On 17/12/04, Jeff Conrad, discombobulated, unleashed: >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.
Well put Jeff. This page containing 20-odd pics shot at an evening meal are all down to a simple 420EX bounced from a 12 foot white ceiling. 24- 70 L on a 1Dm2, manual, all at 1/250th at f 5.6.... <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/xmas.html> (Mac users note that they are fairly bright cuz most of the intended viewers will see them on PC monitors which will appear a bit darker). Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
