Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pretzel" data-source="post: 321297" data-attributes="member: 12257">Day 169 - Lightsphere testingOk, two subjects.  1st, my co-worker and "sister by another mister".  NO, she's not actually my other sister by way of the milkman (I'm an only child, rofl) but we think so much alike we swear we were twins born in two different families.  I coined the phrase off of "brother by another mother" that's so common, and the result was just hilarious in it's implications; we laugh about the phrase all the time.Bright window background, was excited about the toy so left the camera in aperture mode at ISO 800 where it last was, so I kinda got to test HSS at the same time.  I think the results were different enough that it worked well to show the comparison though.  (isn't it funny how we temporarily forget EVERYTHING when we have a new gadget??)ALL SHOTS ARE OOC - the only edit is the addition of my watermark, and in the case of the flowers, all shots were taken from practically the same distance, but cropped to show the details in the flower.1st shot, no flash.[ATTACH=full]96076[/ATTACH]2nd shot, SB700 with stock diffuser and bounced off the ceiling.[ATTACH=full]96077[/ATTACH]3rd shot, Lightsphere with clear dome, bounced off the ceiling in the same position.[ATTACH=full]96078[/ATTACH]It's obvious that the 1st pic, with the bright background, makes the subject too dark.  Ya lose the eyes and shirt color, and it would require quite a bit of editing.  The second shot brings out the features, but there's a couple of flash "hot-spots" that would need a bit of work, one of which is on the glasses, and the shirt darkens almost as if there's a bit of vignette.  Nice catch-light in the eyes, though, even with the bright background.  3rd pic, still a nice catch-light, but the hot spots are a bit more subdued, plus the shirt maintains it's color a bit better.  Not SCIENTIFIC, as like a fool, I didn't shoot all with the same settings, but still...Now, the flowers after most of the evening light had disappeared.  Remembered to switch to manual this time and keep the settings exactly the same (except for the last two, which will be explained).  Because of the light conditions, no "without flash pic", and again, all shots are OOC.1st - on cam SB700 with just the stock diffuser, pointed straight at the bloom.  A little blown out, brightness wise.[ATTACH=full]96080[/ATTACH]2nd, Lightsphere with dome mounted "concave" (for close-up shots), pointed straight at the bloom.  Much more controlled and non-hot-spottish![ATTACH=full]96081[/ATTACH]3rd, just to test what the instructions stated (outdoor with bright light, use ISO 100.  indoors or with dim light, use ISO 800), same Lightsphere set-up but at ISO 800.  Not really sure what the difference was, but it seems just a tad darker.  Too many things could have changed to pinpoint precisely, but I think it's safe to say any ISO should work just as well.[ATTACH=full]96082[/ATTACH]Then, just for giggles, this was with the built-in flash.  Almost performed like a snoot?  A bit underexposed, and definitely pronounced shadows...[ATTACH=full]96083[/ATTACH]What ya think?  Overall, for a moderately priced diffuser, I'm a bit pleased with the results!Gonna see if my boy will let me test on him in a bit.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification