Soft Light vs. Diffused

ikea has china balls for super cheap.
these are good bulbs to put inside, but be careful because i hear you dont wanna break them, because nasty chemicals live inside.[/url]

To clarify the diffusion vs. soft light issue:

Diffusers soften light if used correctly.

The reason you don't notice much diffusion when you put a diffusion gel in front of a light is because it's too close to the light. Therefore, it's not much bigger than the light and not much closer to the subject.

Those little diffusers that some companies make that clip right onto the front of the light (or flash) are basically useless.

The BEST DIFFUSION you can get is to put a VERY LARGE SHEET or SILK way in front of the light and very close to the subject. Yes, it will reduce the intensity, but it's the best way to DIFFUSE (SOFTEN) the light. The light source now becomes the sheet or silk that is now very large and very close to the subject.

Diffusers are made specifically to soften light. It's their only purpose. You just have to get them far away from the light source and close to the victim - err, I mean - subject.

_________________
Pontificatious Ramblings

	jegonz wrote:
	these are good bulbs to put inside, but be careful because i hear you dont wanna break them, because nasty chemicals live inside.

Indeed... mercury vapor. Evil or Very Mad

Which ones you use would depend on the other lights you're shooting with too.. the soft white variety available more or less everywhere are roughly the same color temp as halogen work lights

Considering it seems I speak Japanese and not really English, I will refrain from taking part in the DVXUser thread, but this post illustrates perfectly how people that dont know lighting automatically assume the opposite of what is actually taking place.

http://dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1300186&postcount=12

Basically, in his first post, this guy says:

"Even though the light is diffuse with a softbox, it's still a hard source that gives very defined shadows."

Then he is challenged on it and responds with the post linked above. He closes that post with:

"BTW, I believe the closer the light source is, the harder the shadow."

Crying or Very sad

I wont jump in, because really, there is only so much arguing I can do.

	Gage wrote:
	I wont jump in, because really, there is only so much arguing I can do.

... and only so much incompetence one person can stand... eek! Shocked

Well, yes, but the problem is that light is governed by physical laws. I have no problem with someone not knowing something, it's that when you explain to them how it works and then they argue about it.

There's only so much ARGUING a person can stand. I know you all think I love it so much, but I dont. Seems that baiting isnt beyond you, though, eh TC? Not that I'm not often guilty of that too.

I bought a few nylon china balls. They were around 10 bucks each, but the quality is WAY above the paper ones. Much more durable, and also a more pure white. The paper ones I've found usually have a slight yellowish tint to them.

Also, Gage, a very good post on describing soft light. I was trying to find an old Siggraph paper that talked about soft light in 3D. It helped describe why a softbox does what it does, and how to get that look in 3D programs. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it. The basics of it were that when you diffuse the light, it scatters the light beams, but still retains a bit of it's original directionality. So when you pull it further away, even if you brighten it, fewer and fewer scattered beams will hit the object. The paper had a much more elegant and scientific way of putting it though. Honestly. It even had math equations! Surprised

	Quote:
	It even had math equations!

Photography forums are filled with people spouting more equations than actually shooting. It seems that photography is the #1 hobby of engineer types. I cant follow the math at all (and I originally started on an electronic engineering course when I went to college) but I instinctively know where to place lights. The thing is, light is completely governed by math, I just find there is little substitute for putting the pad and calculator away for some good old fashioned hands on experience.

Thanks for the kind words about my explanation. I often have a hard time following myself, I rarely expect others to.

And regarding the nylon China balls, I'm sure they are a better replacement for paper, I just haven't found them in a brick n' mortar store. (I hate ordering off the internet. Not enough patience. When I do, I end up spending more for overnight shipping than the item even costs.)

In my "night lighting" thread (I think thats what it was), I suggested we should start a "lighting supply" thread that could possibly become a sticky. We should try to put together a list of good, cheap lighting supply places.

For the record, the china balls that my girlfriend picked up for me at IKEA were pure white. No yellowish tint to them. And yes, I have already ripped one of them a little, still usable though.

Jeg, have you seen the 37" in person? It looks like the bottom is open. Do you know if it is open or enclosed?

i have the 30in. i am not seeing the 30in on their site, but i am pretty damn sure that they are 30's. and the the bottom is open. that seems to be part of the engineering, that crazy wire thing braces itself on the o-ring on the top and bottom of the ball. if that makes any sense.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The 37" looks like it's a semi-sphere, with the bottom opening being 37". If I follow you, I take it that you are saying that the 30" ball has a top and bottom opening that are maybe just a few inches wide. Is that correct?

The typical small opening is rarely a problem, but the opening - how it looks on the 37" - would be difficult to deal with. Maybe use it over, say, a dining room table with the bottom opening providing direct light and the paper sides adding indirect fill/ambient.

yes the openings are a few inches wide. i own a few of the 42 watt bulbs (250w equivalent) from the link i posted above. it can take some finesse to get those giant cfls into the ball when it is fully expanded.i usually set them up at about eye level around the perimeter of my set, as necessary. the falloff is immense, even with the 250w equivalent, they have to be pretty damn close to really work. spill from the two openings are really a non-issue. after actually looking at the 37 in, it looks like a lampshade or perhaps chandelier like, interesting...

	Quote:
	the falloff is immense,

Yeah, that is the big tradeoff with flos. People tend to expect them to be the same as tungs, just cooler. Not so.

Maybe I'll borrow a camera and put together a lighting comparison/tutorial. Actually, I'd have to borrow some lights too. I hate not having my equipment anymore.

	Gage wrote:
	Seems that baiting isnt beyond you, though, eh TC?

Umm.. ok. I was simply agreeing with you that the guy you were referring to is clearly an idiot.