Why does a Rogue FlashBender sometimes give harsher light and hotspots than bare flash?
Asked 1/13/2014
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m testing a Rogue FlashBender indoors for portrait fill, but the results often look worse than using my speedlight bare. Instead of softer fill, I’m seeing brighter hotspots on the face and stronger, flashlight-like shadows. I tried different subject distances (about 2–5 feet), used the diffusion panel, added a color-correction gel, and reduced flash exposure compensation, but it either has little effect or looks bad. What causes this, and when does a FlashBender actually help?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
6
Distance is your main problem, both for the shadows that are being introduced, and for the hot spots.
The Flashbender is doing what it's supposed to do. It makes the light source bigger (not actually big big, but much bigger than the bare speedlight lens) and moves it further away from the camera. As a primary light source, that's enough of an improvement over a naked, straight-ahead camera-mounted flash to be worthwhile when a more suitable bounce can't be achieved (walls or ceilings are too far away or likely to cast bad colours).
As fill, though, it represents a problem. It shares that with every modifier based on "bounce cards" (such as the Lumiquest Big Bounce). Because the source is far away from the lens (typically the bottom of the source will be 12"/30cm from the centre of the lens, and the hot centre of the light source will be several inches/centimetres further away still) you can't actually fill shadows at close distances. The angle is too great. These units are designed to create shadows and shape on your subject, something that direct on-camera flash doesn't ordinarily do.
If your camera has a little beady-eyed pop-up flash, that would be a much better fill source, even as hard as it is, simply because it is so much closer to the axis of the lens. The pop-up may be a horrendous primary light source, but it ain't a half-bad fill at all, especially if it's turned down a stop or two (depending on the camera and the desired result). You can improve that with a diffuser that makes the flash a little bigger (and thus a little softer) without moving it further from the lens. (The Gary Fong Puffer and the Lumiquest Soft Screen are commercial examples of the breed.)
A hot shoe flash firing through a "large" softbox (and let's not kid ourselves, on-camera softboxes aren't actually large) will provide even better results. The bottom of the box usually extends down quite a ways, bringing it closer to the lens, and the size of the softbox is enough to soften the light considerably. (Note: large on-camera softboxes will interfere with the AF-assist beam and the Auto sensor on the flash if they're big enough to bother with. TTL or manual mode will deal with the sensor problem, but you may need the AF assist if you're in a dark environment.) You won't mistake it for a 100cm studio softbox, but it should minimise lines and wrinkles when compared to undiffused flash.
Finally, don't forget that when your subject is very close to a not-very-big light source, the inverse-square law will bite you if you're not friends with it. With something like the Flashbender used from, say, 3 feet away, it's likely that your subjects' faces are receiving about a stop more light than their shoulders. If you're metering the cheek, the nose will be a little hot (that has more to do with the angle of the nose than its prominence) and the forehead will be a lot hot (it is both closer to the flash and likely angled higher than the part of the cheek you're metering from), while the chin, neck and shoulders will be darker than you'd like. That's just how fall-off works, and if you're aware of it you can put that kind of fall-off to good use. (It's not generally a useful thing for fill, though.) Again, bringing the light source closer to the lens will minimize the difference in light-to-subject distance across the subject, and making the light source as big as possible will make the fall-off more linear.
Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2719
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A FlashBender isn’t a magic “soft light” tool in every situation. It helps by making the flash source somewhat larger and shifting it away from the lens, but it’s still a relatively small source if you’re several feet from the subject. At that distance, it may not soften light much, and can still create directional shadows and hotspots.
It’s also not ideal as subtle on-axis fill. Because the modifier sits away from the lens axis, it can introduce more visible shadows than bare fill flash. If the bender is curved/concave, it may even concentrate light and create a flashlight effect.
Another issue is flash metering/power: if your flash/camera setup assumes you’re bouncing, it may output more power than expected, making the flash dominate the ambient light.
In short: you may not be doing anything “wrong” so much as using the modifier in a situation where it’s not the best tool. FlashBenders are more useful when bare direct flash is the alternative and proper wall/ceiling bounce isn’t available. For softer light, use a larger source, bounce off a neutral ceiling/wall, move the light source relatively closer/larger, and verify flash mode/power settings.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How can I reduce shiny forehead hotspots in event portraits with umbrellas?
Does adding a color gel to a flash reduce its CRI?
Can an off-camera flash overpower daylight in shade, especially through a diffuser?
Should you use a speedlight’s wide-angle panel inside a small softbox?
Which flash modes generally use the least power?