Gerard Maas wrote: > How would you feel if after seeing some deceiving soft light > you'd buy the flash just to learn that it's harsh, causes ugly shadows > and you need to expend further money in wireless adaptors, umbrellas, > bounce caps or softboxes???
The Canon brochures probably give some people the impression that good lighting is a bit easier to achieve than actually is the case, but I'm not sure that I'd call the brochures deceptive. In most cases, the hard light is quite evident in the photos. In some of the images where the light isn't so hard, the diagrams indicate that the Speedlites were bounced or used through a diffuser. With a little bit of ingenuity, the Canon EX Speedlite system can be quite effective as a field tool, especially when used primarily for fill. It certainly can't match the results of a good studio setup with softboxes and other controls on every light, but for a one-person field shoot, the alternative in many cases would be no supplemental lighting at all. As has been said, the quality of light is governed primarily by the size of the light source in relation to the distance from the subject--there simply is no magical way around it. I would think this is common knowledge, but seeing people use a Sto-Fen Omnibounce outdoors leads me to wonder. It probably is true that manufacturers of small flashes and attendant accessories could do a better job of conveying what's require to really achieve soft lighting. Jeff Conrad * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
