and close to a wall, Gary's device looks like a diffusion winner.
I admit that the Lightsphere looks good here, the Rogue is pretty equal in vertical; however the other comments are correct that most of these shots are not correctly done for a fair comparison. Of course the Lightsphere would excel with the flash to the side like that; all the other units are throwing a harsher shadow to the side of the model. You wouldn't use most of these modifiers that way. This is not a criticism of the Lightsphere as it is a great diffuser for what it does and it's very convenient; I find the Rogue a bit finicky and heavy but it also does a great job when used properly.
Test is leaning on the channel's product. Would've been nice to see photos taking best use of each product. e.g. using the Rogue's flashbender with the diffusion panel open at top. would've been a truer comparison.
A bit of a slight of hand. The room was already dim so the flash tended to be brighter and cast a shadow. You can adjust the flash's output so it doesn't shoot at full power.
These are shot on TTL, as would be candid event photos. You can certainly switch to Manual output, but that won't change the quality of light, just the exposure. Since most events locations are dimly lit, we want to demonstrate real world application.
Though Bob Coss has a valid point, I'm not so sure as to how to correctly interpret the result of this otherwise interesting test unless coming with this message: None of small size, over the flash, modifiers are going to do the job of a traditional light box, unless you mix a lot of experience with some elements of luck. Good video and thanks for sharing.
Oh my! Thank you so much for this video...It saved me scads of time in research comparisons. I have a Rogue and find it to be too cumbersome. I noted during the video , it was not a quick off and on for you either. But the Lightsphere looks great and I will try that next...Strong light with out strong shadow. And it looks so easy to pop on the flash. Thanks again!
Having the Dome off will scatter more light if you have a ceiling that lends itself. Also, it's a bit softer in general, but having the dome on is more efficient. So it just depends on your preferences. Both are "correct".
That was a great comparison.I have a few of your products and they work well for me and they are very compact for my mobile studio work. I also wanted the reporter whale tail but can no longer find any. Can you help with this?
I'm not trying to knock down the GF lightsphere (I'm actually thinking of buying one second hand), but this is a poorly designed comparative test. However, it shows that for a photograph taken next to a wall, the lightsphere performs better...
You must be confused on how profits drive businesses. At a theoretical asking price of $20-30, he would probably be making something in the region of $3 per sale, not enough to pay production costs, the R&D time that went into the product, materials and labor costs, and of course lastly and likely least, profit margin to dump back into all that to produce more of said product. I think $50 is a reasonable asking price for such a product given how popular they are with event photographers. The product must be decent seeing how many people use them. Sure you could get a cheaper lightsphere copy from China. But then it would be just that, a copy. I'd rather support the entrepreneur themselves.
I really liked your comparison. And what I liked about it the most is the "standardization" meaning that you used a tripod so that the body lens and the flash all are in the same position and keeping the camera and flash sittings the same for all diffusers. I know that it is not easy but I preferred if the model kept the same smile and the same look for all diffusers for the sake of perfection. After watching the comparison I bout the light sphere collapsible system and had it shipped all the way to Saudi Arabia were I live. I really enjoyed it a lot. And had many wonderful pictures for my family. So thanks a lot. And also liked your comparison with the magmod in the other video to be honest.... it was my plan to bay a magmod but after watching the video I am no longer interested in the magmod. And finally I would be very grateful if you do another comparative video " light sphere collapsible VS Fstopper flash disk" And thanks again.
How did the results for Graslon become so different on/off bracket? It seems like basically a softbox that points the light directly at the subject, but the amount of light on her was drastically lower on the bracket. Was it TTL and the metering got confused?
Hi, mate. Would you able to tell me if I can use this wire on my Canon 1200D (T5) with an external flash (speedlite)? My purpose is that the camera will be kept inside a box and the wire will come out to the external flash and once the photo is taken, the external flash fires. Also, do you know which feature I need to check before buying the speedlite? Thanks!
I agree. In my opinion this test is crap. Put some efford in how to bounce with your bare flash and you will not be needing these modifiers. From what I have heard the lightspere is heavy and a pain to attach.
I don't get it. Why not increase the flash power and get similar result with bounce? I see almost no shadow in the the "Bounce" photo, just not enough exposure.
G'day Gary, so I'm about to buy the canon 430ex ii and am looking for a diffuser to go with it for event photography. Would you suggest I shoot in manual mode for the extra power and point the flash up if i got the light sphere? Any help would be great thanks
For outdoor use, we recommend having the WhiteDome (or AmberDome) mounted and point the diffuser directly at your subject. It becomes a beautiful fill-light, adds warmth to skin tones, and catch light to the eyes!
I think standing so close to the flash with the bill of your white hat might have affected some of the results. I feel like when you lean into the flash some of the light that would otherwise reach the ceiling to bounce, is being blocked by the bill of your white. Maybe re-creating the video absent the hat might be more assuring of equal conditions with no variable. That said, I do like the light sphere.
comment in 2018. seem like the strength of lightsphere is beside filling the ceiling light, it also redirect good amount of diffused light towards horizontal directions. Other types of light modifier are still worth buying for their own strengths but lightsphere could be taken as "diffuser for dummy".
also the non-directional horizontal light fills the shadow more through bouncing on side wall. But seem like if u are in a party and in need of a light sphere very much, u can take a styrofoam cup and it will just perform as well.
Have you tried using the Lightsphere in an environment where there are no wall for bouncing (or at least at great distance)? You'll note the LS works just as well and does not require those walls to perform beautifully.
True. But like what you demonstrated in this video, other methods also work very well to "just brighten up the model". so i think the situation here is really just where LS performs over the others.
Lightsphere works in interior with white ceiling very well. I also have a Rogue, nice light. But Rogue is not very portable and easy to fall. BTW, this girl is so pretty.
I have a question, I have it, but when should I use the white curved top diffuser and when not. I note that Gary did not use it above, see 1:10 and 4:21 when he puts it on the flash. Anyone got thoughts on this?
as you can probably tell from the murky quality of the video, it was done in very, very low light. Additionally, there was no change in the light between diffusion sources as I wanted the test to be in a tightly controlled situation. I do this type of testing internally on our products, and I wanted to share this one because of how dramatically different the results. were - GF
Here's a tip, move your subject a feet away from that brick wall. Also, how does the Fong sphere do outdoors? Why not do a outdoor fill flash comparison
We shot against the brick wall to show the absolutely worst scenario whereby the background is directly behind the subject to force the shadows. That way you can see how well the diffuser does even in less than desirable conditions.
***** I had a difficult time understanding what diffusers do. Thank you for providing this concise video and most importantly, the side-by-side comparison of diffuser results. This helped immensely!
I've tested some of the other ones here and your setting must be off. "All" but your product cast shadows. I got a couple of these products to not cast shadows like the ones seen here..Your product is good but it pushes my flash output to its limits when ttl is used.
This is a pointless test, because all the diffusers should be tested: A as a direct light, and B as a bounce light. Furthermore, each shot should be properly exposed. The point of this test should not be to see the amount of light that is produced so much as it is to see how the light is diffused and how the light reacts on the subjects face. How about a retest with the above taken into account?
+Gary Fong "What you see as underexposure are the shadow areas created by the way the light is cast. The highlight areas are correctly exposed in all of them, it's the shape of the light that makes the dark areas look underexposed.".... THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THE BACKGROUND IS NOT A SHADOW AREA; AND IT IS UNDEREXPOSED IN ALL OF THE SHOTS BUT YOUR PRODUCT OF COURSE. YOUR PRODUCT IS GREAT IN INTERIORS WITH CLEAR WALLS AND LARGE/SMALL ENOUGH RELATIVE TO THE POWER OF THE FLASH. IN LARGE PLACES OR OUTDOORS; IF YOU ARE NOT CLOSE, ALMOST ALL LIGHT SCATTERS AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LIGHT LEFT TO PROPERLY EXPOSE THE SUBJECT, NOT TO MENTION THE UNNECESSARY WEAR OF THE FLASH, IN MY OPINION. YOU MADE A GREAT PRODUCT, IT HAS IT'S STRONG POINTS AND WEAKNESSES, I AM SURE YOU MAKE A GREAT DEAL MONEY OF IT. YOU HAVE NO NEED TO IN MY OPINION DISCREDIT YOUR FELLOW BUSINESSMEN. SOME PEOPLE KNOW BETTER. FYI. IF YOU DARE ERASE THIS, I WILL BRING IT TO THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS AND TH-cam.
I don't think he gave the softbox at 3:05 a fair chance by him pointing it forward. A better angle may have been straight up. I would have loved to see that. Additionally, all diffusers should have been given the same positions for proper comparison.
so sorry the link embedded in the video didn't work, so I recoded it. You have to type in tinyurl dot com forward slash flashdiffusertest. Gotta love TH-cam!
Watching Gary do the test, it's no wonder there is a shadow. for all of the competing products, he pointed the diffuser directly towards the model. That's not going to soften light because it's still just a small light source. But with the light sphere, he pointed it to the ceiling, so it's using the ceiling as a large light source, and the "bulb" nature of the "light sphere" provided direct light to the model. By positioning the other diffusers differently, similar results could have been gotten. Lets see you do that in a room with a high dark ceiling. The results would not have been so different.
Gary used most of these modifiers incorrectly. He incorrectly used the Sto-Fen diffuser which should never be pointed directly at your subject. Even his angled shot cut down on the total effect of the Sto-Fen since he had the head at a vertical angle to the subject. Only the soft-box should be used pointed directly at the subject, and even then a soft-box on the head of a flash is still a very small light source that's guaranteed to give you shadows with harsh light. This was a pretty bogus test.
I like the sphere light but why is she only smiling in your product image hehehehe
I really like the Rogue, its not bounced off the ceiling and yet give very soft light.
Kinda unfair review as exposure is all over the place and not even out correct exposure and of course the brightest one looks better than the rest as the rest are quite under exposed.
Nice video Gary. I own two of your collapsible Lighsphere's & they are by far, my favorite on-camera modifier. For scenario's where OCF isn't possible, they do a superb job softening a bounced speedlite & rarely do they leave noticeable shadows under the chin....
I feel that this is a biased test.
Yes, with your lightsphere you are creating omnidirectional lighting, via the white ceiling. Would you achieve the same results with the lightsphere pointed directly at the model? How much of a "harsh shadow" would you receive?
For a "scientific study in a controlled lab", would it have been more beneficial to also point ALL OF the other modifiers straight up in a 90 degree fashion as well as directly at the model? (i.e. I'd be interested to see both the graslon and lightsphere here)
I understand your product and am in no way knocking it....just knocking the steps taken to show potential consumers certain results to explain a perspective that you want them to see.
Gary, this is not unlike trying to sell an automobile that you have created....and showing 0-60mph (0-96km/h) times....upon which your "lightsphere car" is driving forwards, and the other ones you compare it to, you are driving backwards...lol
I was wondering the same thing. Additionally, what if the ceilings aren't white, or they are too high for bounce? Also, I almost never pose anyone right against a wall. Also, the reason that I choose certain modifiers in studio or OCF work is that I want to control the spread of the light, that's not possible with an omni-directional modifier such as this. As with other diffusers this has it's place, and does what it was intended to do very well, but this comparison is apples to oranges in some ways.
+1000000000
I've used most of these. Your universal lightsphere is always the most consistent providing soft light.
I just made a lightsphere with a soup tub and some bubble wrap
I find it interesting that these were all shot vertically. Of course most photos are shot horizontally, and therefore a decent light diffusion designer would make their product for the most often used position. I know that the harsher shadows will be more apparent if the light source is off to the side, like when shot vertically. So it makes for better comparisons of how harsh the shadows can be.
I'd prefer these comparisons were done in the more traditional, horizontal direction. The way the diffusion devices were designed to be used.
I would much appreciate if the cealing was dark, so we could have an idea of how those diffusers really work without the cealing reflecting the light.
Exactly light sphere is no better than bouncing from the ceiling. It does not do anything except waste your light power. It is common knowledge that you need a BIG light source to great soft light. His "bounce" test is horribly done to make it look bad. I have yet to take a bounce photo that look that horrible.
disappointed with his "test" but expected due to the conflict of interest
yet... what diffuser would you buy by seing this video? :)
at least you could test the modifiers in the mode they are designed to be used in Gary. The lumiquest 80/20 is meant to be used in landscape orientation so 80% of the light bounces off the ceiling, not as you've used it.
Notice that the only photo in which the model even tries to smile is the Lightsphere. That's gimmicky.
+A Rnam This is blatant advertising, unfortunately.
+A Rnam She's smiling in the Stofen shot, but yeah, I guess
I noticed that too!
I do like this, and as I'm doing a budget wedding shoot for a friend next month I now know which diffuser to pick up!
This reminds me of poll stating 90% of all woman asked said they judge a man first by the shoes he wears. Reading the fine print, you find out the creators of the poll was a shoe company. When one uses devices or bounces flash they have to put some thought into where will it flatter your subject the most and stay away from what will produce the worst results/shadows. Simulate studio photographers, who position their light sources at 45 degree angles to the person slightly above the subject's head. Aim your bounce flash the same way (behind you at a 45 degree angle to the subject and above their head), and you'll find bounce flash produces the most pleasing, most studio like results and is still completely portable.
What if you're not in an environment that allows for any bounce?
yeah, that is majorly tough for me. We do locations with 30+ foot brown arched ceilings that have purple glowing lights. Been a tough go to find the right combo of skills to get great pics. Still learning and hoping to come up with something that is a consistent shoot flow.
Why didn't you do a comparison that does this? Test each diffuser in the exact same manner. Not like you've done here. Such a biased 'test'.
All the sphere does is spread the light in all directions evenly. If there is a light coloured surface near enough to it, front back or sides, of course it will deliver a softer light. In real life situations this is not the case. This thing is great if shooting in a white box. A bounce card is more directional, but if shooting at a closer, more realistic distance for event photography, it will be much softer than examples shown in this video. Softness of light, or, more gradual gradation from highlight to shadow, is directly related to the size of the light source. If the sphere has a big old white wall and ceiling to bounce from it works a treat, but without the wall, a big bounce card is a great substitute. A shorter distance from the subject helps too.
In older versions of the LS that was more accurate, but the internal texture of the Lightsphere Collapsible refracts more light forward toward the subject. An "ideal" room (ceiling height, close walls, white surface) is not needed whatsoever to get great results. Plus, the color from the diffuser is more appealing for skin tones. A bounce card is good in a jam, but doesn't compare at all to the Lightsphere from any distance.
very very good, but she always look surprise with the others diffuser and with the lightsphere she is smiling !
Your diffuser is definitely a great buy. I swear by it in almost every lighting condition. It worked out especially well for me when photographing a group of 20 people recently. Excellent work. And tell your model to look a little more enthusiastic that she gets to work with Gary Fong! Excellent tutorial as always.
Great comparison Gary...been using your Lightsphere since 2008 for my nightlife and event shoot and every time i tried using a different brand--nothing can give me the flexibility and results that your modifiers put out. Keep up the good work!
My only thought when the Rogue Flashbender was being compared to the Light Sphere, should it have been bent forward?
I am still impressed with the Light Sphere as a modifier.
Undoubtfully, Rogue did the best work, keeping in mind that it was pointed directly towards the subject.
Thank you and the model for putting in the extra work...it takes time to perform this task and thank you both very much...excellent video
I've used the LS collapsible often and it works great in small to medium rooms where you can get nice bounce. I always carry it. I also have a Rogue with diffuser panel. The Rogue is very versatile, especially for off camera. The Lightsphere is much more convenient as a walk around diffuser. It won't come off by accident. I love your product!
This video also shows why you need a flash bracket. He mentioned he doesn't have one right now and I know that's not the point of the video but man. A bracket makes a huge difference
I have an older Light Sphere and it works well, no complaints but the test is not fair. Shooting from the side assures there is a shadow to the rear camera right. With a shoe mounted flash, having the flash vertically over the lens axis would prevent a visible shadow with all these. The soft box being very small is used close so the relative cross section of light source is large, and in that case would work very well. They all have an advantage in some situations. Typically I have 4-5 light modifiers for events including the LightSphere but for best head shots a off camera flash with a hand held 40x40cm softbox is best. Photographers will do best with flexibility using a variety of lighting aids and using what works best in the scene they are shooting at that moment.
Impressive results with the lightsphere. It seems to be best at indoors and tight. I would usually use a bracket if I could with flash on up high to avoid the shadow in background. I am guessing but I think the lightsphere on a flash bracket in vertical if not with some forward tilt would yield great results. Ceiling height is very crucial here since it buries the subjects shadow.
All great observations. Please note, ceiling height doesn't have to be a factor. The natural elevation of the Lightsphere based on the proper orientation elevates the source and cast shadows down and behind.
With a flash bracket, as you've suggested, you absolutely will get even better results!!!
If there were no nearby walls and ceilings to bounce off of, only a small area of the sphere would be lighting the the model, so the shadow would be much harsher. Therefore, the Lightsphere would not necessarily be better than the others
that don't rely on bounce flash. I think if you had tested the Graslon Prodigy with its 5x8" flat panel lens (instead of the small one), you would have found that that one casts softer shadows, whether inside or outside, than the other ones.
Gary, Thank you for your sharing. I'd love to see Ringbox Ringflash Adapter included in test. Also, room is ideal for this type of test, unfortunately it's almost never happens in real life.
I really appreciate you doing this Gary. Its a testament to the confidence you have in your product and its performance. Unfortunately I shoot in dark bars with no white ceilings.. they are usually black. So I tend to use the rogue products to create pools of light in the bar. However, having been both a lumiquest and stofen user in the past to fill in the light of a lighter room, I am really impressed with the light quality of the light sphere. Just glancing at your thumbnails at the end my eye goes to the lightsphere thumbnail as the most pleasing. It also appears to allow the use of gels pretty easily. Thanks again for the video.
Great comparison.. ;) i will loved to see also the stofen in 90 degree insted of just 45..i think that 45 still push the light straight forward and 90 kind of make it more softer. ;)
I love your tutorials, I find them really useful and that helps me to improve my shootings. Thanks!
Good controlled test! Better than your other video comparing the stofen to the lightsphere
Gary just curious, what f/stop aperture & shutter speed were you using. Excellent presentation!
Hey!! great video!! Can you make a video like this one but placing the subject outdoors at night??
Regrettably, many subjects think that standing next to a wall will make for a pleasing photo. Such isn't the case. When I absolutely have to photograph people close to a wall (which should be avoided), I rarely shoot vertically, as the probability of harsh shadows increases. Shoot horizontally with enough resolution and cropping the image into a vertical is simple, and using most any diffusion device minimizes the shadow issue.
That being said, if you have to shoot vertically, and close to a wall, Gary's device looks like a diffusion winner.
I admit that the Lightsphere looks good here, the Rogue is pretty equal in vertical; however the other comments are correct that most of these shots are not correctly done for a fair comparison. Of course the Lightsphere would excel with the flash to the side like that; all the other units are throwing a harsher shadow to the side of the model. You wouldn't use most of these modifiers that way. This is not a criticism of the Lightsphere as it is a great diffuser for what it does and it's very convenient; I find the Rogue a bit finicky and heavy but it also does a great job when used properly.
did you use same setting on camera for every diffuser? and how about the flash did you use auto or manual?
nice video, helped make my decision on which diffuser to buy even easier. thanks.
Test is leaning on the channel's product. Would've been nice to see photos taking best use of each product. e.g. using the Rogue's flashbender with the diffusion panel open at top. would've been a truer comparison.
A bit of a slight of hand. The room was already dim so the flash tended to be brighter and cast a shadow. You can adjust the flash's output so it doesn't shoot at full power.
These are shot on TTL, as would be candid event photos. You can certainly switch to Manual output, but that won't change the quality of light, just the exposure. Since most events locations are dimly lit, we want to demonstrate real world application.
I have the Gary Fong Collapsible. Expensive for what it is but it works great.
Though Bob Coss has a valid point, I'm not so sure as to how to correctly interpret the result of this otherwise interesting test unless coming with this message: None of small size, over the flash, modifiers are going to do the job of a traditional light box, unless you mix a lot of experience with some elements of luck. Good video and thanks for sharing.
Sam, thanks for the constructive feedback. You're right that there is no substitution for experience! Happy to have you watch.
Oh my! Thank you so much for this video...It saved me scads of time in research comparisons. I have a Rogue and find it to be too cumbersome. I noted during the video , it was not a quick off and on for you either. But the Lightsphere looks great and I will try that next...Strong light with out strong shadow. And it looks so easy to pop on the flash. Thanks again!
gary, are we supposed to not use the top lid for the diffuser? I want to make sure I get the best photos possible
Having the Dome off will scatter more light if you have a ceiling that lends itself. Also, it's a bit softer in general, but having the dome on is more efficient. So it just depends on your preferences. Both are "correct".
That was a great comparison.I have a few of your products and they work well for me and they are very compact for my mobile studio work. I also wanted the reporter whale tail but can no longer find any. Can you help with this?
i own the light sphere and i must say it really does a great job!
I'm not trying to knock down the GF lightsphere (I'm actually thinking of buying one second hand), but this is a poorly designed comparative test. However, it shows that for a photograph taken next to a wall, the lightsphere performs better...
$60!?!?!? For you light sphere Gary? Really? I would have bought for maybe $20-30.
You must be confused on how profits drive businesses. At a theoretical asking price of $20-30, he would probably be making something in the region of $3 per sale, not enough to pay production costs, the R&D time that went into the product, materials and labor costs, and of course lastly and likely least, profit margin to dump back into all that to produce more of said product. I think $50 is a reasonable asking price for such a product given how popular they are with event photographers. The product must be decent seeing how many people use them. Sure you could get a cheaper lightsphere copy from China. But then it would be just that, a copy. I'd rather support the entrepreneur themselves.
I really liked your comparison. And what I liked about it the most is the "standardization" meaning that you used a tripod so that the body lens and the flash all are in the same position and keeping the camera and flash sittings the same for all diffusers. I know that it is not easy but I preferred if the model kept the same smile and the same look for all diffusers for the sake of perfection.
After watching the comparison I bout the light sphere collapsible system and had it shipped all the way to Saudi Arabia were I live. I really enjoyed it a lot. And had many wonderful pictures for my family. So thanks a lot.
And also liked your comparison with the magmod in the other video to be honest.... it was my plan to bay a magmod but after watching the video I am no longer interested in the magmod.
And finally I would be very grateful if you do another comparative video " light sphere collapsible VS Fstopper flash disk"
And thanks again.
Very helpful. Thank you! I am trying to explore more lighting, as well as DSLR shooting... ANY bit of information is helpful for me...
How did the results for Graslon become so different on/off bracket? It seems like basically a softbox that points the light directly at the subject, but the amount of light on her was drastically lower on the bracket. Was it TTL and the metering got confused?
have to do a Celine ad campaign reshoot for school project - so lighting like Juergen Teller but using digital. lighting suggestions??
Hi, mate. Would you able to tell me if I can use this wire on my Canon 1200D (T5) with an external flash (speedlite)? My purpose is that the camera will be kept inside a box and the wire will come out to the external flash and once the photo is taken, the external flash fires. Also, do you know which feature I need to check before buying the speedlite? Thanks!
You used the Lightsphere bounced! Try the Lightsphere directional and let us compare the results!
I agree. In my opinion this test is crap. Put some efford in how to bounce with your bare flash and you will not be needing these modifiers. From what I have heard the lightspere is heavy and a pain to attach.
But that doesn't promote his own product as well. lol
I don't get it. Why not increase the flash power and get similar result with bounce? I see almost no shadow in the the "Bounce" photo, just not enough exposure.
im a beginner, what kind of flash you use on this video? brand etc. thanks
do diffusers actually do anything other than reduce the power of the flash?
G'day Gary, so I'm about to buy the canon 430ex ii and am looking for a diffuser to go with it for event photography. Would you suggest I shoot in manual mode for the extra power and point the flash up if i got the light sphere? Any help would be great thanks
hey gary...
the lightshepere is it the clear or cloud one???
i think thats kind of diffuser i need. thanks.. :)
the best is the on camera flash of course, jk, i hope i can get one of those lightsphere here D:
which is expensive. lightsphare or rogue?
which one is good for travel?
Rogue V and light sphere give a more natural look for a photo. Well, it depends on the look you're going for.
Must diffusers work based on there bouncing off the wall and ceilings? How effective would the Gary Fong sphere be outdoors?
For outdoor use, we recommend having the WhiteDome (or AmberDome) mounted and point the diffuser directly at your subject. It becomes a beautiful fill-light, adds warmth to skin tones, and catch light to the eyes!
I think standing so close to the flash with the bill of your white hat might have affected some of the results. I feel like when you lean into the flash some of the light that would otherwise reach the ceiling to bounce, is being blocked by the bill of your white. Maybe re-creating the video absent the hat might be more assuring of equal conditions with no variable. That said, I do like the light sphere.
comment in 2018. seem like the strength of lightsphere is beside filling the ceiling light, it also redirect good amount of diffused light towards horizontal directions. Other types of light modifier are still worth buying for their own strengths but lightsphere could be taken as "diffuser for dummy".
also the non-directional horizontal light fills the shadow more through bouncing on side wall. But seem like if u are in a party and in need of a light sphere very much, u can take a styrofoam cup and it will just perform as well.
Have you tried using the Lightsphere in an environment where there are no wall for bouncing (or at least at great distance)? You'll note the LS works just as well and does not require those walls to perform beautifully.
True. But like what you demonstrated in this video, other methods also work very well to "just brighten up the model". so i think the situation here is really just where LS performs over the others.
How well does the light sphere work when you don't have a flash that you can put on an angle?
You'll be limited. Which flash are you referring to?
I just have a box standard one that was a cheap option when I bought the camera. It was the companies own brand. What flash do you use?
Lightsphere works in interior with white ceiling very well. I also have a Rogue, nice light. But Rogue is not very portable and easy to fall. BTW, this girl is so pretty.
I have a question, I have it, but when should I use the white curved top diffuser and when not. I note that Gary did not use it above, see 1:10 and 4:21 when he puts it on the flash. Anyone got thoughts on this?
Wow super informative. Every photographer should see this video and it's results!!
Would the lightsphere be good for night portrait?
Yes, it all depends on your placement, desired look, and camera settings though.
A very interesting and informative video that's worth watching a few times, thank you.
Zeer duidelijk video over flash effecten.
Forgot to also add,.. Attaching the Lumiquest, should it not have been "Strapped" on, "Sideways"? (If that makes sense)
Gary, you are absolutely correct. As my grandmother would say, "If the obvious were a snake, it would have bitten you". I stand to be corrected.
Is there a test like this which is done outdoors where there is no wall?
We can add this to our list of videos to film. Thanks.
no you wont because your lightsphere AKA overhyped bouncing, will fail miserably.
what kind flash diffuser go direct to model best. coz some situation u can't bounce flash on roof .
The Lightsphere Collapsible Speed Mount works great, regardless of having a ceiling for bounce.
I think It's Lightsphere to the work. Photo smooth great.
as you can probably tell from the murky quality of the video, it was done in very, very low light. Additionally, there was no change in the light between diffusion sources as I wanted the test to be in a tightly controlled situation. I do this type of testing internally on our products, and I wanted to share this one because of how dramatically different the results. were - GF
Hardly un-biast if he has a product in the mix.Though the lightr sphere will give good lighting witrh little manipulation .
Here's a tip, move your subject a feet away from that brick wall. Also, how does the Fong sphere do outdoors? Why not do a outdoor fill flash comparison
We shot against the brick wall to show the absolutely worst scenario whereby the background is directly behind the subject to force the shadows. That way you can see how well the diffuser does even in less than desirable conditions.
Yea makes sense now and I purchased your sphere back in 2010'ish and works great I also see plenty of photographers using it at events
***** I had a difficult time understanding what diffusers do. Thank you for providing this concise video and most importantly, the side-by-side comparison of diffuser results. This helped immensely!
I can't get to the image gallery, am I missing something?
i wonder how the ambient light played a role in the results.
Looks like he is intentionally using them wrong to make his look better.
This was VERY beneficial , well done. I think Lightsphere wins !!
What's the track at the end called?
Great test / video!!! Thanks
I've tested some of the other ones here and your setting must be off. "All" but your product cast shadows. I got a couple of these products to not cast shadows like the ones seen here..Your product is good but it pushes my flash output to its limits when ttl is used.
cuando vuelve a hacer video en español? por favor
What is the speedlight distance you shot it at?
approximately 8-10 ft.
In a concert and Festival environment that is just too much fiddling around I just don`t have that kind of time at concerts and Festivals
9, 9 is the one where she's smiling properly not making a silly face. Oh that's the lightsphere - Better buy one so my models smile more
This is a pointless test, because all the diffusers should be tested: A as a direct light, and B as a bounce light. Furthermore, each shot should be properly exposed. The point of this test should not be to see the amount of light that is produced so much as it is to see how the light is diffused and how the light reacts on the subjects face. How about a retest with the above taken into account?
The diffusers were tested in the orientation and exposure settings as directed by the manufacturers.
UNPRECEDENTED PICTURES i
Very informative video! Thank you.
I like both the Light Sphere and Rogue..
what kind of flash should be used in which place? any tutorial?
+Gary Fong "What you see as underexposure are the shadow areas created by the way the light is cast. The highlight areas are correctly exposed in all of them, it's the shape of the light that makes the dark areas look underexposed."....
THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THE BACKGROUND IS NOT A SHADOW AREA; AND IT IS UNDEREXPOSED IN ALL OF THE SHOTS BUT YOUR PRODUCT OF COURSE.
YOUR PRODUCT IS GREAT IN INTERIORS WITH CLEAR WALLS AND LARGE/SMALL ENOUGH RELATIVE TO THE POWER OF THE FLASH.
IN LARGE PLACES OR OUTDOORS; IF YOU ARE NOT CLOSE, ALMOST ALL LIGHT SCATTERS AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LIGHT LEFT TO PROPERLY EXPOSE THE SUBJECT, NOT TO MENTION THE UNNECESSARY WEAR OF THE FLASH, IN MY OPINION.
YOU MADE A GREAT PRODUCT, IT HAS IT'S STRONG POINTS AND WEAKNESSES, I AM SURE YOU MAKE A GREAT DEAL MONEY OF IT. YOU HAVE NO NEED TO IN MY OPINION DISCREDIT YOUR FELLOW BUSINESSMEN. SOME PEOPLE KNOW BETTER.
FYI. IF YOU DARE ERASE THIS, I WILL BRING IT TO THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS AND TH-cam.
I don't think he gave the softbox at 3:05 a fair chance by him pointing it forward. A better angle may have been straight up. I would have loved to see that. Additionally, all diffusers should have been given the same positions for proper comparison.
+ZadyB oh boy, Bob Coss took the words straight out my mouth two years ago. lol
The results would be more meaningful if the exposure was consistent...
so sorry the link embedded in the video didn't work, so I recoded it. You have to type in tinyurl dot com forward slash flashdiffusertest. Gotta love TH-cam!
what about flash settings ?
TTL