Until they start handing me two plane tickets or I can get a trained monkey that fits in my suitcase to be my VAL I will have to use the other options (just kidding about using a monkey).

I looked at the Lumiquist stuff this afternoon, but I like you feel that it will not quite get the entire car. I did have an idea about using the LTP, maybe I need to design a hat that could hold it (and make me not look entirely stupid at the same time). I would put it on a pocket wizzard so I could adjust on the fly, just a thought.

Scooby - Never underestimate the power of the voice activated lightstand (VAL, or more commonly, another person holding your flash). I'm the primary VAL for my lady, and she gets great results every time she uses it.

That said, you could try the lumiquist softboxes (either the Lumiquist Softbox III or the LTP if you can get a flash off camera), but I don't think you will get a wide enough throw to light an entire car when shot close in.

I've got the softbox III and it's excellent, but I think the LTP on your SB900 might be your best bet. If you can't round up a VAL, just attach your light via a TTL cord (on camera the LTP will block your lens) and hold it in your other hand.

Well figure I might get a few more suggestions, I saw several different types of light modifiers recently but didn't get a chance to ask about them. I have the Gary Fong product but honestly for me it helps but not enough, I have not tried it that much either. I see people put them together in several different ways and maybe I have not found the best one yet, to spread the light out the most. I should probably watch a video but I am not counting on this product to remedy the problem.

Here is the situation, I need something portable so the 36" soft boxes won't really cut it for me. I am taking pictures at car shows, I used to be outdoors but lately they asked me for indoor shows. If it works out I get a media pass and there is no problem but this lastest show, I wasn't able to make the media time frame and had to shoot with the general public all over the place. The result is the following, I underexposed this so the background is not blasting everything else out and obviously no flash:

I needed a wide angle lens to get up close so nobody was in the way but using a flash I only get like a part of the car and everything else is just too dark. I can crank the ISO up but would prefer to be able to illuminate the car and not have the background lights be so bright (and distracting). I hopefully will not get caught in the general public times anymore but figure I need to be prepaired incase I do. On another note, setting up 2 or 3 flashes really won't be an option either, last thing I need is someone to step on it or kick it.

For flashes I have the following: SB-900, SB-700, and an SB-400

Will it be difficult to do off-camera flash? I believe your flash will sync off-camera. This will give you more lighting options. I agree with sevencrossing about mixing ambient, definitely makes for more pleasing images.

+1 for sevencrossing

Plus, if using a small softbox whatever on your SB900, make sure to not shoot to much within a short timespan, anything put on that flash seems to make it more prone to overheating...

elvishefer said:
I'm investigating ways of making on-camera flash as palatable as possible,

Suggestion(s)
use the Nikon diffuser and maybe the warm tungsten filter, supplied with the SB900
Use bounce flash, just off vetical
Set the ISO as high as you feel comfortable with (say 800 -1600)
use a wideish aperture (say f4)
use a slowish shutter speed (say 1/30)
This should allow you to capture some of the ambient lighting and reduce the harshness of the flash

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I wasn't precisely clear in my original post; I said 'on flash' when I should have said 'on-camera'. In short, I'm investigating ways of making on-camera flash as palatable as possible, as I volunteered (never volunteer!! ;)) to shoot a charity event, and event photography isn't something I've done (no weddings, either, it's just not my thing). I figure I'd be unable to do 'proper' lighting because I'd have to be mobile and relatively unobtrusive.

You've all given me some great ideas for alternatives and brand feedback on Lastolite too, which is great, and very much appreciated.

Many thanks,
Jeremy

elvishefer said: Anyone have alternatives to suggest?

Not a soft box I know, but I've recently been trying the Gary Fong LightSphere. I've had some good results, although I do think it's a lot of money for what it is. I suppose if it works it works?

adamz said:
sevencrossing - are we talking about the same products, there's no way I could fit my eazybox on camera - it's way too big

I use my easy box with a SB900 OFF camera

The Ezybox Speed-Litecan is smaller and be use on Camera

sevencrossing - are we talking about the same products, there's no way I could fit my eazybox on camera - it's way too big

I also use an off camera medium sized Ezybox, it,s well made and does the job
but remember any small, on camera diffuser, may not be significantly different to the nikon diffuser that came with the SB 900. If you you want soft lighting, you must have a larger light source , if you want to put some modeling into you flash, it has got be be off camera

I'm using Lastolite for some time (almost two years) and I'm more than pleased with them. I have the medium size eazybox and it works like a charm, small when packed and big enough for portraits. Build quality exceeds the one found in similar products on ebay with a lower price tag - in this case You pay not only for premium brand but also for quality.
It works nicely with both SB-800 and SB-900.

I'm using the 24" Lastolite with SB-900 and it works fine. For lots of info about this combination, check out http://neilvn.com/tangents/
Neil van Niekerk also wrote two excellent books on use of on camera and off camera flash.

I use a Lumiquest Promax System (LQ-105). It is a multi use product which includes a cover that acts like a soft box. I like it since it is a lot more versatile and gives me 5 lighting options (Gold, Silver, white, 20/80, softbox with any of the gold silver or white inserts, in something very portable-smaller than a 6x8 notebook. If you are looking at a small size (6-10") it would work the same.

it looks like a well made product.

what do you want it for? it is only 8.5" square, so not very soft. about the same as the lumiquest softbox III (half the price), but quite a bit smaller than the lumiquest ltp. it will block your af assist if you are using it on camera.

i use my ltp on a sb-700 and a sinc cord. the sinc cord can also screw into a monopod if i need more reach than my arm. this gives a pretty soft light considering it is very portable. I can follow kids around with it no trouble.

if you are using it on a stand, get something bigger, or an umbrella.

if you are using it on camera, consider how i use it, or a bracket.

I've been thinking about getting an on-flash softbox for use with my SB-900s and the Lastolite Ezybox Speed-Lite appears to be a solid product. Any of my fellow NR people ever try/own one? Is Lastolite a good brand? Anyone have alternatives to suggest? I looked at a Lumiquest product but it seemed to get bad reviews around sturdiness.

Thanks in advance :)

that is exactly my point in starting this thread, but it is a great way to think of it, that a huge softbox far enough away with enough power can become hard -- the sun!

Thats a good point studio. One that to be honest took me a long time to get. Even if you use a "soft light" lets say a shoot through umbrella if it is very far away with a high powered flash it might still come acrossas a hard light.

visumax said:
Thanks for all the advice and I am glad to create so much interest in the subject of hard vs soft light.

No problem. It's a good topic!

visumax said:
Light always travels in a straight line, and it is never really hard or soft. These terms have to do with how many directions the light comes from to the subject.

Strictly speaking, true. Diffusion materials (polysilks, 216, 250, opal, etc.) merely scatter light rays. However, I should also mention the term "wrap." A large source is able to "wrap" your subject, meaning that the light is coming from a number of different directions. A large amount of wrap results in what we know as "soft" or "flat" lighting, where there is little contour created by shadow--i.e., all of the shadow areas are "filled."

visumax said:
I was speaking of outdoor lighting, shooting into the sun where I am using fill flash. I either have to have big softbox lighting close to my subject, or many flashes that can be at a greater distance.

Almost . . . but to avoid confusion, let me clarify the latter part of your statement: " . . . many flashes can be at a greater distance." The greater the distance, the more a given source starts to resemble a point-source (i.e., "hard" light).

It's all about the total square inches of source, relative to their subject distance. How ever many SB-900 flash heads (stacked and side-by-side) it would take to make up a total of 12" x 12" of illumination surface, would result in the same degree of "softness" of a 12" x 12" softbox, given the same subject distances. Of course, several dozen SB-900s would have a lot more output, but it would still be no less "soft" (assuming the flash heads have a similar amount of diffusion material to emulate the diffuser on the softbox). In other words, even though there would be a huge difference in the quantity of illumination, if the source sizes are the same, then both sources would have the same amount of "wrap" (hence, the same amount of "softness").

Thanks for all the advice and I am glad to create so much interest in the subject of hard vs soft light. Light always travels in a straight line, and it is never really hard or soft. These terms have to do with how many directions the light comes from to the subject. If there are enough point sources, and they are close enough, then there is even illumination and the light appears "soft" whereas the more area that is not illuminated, the more shadows, and thus "hard". I was speaking of outdoor lighting, shooting into the sun where I am using fill flash. I either have to have big softbox lighting close to my subject, or many flashes that can be at a greater distance. Putting diffusers on the small strobes really does not soften the light, which is my point.

anjz said:
Here's my take on this. Let me know if I am off base.

If you are outside, using a flash as key light, and using a diffuser to shoot people-sized things, you had better have one massive diffuser on your flash, or get something to bounce that flash off of. For instance, at 7 feet camera-to-person distance (or so), I doubt it would make much of a difference if the diffuser was, say, double the size of the bare flash--or even triple. You'll still end up with nasty shadows. That is, unless you have something to bounce that flash off of and the diffuser directs a lot of the flash's light to that bounce surface.

I could see how a diffuser might help when shooting little things, but portraits and the like, I don't see how a diffuser, without a couple of nearly bounce surfaces (that don't add color cast) to which the diffuser directs light.

What am I missing?

Not a thing! You're exactly right!

Yes, you would need a large reflector, and a very powerful source (if choosing not to use reflected sunlight). Or high Watt-second studio strobes with large softboxes.

For me, it's more practical to simply reflect the sun's light. Matthews makes an excellent hard reflector called a Mathboard reflector. It's 40" x 40" and has two, silvered sides: super-soft and soft. These are super-soft, lightweight reflectors that produce a quality of light that resembles a 4K HMI through a 4' x 4' polysilk, when used on a sunny day. They're great, but the size of the lit area is fairy small--only good for a head and shoulder shot. For a full-body shot, a couple 4' x 8' sheets of white Foamcore works great in direct sun, close to your subject. Place a couple of these in front of your subject, with the sun at her back, and voila! But, any further than a few feet, and they won't put out enough light. You can also buy or rent ridiculously large Gryffolyn white fabric reflectors, up to 20' x 20' and even larger.

But, a couple of high-powered studio strobes and some large softboxes is hard to beat. It would take several hundred Gary Fongs or about a thousand Stofens to match that!

[Note: I originally thought you were talking about fill-flash. While the misdirected reply below doesn't apply to your post (because I misread it), I'll add it here anyway . . .

If you're talking about daylight exteriors, I think you may be confusing, "lowering contrast ratio," with soft-source lighting. Daylight exterior fill-flash is used mainly to lower the contrast ratio between the direct sunlight on your subject, and the shadows visible on your subject's face (typically). Typically, fill-flash fired from a Speedlight or other small-source unit is actually fairly point-source-ey and "hard." It's simply not as noticeable in a daylight exterior shot, since you're merely filling shadows (i.e., lowering the lighting ratio), and the sun is acting as your primary key light (which is also a point-source).

Although on a clear day, while the sun typically behaves as a point source, there's often quite a bit of reflected light from the ground and surrounding elements, which also helps lower the scene's contrast ratio.]

Oops! Double-post.

visumax said:
I have been reading a lot about soft vs hard light using strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, etc. My view is that there is really no such thing as "hard" or "soft" light but that this is relative only to how broad an area the light is coming from.

The latter part of your statement is absolutely correct. The former, I beg to differ (at least, semantically), but, I think I know what you're getting at. I would still characterize the two types of sources this way:

1. Point source = "hard."
2. Large source = "soft."

The general "rule" which affects a light's degree of "softness:"

The larger the source, the "softer" the light--and its derivative: the closer the source is to its subject, the "softer" the light (because the source becomes larger, relative to its subject, as it's moved closer).

For example, an 8' x 8' polysilk, illuminated by a bank of KinoFlo Image 80s, at a distance of one-foot from your subject, would be pretty darned soft. Move that same rig further and further away from your subject, and it will slowly start to resemble a point source (albeit, a very dim one).

Speedlight diffusers like Stofens, when pointed directly at your subject, make the light slighly softer (but only barely so), because the flash is merely scattering the light a bit more evenly over the entire surface flash head than the reflector does alone--this merely eliminates any irregularities in reflector design. Stofens also bleed light from the side, adding a small amount of bounce from whatever reflective surfaces there are nearby. The "softening" effect from a Stofen, however, is minimal (unless the bounce contributes a significant amount of the light) largely because the overall size of the flashhead's source is unchanged when pointed directly at the subject (save for any bounce).

Gary Fong-type Speedlight diffusers are a bit softer because they're larger (bounce aside). LumiQuest-style "Big Bounce" Velcro-on bounce reflectors enlarge the source of the flashhead many more times than a Stofen or Fong-type diffuser, and as a result are softer still (excluding any off-axis bounce).

visumax said:
I think that if you had enough point light sources/strobes that the effect would be the same as fewer lights that were expanded by umbrellas/boxes.

Yes, that is true to a certain extent. It depends on both the spacing of the individual light sources, and the distance of the instrument(s) to its subject. However, whichever group of sources combine to make the largest aggregate "source area," will still effect the "softer" light.

A 1' x 1' LED LitePanel (above) is a good example of how an array of "point sources" can still make soft light. While the panel is made up of hundreds of individual "point sources," at typical lighting distances, the character of the light is quite soft.

In response to your original post, comparing four Speedlights with your two Elinchrom umbrellas depends entirely on the total area of "bounce source" you plan on employing with your Speedlights (if you're even planning on bouncing them at all). If your "total bounce area" from your Speedlights (wall/ceiling, Foamcore, umbrellas, etc.) is less than the total area of your Elinchrom set-up, the light will be less soft.

If you plan to equal the softness of the two Elinchrom-powered umbrellas with Speedlights alone, that are not bounced, and that are pointed directly at your subject, you would still need need as much aggregate source area as your Elinchrom umbrellas provided to simulate the effect of the 1' x 1' LitePanel above. That would be a LOT of Speedlights! No matter how thick a layer of diffusion you put onto your Speedlight heads, the light will not get much softer until you also increase the size of the source (e.g. attaching a large softbox).

I think that the hardness or softness of the light is subject to your personal style or the particular look you are going for with the shot. There really should be no debate. This is art - so there is no right or wrong. Where I think you are less right is in that you think it would be easier to achieve softbox effects with several naked speedlights. Given enough time with trial and error, sure you could. Compared to the 1/2 second it took me to setup the shot below I don't think easier is a word I would describe not using a softbox.

This was shot on a clear day with the sun low in the sky. We are in the shade of the wall behind the model. I am about 4 feet away with a focal length of about 50mm (35ish on DX). I am holding an SB-600 with a home made 15" x 10" softbox in my left hand.

Thanks for the tip, Mike. I will try to incorporate that technique with my current diffusers and SB-800 and SB-600.