|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
11-10-2014, 07:58 AM
|
| |
Thanks for sharing the images. Makes sense now.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
11-09-2014, 07:24 PM
|
| |
I can attest to that.
The day before yesterday, the wind blew over one of my softboxes but because the flash was inside, its fall was cushioned. It came away with a number of scratches but still works fine.
Makes sense to me. I build my own versions of this because otherwise my (super cheap) softboxes had a central hot spot.
So did you photograph the surface of the softbox straight on, lowering the exposure enough to see darkish areas develop?
As you want to confirm the evenness of the illumination, I'd go down with the exposure until you see some gradation.
I'm struggling to visualise this as a forward-firing design normally does not have anything inside the softbox.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
11-06-2014, 04:52 PM
|
| |
Did you try to use a Fong/Stofen-style diffuser on the flash head inside the Apollo?
I'm pretty sure that with such means, you'll get light that is as soft as that from a forward-firing design with a double diffuser layer.
I see your points, but since the advent of remote-controllable flashes, I think the backward-firing design is better because it allows multiple flashes to be used in one box and gives the flashes some protection against the elements.
Also, despite a double diffuser layer, a forward firing softbox design should have have more of a centre hot-spot issue and hence harder light. I have not validated my thoughts with respective experiments yet, but in the forward-firing design there is nothing to prevent a centre-hot spot (unless you add a beauty-dish like flag) whereas good alignment of multiple flashes or well diffused light from a single flash in a backward-firing design should give rather even illumination.
A downside of the backward-firing design is that you cannot tilt the softbox downwards much, unless you use an extra boom arm. The latter, unfortunately, appear to be pricey.
|
