I have found that my D800 fires my sb600 and/or my sb910 about 1 in 10 times. Sometimes I have to shut it completely off and turn it back on and then it will occasionally fire the flashes. I also noted that the flashes don't fire at the same strength that they do when fired with my d300. I ran a side by side test with the d800 and d300 and the d300 fired them every time and the d800 would fire them once and then not again until after I shut it off and turned it back on again. The strobes fired about a stop too dim compared to the d300.

With this and the image moving during auto bracket and interval shooting, this camera is going back for repair. I still like the rest of the d800 but I have to say it wasn't very well tested before release.

Scott

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.

@ Johnnyapple,

Terrific Shot!

My best,

Mike

anjz said:
Drab, I think we are on the same page.

Regardless, it looks like Mike Guntner is getting some sweet shots using Gary Fong diffusers and, apparently, no bounce. So, how is is this done?

Frankly, I'd like to stop carrying a big fold-up reflector around with me everywhere I go. Gets some pretty odd looks at the playground.

I've seen the GF diffusers and they didn't seem to me to equate with a soft box or big umbrella. But, then again, I never used one. So, what's going on with that thing?

Hi,

It's easy when the subjects are so pleasant work with.

In the first portrait, there are two of the GF diffusers on SB900s, both pointed up, but very close to Alyssa, one on the right A is Full, the one on the left B is a -2/3 stop, for a hint of shadow, mastered on an SB800 (turned off) from the D90.

The picture of Skye is done with a Strobie Honeycomb on a SB900, mastered with a SB900 (turned off).

All are TTL with Nikon's Creative Lighting System.

I use from one to six strobes in nearly all my shots.

My best to all,

Mike

Thanks, Andrew.

Outstanding photo, Jonnyapple. It's got hard shadows, but I guess the key was placing them well. I think the shadow on the groom's face looks better this way than if it were softer.

I don't think it looks -so- unnatural to shoot the speedlights without a diffuser. Here's a shot I took with a single SB-600 held above my head while I triggered my D300 with an RF remote. Exposure was set for the background (1/4s at f/5.6, 35mm).

Nice shots mike and poster..

@ mike : good to see another portrait using the micro!

@ visumax : Like the multiple strobe idea but I think you will need a small difuser )like the gary fong to lessen the hardness even of 4 direct strobes. Still thanks its an idea worth exploring. esp for outdoor shooting. Gives me an excuse to grab a few more strobes :-)

Drab, I think we are on the same page.

Regardless, it looks like Mike Guntner is getting some sweet shots using Gary Fong diffusers and, apparently, no bounce. So, how is is this done?

Frankly, I'd like to stop carrying a big fold-up reflector around with me everywhere I go. Gets some pretty odd looks at the playground.

I've seen the GF diffusers and they didn't seem to me to equate with a soft box or big umbrella. But, then again, I never used one. So, what's going on with that thing?

Have you spent much time with the Strobist website, anjz? IIRC in the Strobist 101 section there is a set of photos demonstrating exactly what you seem confused about.

The set, as I recall, is a one-light setup w/o much ambient. The differences between modifier "softness" and the effect upon the subject (person) are quite obvious.

If you haven't gone through the Strobist exercises, I suggest you do. If you have I'm totally confused as to your "query".

EDIT: AHH - yes I agree with what I /think/ you're getting at, doubling the size of a bare flash is worthless, IMHO, at the 7 foot range you describe unless you've involved secondary bouncing. Well, worthless might be a bit harsh, but very very subtle at best. The main effect there is in eliminating hotspotting, not in the size increase.

EDIT 2: Honeycomb = grid, not snoot, no? Regardless, you're talking the interfit product? You like that? Better than the Honl speed grids? I can put a couple of the Honls in my 1510 case, as they're so much smaller than the interfits. That's why I went that route, so I haven't even tried the interfits.

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?

Hi all,

Thanks johnnyapple.

No poster, I was using two Gary Fongs outside with two SB900s on the first shot.

The second shot is with a single SB900 had a Stobie Honeycomb attachment (a kind of snoot - in the sense that it is directed - with a bit of diffusion). They are usually used in conjunction with other light. In this case, I didn't use anything but the setting sun.

I tend to use multiple flashes indoors and out.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi poster,

Nice shot.

You're right about the 'bounce', but I like the diffuse light I get from the diffuser (wordy, I know), here's a sample of two SB900's outside, using a 105mm micro at f2.8.

It gives the appearance of an open shade shot without any harsh shadows, contrasted with this from this week using a Strobie honeycomb on a SB900

My best,

Mike

thanks.

Ohh okay, so you are talking about the "wide angle diffuser" which comes with the Sb900. Okay. I can see how that might work for outside portraits. I would have to be hard pinched to use it indoors though.

The idea of using two strobes with the Gary Fong diffuser just puzzled me.

I myself am a fan of harder/narrower light for moody portraits.

Great shots, Mike.

Hi poster,

Nice shot.

You're right about the 'bounce', but I like the diffuse light I get from the diffuser (wordy, I know), here's a sample of two SB900's outside, using a 105mm micro at f2.8.

It gives the appearance of an open shade shot without any harsh shadows, contrasted with this from this week using a Strobie honeycomb on a SB900

My best,

Mike

Example of two strobes with two "snoots" attached.

BTW

@Mike

I don't understand why you would use the Gary Fong diffuser. You disperse a lot of light in 360 degrees. You get only some of light output onto your subject. So the rest of "lost" light get's bounced off the back walls etc? It picks up some color from it as well.

Would it be better to use simply a one strobe through a softbox or an umbrella and a reflector to soften the shadows.

Hi,

The diffusion of the light matters, and the size of and shape of the light source matters, too.

You can also get something like the Gary Fong diffusers for a couple (or all 4 of your speedlights) of your SB900s that will really add to your portraiture and fire them off your camera or your new SB700.

Also, and this is big, you can use the SB900, put a diffuser on the SB700 (I swapped only because I don't know if this will work on the SB700 ;-) ) and use the SB900 as a Master and have it fire with the other three as slaves and fire with them, too.

Strobies makes a Dome that also works pretty well as a diffuser, but what I really like their "honeycomb" and "snoot" attachments. I use them frequently for a lot of product shots and portraits. These attachments are not diffusers at all, but just the reverse, they focus light on the subject at a very specific point.

This photo was used for a sell sheet for gin, and was lit by a single SB900 with a Srobie honeycomb:

My best,

Mike