[johnparas11]

Fong gives off a terrible blue-purple cast, and harsh shadows - avoid!

Try a LumiQuest 80/20 system for good flash results...

hhmm.. with my nikon and canon cameras.. so far.. I have no issues or do not see those blue/purple cast you are talking about.. could it be that when you use the fong lumisphere..and you use a Pentax cam/jpeg.. then.. that would be apparent? remember my K-50 on "bright" picture mode/setting.. the skin tones are "blah" (without the Fong diffuser yet ) .. hence I am still doing the experimenting.. :-)

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I don't shoot JPEG unless it is a fast deadline assignment.

Look at the Fong itself - not at all color neutral. Do a shoot with the Fong, and then a LQ (or any other color corrected diffuser). Even if the coloration isn't displeasing, the harshness of the still-direct flash does little to simulate ambient light accomplished be the more sophisticated diffusers (many of which are more compact!).

[clackers]

Fong gives off a terrible blue-purple cast, and harsh shadows - avoid!

I see no cast on mine, ScooterMaxi.

How do you explain that?

Nor do I see harsh shadows.

How can there be when the flash is oriented at 90 degrees and there is multiple bounce from every direction except straight down?

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

It has been years since I've used them, but my recollection is that the ribbing works as if you have direct flash - the dish on top removes too much light unless your ceiling is very low. At least the early versions had a very prominent purple tone to the plastic cylinder. Possibly improvements have been made, but I don't see any aspect of the overall design that gives it the nod over LQ 80/20 in terms of full adjustability, compactness, and especially light efficiency. Sending light in every direction is only a positive if the shape of your room results in the right ambient characteristics (rare). It is far better to shape your light near the the head. If someone who has used both systems and has a preference for Fong - then I'd be interested in hearing that perspective.

[aleonx3]

I don't know, there are too many variables... flash/ambient light mix and not entirely same background; sorry, can't help...

[clackers]

It has been years since I've used them, but my recollection is that the ribbing works as if you have direct flash - the dish on top removes too much light unless your ceiling is very low. At least the early versions had a very prominent purple tone to the plastic cylinder.

Jim, I don't know if that was ever true. I have both the older rigid and newer compressing models.

Old pictures and videos of the product certainly do not show any different colour.

You are wrong about the 'ribbing', also.

It does not act as direct flash. It is translucent, and only uses light spill from the sides. Everything else is bounced from the ceiling.


The dishes (there are several) are not used except in certain circumstances (such as acting as a coloured gel). I used an amber one here and pointed directly at the subject as fill flash. No problem with harsh shadows or weird colour:




So like a LumiQuest or Stofen, it's a *bounce flash modifier*, good for eliminating the shadow behind the subject on a close wall.

Outdoors or in a cavernous interior bounce isn't possible so I tend to use either a Rogue Light Bender or a velcro strapped mini softbox. The light path is then very direct like pop-up flash, but c'est la vie.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Shot with the Stofen which is a somewhat similar failed concept to the Fong in that too much light is directed in the immediate vicinity of the flash head, and not enough is diffused in an indirect fashion; and none of diffusion is properly directed. Stofen is somewhat worse than the Fong in this regard. Unless you have used them extensively, and compared them to the LQ or similar system please don't assume they work similarly. They don't. By the way, no diffusion system entirely eliminates shadow behind on a close wall; which would tend to look weird on close inspection. They all have somewhat different characteristics. Most diffusers will work relatively well on close subjects. None are totally effective at great distances (with no ceiling bounce available) - its just a matter of lack of diffusion. For those of us who worked often in unpredictable or changing situations (especially in photojournalism), the ultimate flexibility and compactness of the system is key - and Stofen and Fong were too often ineffective (or worse).

[clackers]

Shot with the Stofen which is a somewhat similar failed concept to the Fong in that too much light is directed in the immediate vicinity of the flash head, and not enough is diffused in an indirect fashion; and none of diffusion is properly directed. Stofen is somewhat worse than the Fong in this regard. Unless you have used them extensively

Jim, I really question what you've written here.

You've lurched from incorrect statements about one product (the Lightsphere) to more about another.

I don't know why you're 'doubling up on the bet.'

The Stofen is what I always have sitting on my AF360 as it takes up no extra space in the bag compared to other modifiers. Easy to take off as it's specific in shape to that flash and requires no straps or similar.

Unlike the Fong and your Lumiquest, *100%* of the light is diffused.

As a result, you can wield it differently ... 45 degrees instead of 90, to get more than the 20 percent of direct output the LumiQuest offers.

I've found the shots from it to be great, so I don't know what you're complaining about ... please post an example.

---

Last edited by clackers; 10-22-2014 at 07:01 PM.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

No, I'm not going to post examples. I'm not about to dig stuff out from film days to show. Anyone who shoots with all three products understands the differences.

Heck, you can say that the light going through a baffled front lens of your flash is "diffused" and that would be technically correct, but not right in the context of the discussion.

What's good enough for your needs is just fine. Be satisfied. What fits in your bag is fine, however it does not fold flat so it does take up considerable more total area than the LQ system.

Respond when you've used all three. And throw a Demb in for good measure - as his products are far more capable than Stofen and Fong, as well.

[clackers]

No, I'm not going to post examples. [of the Stofen in action] .

Well, I'm afraid I don't trust you otherwise, Jim, and nor should anyone else.

I showed you a real world example on Pentax that contradicted your badmouth claim about the Lightsphere.

JohnParas did not understand your negative comments either. They did not match his experiences with that product on Canon or Nikon.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

It's inappropriate to add your words in with my quote. People who care (probably no one else) can follow the thread. Really, just a little bit of research (as you apparently aren't about to do a comparison for yourself) will tell you which systems can be used most broadly with the best results. If we are bringing others in, then I'm with Joe McNally on this. You don't see him endorsing Stofen or Fong. Of course, LQ isn't the only decent one out there. Demb is very good, as well. Its all a matter of what works for you, but really you have no right to reshape my quote or tell other people who to trust.

Go ahead and respond, but I'm done with this conversation.

[clackers]

It's inappropriate to add your words in with my quote.

No it's not. I even indicated with square brackets which were yours, which were mine - the accepted convention by editors everywhere.

Anyone who thinks I somehow got it wrong is free to check my post 23 and your post 24.

Go ahead and respond, but I'm done with this conversation.

I think you came into this thread swinging with slurs in post 15, but had nothing to back it up.

Anyway, that's me out too.