# Shot with the Gary Fong Cloud flash diffuser



## Gabriel (Nov 16, 2009)

For some of the projects I have in mind, I will need a diffuser for my 580EX. After some research, I settled on Gary Fong's famous diffuser attachments. I wanted to test this and my "new" film camera, so I arranged a brief shoot with a local model. Here are a couple of shots from the shoot, no editing of any kind save for a resize. These are digital images shot with my Canon 40D.

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with it. I can do a lot with this, just have to fine tune the exposures now and then (we were really just flying through outfits, trying to shoot before the sun climbed up too high).






1/60th, f/4, ISO 160.





1/100th, f/9, ISO 100.


----------



## DScience (Nov 16, 2009)

NIce!


----------



## ssnxp (Nov 17, 2009)

Nice, do you have more of this set outdoors? I want to get the Fong collapsible, but I'm not convinced of it's use outdoors yet..


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 17, 2009)

VERY NICE.
Just wondering why you'd use Fong's outdoors (especially second shot) where you're loosing a LOT of light?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

I would get the model away from the wall, there's a nasty shadow you can see around her outline, and it's really noticeable between her legs.  With a single light source, it's kind of hard to kill such shadows.  About your only option is to move the subject away from the wall, or use multiple lights that are more defused.

In shot #2 I don't see where the flash did much of anything for you except to put a catch light in her eyes.


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 17, 2009)

DScience said:


> NIce!



Thanks.



ssnxp said:


> Nice, do you have more of this set outdoors? I want to get the Fong collapsible, but I'm not convinced of it's use outdoors yet..



Most of the shots are more of the same, but here's another one from a different angle:






What instance do you think the diffuser might disappoint you in? Dappled lighting, shade, etc.? Mine came with an inverted dome for direct, fill-in flash. It has its limitations but I consider it a grand improvement over no diffusion. 



IgsEMT said:


> VERY NICE.
> Just wondering why you'd use Fong's outdoors (especially second shot) where you're loosing a LOT of light?



Are you referring to shooting in the shade, instead of in direct sunlight? Sort of as a test, and also because the model showed up late (though she called on the way) and we lost an hour of the really good light. The sun was getting too high already so I turned her away from it. Normally, I'd fill it in with a reflector, but then how would I test the Fong? 

I will actually be using it mostly indoors, but I already tested it on myself for that - and I'm not posting those shots, lol. The least amount of photos of me floating around, the better... But if you've ever put some gift-box tissue over your flash when shooting indoors, the results are similar, but much better. 



inTempus said:


> I would get the model away from the wall, there's a nasty shadow you can see around her outline, and it's really noticeable between her legs.  With a single light source, it's kind of hard to kill such shadows.  About your only option is to move the subject away from the wall, or use multiple lights that are more defused.
> 
> In shot #2 I don't see where the flash did much of anything for you except to put a catch light in her eyes.



I've no idea why you're calling that shadow "nasty," it's not objectionable at all. It gives depth to the image, without it the picture would look one-dimensional, and it adds definition to her body without being intrusive. I'd understand if there was a black outline around her head or every contour of her body, but there isn't. Either it's a matter of taste, or you're nitpicking  And it's hard to lean against a wall when you're a couple of feet away from it... I'm not happy with the bend of her legs (maybe that's what looks odd to you too?), and I can probably find a better image in the set, but I wanted to throw these up here just to share my findings. 

Shot #2 uses flash as fill, to make the skin tone pop, and give the other colors a little more saturation.. and to add those little catchlights that make the viewer have to look at those powerful eyes. I use flash outdoors as a habit, it gives an image more vibrant colors. Try it sometime. I used to hate flash when I first started shooting, now I would hate to be without it.


----------



## Jon_Are (Nov 17, 2009)

I have to agree with inTempus: the shadow detracts from the image and makes it look poorly lit. 

Move the model away from the wall. She doesn't even look as if she's leaning against it anyway.


----------



## chip (Nov 17, 2009)

very nice - not nasty!


----------



## inTempus (Nov 17, 2009)

Gabriel said:


> I've no idea why you're calling that shadow "nasty," it's not objectionable at all. It gives depth to the image, without it the picture would look one-dimensional, and it adds definition to her body without being intrusive. I'd understand if there was a black outline around her head or every contour of her body, but there isn't. Either it's a matter of taste, or you're nitpicking  And it's hard to lean against a wall when you're a couple of feet away from it... I'm not happy with the bend of her legs (maybe that's what looks odd to you too?), and I can probably find a better image in the set, but I wanted to throw these up here just to share my findings.


Actually, the shadow to the discerning eye is objectionable in most cases.  It's heavy and it's generally not a good thing.  

The whole reason people buy devices like the Fong is to get rid of such shadows. 



> Shot #2 uses flash as fill, to make the skin tone pop, and give the other colors a little more saturation.. and to add those little catchlights that make the viewer have to look at those powerful eyes. I use flash outdoors as a habit, it gives an image more vibrant colors. Try it sometime. I used to hate flash when I first started shooting, now I would hate to be without it.


I know a little something about flash photography.  I use a flash for almost every shot.  Follow one of my links in my signature line to see some examples.

Your shot in #2 likely would have "popped" more if you had used a simple white reflector vs. the Fong.  The Fong in direct sunlight does very little to illuminate your subject as it's blasting the majority of it's light everywhere but at the subject.  It's designed for indoor use where you have walls and ceilings around the subject that bounce light at it from all different directions to kill shadows like you see in the first picture.

If you get right up on top of your subject and point the flash head directly at the subject with the Fong attached it can behave something like a softbox by defusing the light bit, but it's not exactly ideal as you still have a lot of wasted light going all over the place.  There are better tools for shots of this type.


----------



## musicaleCA (Nov 18, 2009)

Hehe. Telling Tharm to try using flashes. That's a funny one!  (No offence intended, but it _is_ kinda funny.)

Anyway, I agree. Harsh shadows aren't so cool. What's going on in these shots is glamour/fashion, and generally (ish) hard shadows really don't look good. Sometimes hard shadows are definitely sought though; take a look at McNally's work. He uses hard shadows to _really_ add definition to an image.

And I maintain that Fong outdoors = silly. Most of your light gets wasted. Direct flash would be preferable, even. Just pull out the wide-angle diffuser to spread it out more. Or an umbrella. Umbrellas can work quite nicely outdoors...as long as they don't turn into a bloody sail. :lmao:


----------



## ssnxp (Nov 18, 2009)

Gabriel said:


> Most of the shots are more of the same, but here's another one from a different angle:
> 
> 
> What instance do you think the diffuser might disappoint you in? Dappled lighting, shade, etc.? Mine came with an inverted dome for direct, fill-in flash. It has its limitations but I consider it a grand improvement over no diffusion.



Thanks again! I'd like something for an all purpose use, and I figured the Fong wouldn't be great outdoors. I was thinking about using the Chrome Dome inside of it to 'kick' the light forwards, though.

But the more I think about it, the less likely I would be to use ON camera flash outdoors. I'd probably use the Fong indoors (not a studio), where I can't lug around an umbrella or something.

Thanks again!


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 18, 2009)

Some of you are missing the point, I think - of course, a reflector _would _be better, but I took this girl out to the beach to _test_ the Fong diffuser, along with a film camera. These pictures aren't meant to blow your mind, they're just meant to show me - and now, you - what the Fong will do in "outdoor" mode, i.e., in daylight, with the flash pointing straight at the subject. In a better lighting situation - around sunrise or sunset, when I normally shoot, and not at 9AM - and some fine-tuning, I think it will be an interesting tool to use for some shots. 

The best fill flash is the 580EX at low power, no diffusion, on a cord (usually have it on a Flip bracket, or handheld), for just a little pop. But compared to an E-TTL burst, in the shade, the Fong wins. 

Its primary purpose, though, is for indoor use, with some bounce. I'll be shooting some environmental portraits around a specific theme, and I think many of the people will want to be photographed inside their homes. 

As for the shadow, I now have three or more people telling me it's there, so in that case, I'll have to play with the monitor settings to see if the problem is on my end. Because I still don't see anything save for a medium shadow, mostly down by her lower body. I don't see anything I'd even think of calling "harsh." Hey, maybe it's me and not inTempus (and the others) 

InTempus, I've seen your work before and figured you might have figured out how to use a flash by now. But you remarked that all I got out of the flash on #2 were some catchlights. Consider that the shot was done with the sun behind her right shoulder, no reflector, in E-TTL. It's more than just catchlights. Obviously, as stated above, a reflector would do wonders for this shot, but it's not exactly a conceptualized image that I'd include in my book - I think any photographer that has shot swimwear has a shot just like this. 

Hell, I'm not even adding any images to the fashion and beauty portfolio anymore, I love shooting pretty girls but it's lost its meaning for me (if it ever had any). I'm going into something very different now.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 18, 2009)

Gabriel said:


> Some of you are missing the point, I think - of course, a reflector _would _be better, but I took this girl out to the beach to _test_ the Fong diffuser, along with a film camera. These pictures aren't meant to blow your mind, they're just meant to show me - and now, you - what the Fong will do in "outdoor" mode, i.e., in daylight, with the flash pointing straight at the subject. In a better lighting situation - around sunrise or sunset, when I normally shoot, and not at 9AM - and some fine-tuning, I think it will be an interesting tool to use for some shots.


We've done several very detailed threads on just this subject.  While the Fong is defusing the light, it's just not doing a quality job of it.  It works ok in a pinch, but it's a $49 pinch.  A $11 Sto-Fen will give the same results when used in a similar fashion (a couple of threads floating around here with test shots I took with each modifier exist).  It's also smaller than the Fong making it easier to keep in your bag.  A softbox would yield better results in terms of a soft/defused light.

Surely you know enough about what's going on to realize the Fong is spraying light in every direction outside.  That's not really useful.  It is useful indoors though, where the Fong was designed to be used.  But even indoors the Fong doesn't really offer much over a bounced flash.  See below.

I guess my point is, buying the Fong for shooting outdoors in the manner in which you're shooting really isn't the best solution.  I would look into a Lumiquest softbox if you really want results that pop.



> Its primary purpose, though, is for indoor use, with some bounce. I'll be shooting some environmental portraits around a specific theme, and I think many of the people will want to be photographed inside their homes.


Even indoors where the Fong is designed to work, it's not generally accepted as a great device.  In this test it's not even mentioned, but the Whale Tail is and it comes in dead last in the comparison.

Here are some sample indoor test pics from a test I conducted for a similar conversation on Model Mayhem (I don't think I've shared these here yet):


















As you can see, the bare/bounced flash offers a nice defusion that rivals that of the Fong.  Do you see a $49 difference in the quality of the light between the bare/bounced flash and the Fong without the dome?  I don't.  



> As for the shadow, I now have three or more people telling me it's there, so in that case, I'll have to play with the monitor settings to see if the problem is on my end. Because I still don't see anything save for a medium shadow, mostly down by her lower body. I don't see anything I'd even think of calling "harsh." Hey, maybe it's me and not inTempus (and the others)


Ack!  I wouldn't "play" with my monitor settings...   I would buy even a cheap Huey Pro calibration tool and get it calibrated.  If you're not seeing blacks properly, something is way out of whack and playing with it isn't likely to help.  That's like trying to set the alignment on your car with a pipe wrench in your driveway.  



> InTempus, I've seen your work before and figured you might have figured out how to use a flash by now. But you remarked that all I got out of the flash on #2 were some catchlights. Consider that the shot was done with the sun behind her right shoulder, no reflector, in E-TTL. It's more than just catchlights. Obviously, as stated above, a reflector would do wonders for this shot, but it's not exactly a conceptualized image that I'd include in my book - I think any photographer that has shot swimwear has a shot just like this.


I've done similar shots in direct sunlight using ETTL on a remote cord using a bare flash.  Here's one such example:






I know what you're doing, I'm just saying the results are kind of flat.  The Fong didn't really do much for the shot in terms of making her pop... but that's just my opinion.  Obviously opinions vary, so take it for what it's worth (not much!).


----------



## ssnxp (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks for sharing the pictures, guys! I went to a store today, but they had every kind of Fong besides the collapsible that I wanted.. Gives me more time to read threads like these and decide. 

inTempus, in all of your shots, the flash was pointed directly up, correct?


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 18, 2009)

inTempus, I have used the Sto-Fen and thought it a complete piece of crap  I returned it a few days after buying it. It didn't give me the results I was looking for. I don't remember now if I tested it on a Canon 580EX, the 430EX, or a Metz. I think it was the 430. I felt like I should just cut the bottom of a bottle of rubbing alcohol and tape it to the flash, to achieve the same results. Also not such a fan of the Omni-Bounce, but I have not tried the Softbox. 

Here's one of the review articles that convinced me to try out the Fong: Pictures taken in 2006 to show various flash modifiers

I agree that it's a bear to stuff in the camera bag - did Mr. Fong want it to double as a Campbell's chunky soup bowl in a pinch?

The trouble with relying on bounce is that you expect the ceilings or walls to always have the angles you need. I wanted something more versatile. As you know, the 580 comes with a built-in bounce card, which I've used in the past. Also, the off-camera cord can work a treat for a better bouncing effect. The Fong is just another tool, not something to be used in every shot. Just like E-TTL. I've also shot the flash into a reflector aimed at the subject. (In one case, the subjects were pythons slithering on white cardboard, for a makeshift mini-studio on the fly. Made for some very even lighting.)

An umbrella does the job even better, as mentioned, but I'd rather have very quick setups and a lot less clutter. It's hard to predict if I'll have enough room to set up an umbrella stand in someone's home. 

For me, the Fong is not intended to be used outdoors all too much. But before I commit something to film - can't chimp on a Canon A-1 - and in case I ever do use the diffuser outside, I want to know what it will look like.

Back to the now semi-infamous shadow in my image: No worries, I'm not planning to actually "play" with the monitor settings. I've adjusted my monitors before using some of the proper tools, then then doing a test print. 

But here's what I just don't get - if the shadow is so harsh, especially on the insides of the model's legs, how come I'm seeing shadow detail? I see the texture of the wood behind her. In the image posted here, not just the full-sized version. It's nowhere near black, it's more of a dark gray. How can anyone call that harsh, or nasty? Do you see the shadow detail? I've been doing this long enough to know what a bad shadow looks like, and that ain't it...


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 19, 2009)

Gabriel said:


> But here's what I just don't get - if the shadow is so harsh, especially on the insides of the model's legs, how come I'm seeing shadow detail? I see the texture of the wood behind her. In the image posted here, not just the full-sized version. It's nowhere near black, it's more of a dark gray. How can anyone call that harsh, or nasty? Do you see the shadow detail? I've been doing this long enough to know what a bad shadow looks like, and that ain't it...



Harsh doesn't mean 'no detail'.  It means ugly and unsightly.  While the shadows in that picture still have detail, they're still rather abrasive, have pretty hard edge lines and jump out far more than they should, IMO.  Obviously this is all subjective, an it apparently doesn't bother you, so who cares, it's your image.


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 19, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Harsh doesn't mean 'no detail'.  It means ugly and unsightly.  While the shadows in that picture still have detail, they're still rather abrasive, have pretty hard edge lines and jump out far more than they should, IMO.  Obviously this is all subjective, an it apparently doesn't bother you, so who cares, it's your image.



You're right, but I'm just trying to understand what's so bad about it. The image as a whole isn't the greatest, but the shadows don't seem like a big deal to me at all. Again, it comes down to opinion, but I also wanted to know if my screen was completely out of whack. I could point to a thousand successful glamour and fashion images with the same kind of shadows (but maybe a better picture), and wonder if I'd get the same response.

Ah well :mrgreen: Like I said, the point was to show what I did with the Fong sphere, so people can make their own choices based partly on what they see in this thread.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 19, 2009)

Gabriel said:


> You're right, but I'm just trying to understand what's so bad about it. The image as a whole isn't the greatest, but the shadows don't seem like a big deal to me at all. Again, it comes down to opinion, but I also wanted to know if my screen was completely out of whack. I could point to a thousand successful glamour and fashion images with the same kind of shadows (but maybe a better picture), and wonder if I'd get the same response.


You can't really point to other images and say, "see what they did".  All images are different and in many cases (with professional images) the shadows are part of the design from the beginning.  This one it's obvious it's not intentional given the location and pose.  It is distracting to me as it was the first thing I noticed.  I looked right at her crotch because of the dark line I saw silhouetting it.  This coupled with the low angle looking up at her really kind of detracts from the image IMHO.

But we've probably beaten this to death.    If you're happy with the results that's ultimately all that matters.  I've had people offer opinions on some of my images I didn't agree with and even if I had it to shoot over again I would have done the same thing.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 19, 2009)

The shadow is not that bad. The pose looks a bit awkward, but the shadows cast by the flash are not 'nasty', nor are they  excessively dark. In the beach shot the flash doesn't seem to add too much except perhaps minor fill and a small catchlight; the shot the Fong diffuser does add to is the shot on the porch, where I can see it is adding a very soft, very slight degree of specularity to her skin, which adds a bit of dimension.

Given the limitations of most d-slr cameras and the power of 'most' speedlights, like those in the Nikon SB 800 class or the Canon 580 EX-II class,
with the shutter speed limitations on flash synch at 1/200 or 1/250 and base ISO settings of 100 to 200, with most cameras, the light from a Fong diffuser is really only going to provide slight fill light, eye catchlight, or slight amounts of specularity most noticeable on darker-skinned people or those who are sweaty or wet...

I mean, the Fong in the first picture is not providing much of the exposure, so the shadow is not all that bad....it's clear that even in a shaded area, the flash shadow is so not-dense that the Fong is just a very slight, weak fill light--but it *is* adding to the ambient light. In fact, the one good thing about the FIng is that its huge loss of Guide Number means a shot with it brings the flash down to a nice Minus 2 to Minus 2.7 f/stops, which is almost exactly where you want to be to get almost-unnoticeable fill flash in sunlight. In the shade, it's a bit more-noticeable, as seen on the side view shot of the girl on the porch; there the flash effect is more clear,and I think more dramatic.

I know what you're saying--none of this are killer, portfolio shots, but they do show me what the Fong diffuser looks like in three types of shots.


----------



## DScience (Nov 19, 2009)

Yea I think is pretty stupid that anyone who uses the GF inTempus has to come in and trump around like he knows everything, and factually claim how much of a waste it is.

Who gives a $%!# if people use GF diffusers. You say there is NO difference between it and other diffusers, and your single, very limited experiment is the example and proof of this. :thumbdown:

Well I am going to say, again, that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Seriously, I can see critiquing his photos and lighting in general, but stop with the "Oh i Know this to be the truth!" You may not like or see any difference in the GF, but maybe you just don't know how to use it correctly.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 19, 2009)

DScience said:


> Yea I think is pretty stupid that anyone who uses the GF inTempus has to come in and trump around like he knows everything, and factually claim how much of a waste it is.


You mean like how you come in and sing their praises because you seek affirmation?   Remember when you said you knew more than the "pros" and wanted to show them up regarding the Fong?  It seems to me you're hyper sensitive about the issue for some reason.

Seriously, if you don't like my opinion don't read it.  Your problem is solved.


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 19, 2009)

Me thinks some things are better handled in a PM.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 19, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> Me thinks some things are better handled in a PM.


You mean like this post?


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 19, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Gabriel said:
> 
> 
> > You can't really point to other images and say, "see what they did".  All images are different and in many cases (with professional images) the shadows are part of the design from the beginning.  This one it's obvious it's not intentional given the location and pose.  It is distracting to me as it was the first thing I noticed.  I looked right at her crotch because of the dark line I saw silhouetting it.  This coupled with the low angle looking up at her really kind of detracts from the image IMHO.
> ...


----------



## ssnxp (Nov 19, 2009)

Well, I for one appreciate all these debates on the Fong. Still on the fence, and every bit of information or examples help..

So keep beating that horse. :lmao: Just kidding. Kind of.


----------

