# BounceLite - a revolutionary flash diffuser



## Middleman (Jul 28, 2014)

Has anyone seen this Kickstarter campaign for a new kind of flash diffuser?
It apparently can act as a softbox for Speedlites (and other branded flashes) as well as a bounce card.
Even has space for using gels...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2101747734/bouncelite-the-revolutionary-flash-diffuser


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2014)

Interesting concept.

Good luck with it


----------



## Besisika (Jul 28, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Interesting concept.
> 
> Good luck with it


Still small though! Unless you like harsh light.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 28, 2014)

They lost me when they said it can replicate studio lighting and there are three off camera speedlites surrounding the subject... maybe they weren't teething mislead, but that was a pretty quick jump cut. 

As for the product, sure... looks fine but I really don't see paying a premium for a diffuser... but I'm cheap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2014)

A "softbox" made from "robust ABS plastic"? Wouldn't that be a hard box? 



Besisika said:


> Still small though! Unless you like harsh light.



Exactly. The 'softbox' is barely larger than the bare flash head, and the bounce door is about the same size as the flash head. Since light softness is proportional to the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject), I can't see this being more than minimally effective as a diffuser or bouncer. The only thing that looks like interesting and useful functionality is the gel cassette, which means no cutting/velcro are required. 

I think it's main advantage is the lead-off line: "_A next generation flash modifier worthy of being seen on any camera..._" In this case, function doesn't follow form.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A "softbox" made from "robust ABS plastic"? Wouldn't that be a hard box?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much what I was thinking too. Regardless of price, I don't this as much of an improvement over the good 'ole *StoFen with a 10 cent Rosco gel taped to the flash* underneath. And the StoFen can literally live on the flash and still store in the case, use no extra room, etc. (Which is the way mine lives.)

Size = Small = Not much improvement.
Gels = Neat = Not enough incentive.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2014)

_"Size = Small = Not much improvement.
Gels = Neat = Not enough incentive."_

Price = DOA

£120 is over $200, for a bit of plastic to stick on your flash that can be done better with a piece of 69c foam paper.


----------



## eadams (Jul 28, 2014)

Chimera, possibly the standard-setter for softbox construction, considers 16"x22" to be "Extra Small" for a soft box. It gives off what is considered to be "punchy" light - not very soft. 16x22 is 352 square inches, and this BounceLite looks like 2x2, or 4 square inches, about 1% of the size of "Extra Small." It's about as soft as your speedlight already is for all practical purposes.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 28, 2014)

I agree with the comments above. 

A Stofen gives you 90% of the functionality for 1/20 the price.


----------



## Joe M (Jul 28, 2014)

Boy, if I had a nickle for every time a new modifier was invented......


----------



## surapon (Jul 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A "softbox" made from "robust ABS plastic"? Wouldn't that be a hard box?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



" Since light softness is proportional to the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject), I can't see this being more than minimally effective as a diffuser or bouncer. " = + 100 FOR ME TOO.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Jul 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"Size = Small = Not much improvement.
> Gels = Neat = Not enough incentive."_
> 
> Price = DOA
> ...



+ 100 for me too, Dear Mr. Privatebydesign. For $ 200 cost = $ 195 US Dollars for The Thinking Brain of the Inventor and $ 5 Us. Dollars for the MFR.


----------



## Click (Jul 28, 2014)

surapon said:


> + 100 for me too, Dear Mr. Privatebydesign. For $ 200 cost = $ 195 US Dollars for The Thinking Brain of the Inventor and $ 5 Us. Dollars for the MFR.



+1


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2014)

surapon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"Size = Small = Not much improvement.
> ...


----------



## Middleman (Jul 29, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> And, he gets free advertising by posting links on camera forums.
> + 100 for me too, Dear Mr. Privatebydesign. For $ 200 cost = $ 195 US Dollars for The Thinking Brain of the Inventor and $ 5 Us. Dollars for the MFR.



Haha well played sir! If only it was true lol life would be so different...(and NO, I am not the inventor lol) ;D

Making something is not quite as simple as that I think...as there a lot of costs in getting something to market. I’ve supported many Kickstarters this past year so I know…it’s difficult when you’re a startup. The fact that they're offering free shipping on the product seems reasonable to me, considering Gary Fong's Lightsphere Collapsible - the closest competitor to the BounceLite in terms of pricing and features is like US$149 before shipping (and shipping is VERY EXPENSIVE these days). Okay the Lightsphere's got cheaper versions at less than half the price (and Rogue Flashblenders/Sto-fens)....but they don't do half as much stuff as the BounceLite does (to be fair)...

Personally I’m more interested in how they would all perform.... As it goes I have a friend who shoots for GM Motors and has had over 60 different kinds of diffusers, and he says it’s a great idea, meaning it would eliminate half the numbers of diffusers he uses (including ones he altered on his own). Even at $200 he says it’s still fairly good value for what it is…so I don't know why people are so fussed about it? ???


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 29, 2014)

And closeness or distance from the source to the subject.

sek



surapon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A "softbox" made from "robust ABS plastic"? Wouldn't that be a hard box?
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 29, 2014)

And it still doesn't get you light at the right angle. From everything I've seen the RT speedlight itself is the next big step, always have two with you and just stick them wherever needed, no worries.
I'm really, really, really hoping that every body released from here on has the transmitter for those built in.


----------



## Badger (Jul 29, 2014)

So....size DOES matter!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2014)

Middleman said:


> ... I don't know why people are so fussed about it? ???



People who understand how lighting works just recognize it for what it is - a gimmick. It's like paying $200 for a pair of fuzzy dice to hang from your car mirror – they may look cool and give you something to fiddle with when you probably should be doing something more important, but they don't do anything for the performance of your 'sweet ride'. 




scottkinfw said:


> And closeness or distance from the source to the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> > Since light softness is proportional to the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject)



An object closer to you _appears_ larger than the same object further away. So, distance is part of, "...the _apparent_ size of the light source (relative to the subject)."


----------



## srh (Jul 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> _"Size = Small = Not much improvement.
> Gels = Neat = Not enough incentive."_
> 
> Price = DOA
> ...



+1


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 29, 2014)

9VIII said:


> And it still doesn't get you light at the right angle. From everything I've seen the RT speedlight itself is the next big step, always have two with you and just stick them wherever needed, no worries.
> I'm really, really, really hoping that every body released from here on has the transmitter for those built in.



Don't forget to bring the feet. I was at a baseball game and I wanted to set them on a concrete barrier but putting them on their side didn't seem safe...


----------



## Middleman (Aug 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> People who understand how lighting works just recognize it for what it is - a gimmick. It's like paying $200 for a pair of fuzzy dice to hang from your car mirror – they may look cool and give you something to fiddle with when you probably should be doing something more important, but they don't do anything for the performance of your 'sweet ride'.



I don't really agree with that statement. Yes some flash modifiers can be bit of a gimmick, but I don't think necessarily that should be applied to ALL (as I think its a bit harsh tbh). Some recent designs that have come out (such as the MagMod) have been really impressive. Okay it doesn't do any softbox-like lighting like the BounceLite, but at least it gives you some form of control.

And control of light (in any shape or form) is always good no matter how much, especially if you're doing stuff like event or wedding photography, where things can change quite dramatically (especially when you have moving subjects and shooting under pressure). As it goes everyone's requirements for lighting is different, so we can't say what you think is 'a gimmick' doesn't work better for someone else's workflow or requirements...

As it goes I've spoken to a few friends about this new piece of product, and they all think its a great idea. One friend of mine who shoots ads for GM Motors has said that he has worked with over 60 different modifiers in his lifetime (including ones he's built himself which looks like a very long Flashbender). He's had a look at it and thinks its a great idea. Horses for courses I suppose...but we should reserve judgement methinks before it comes out...


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 3, 2014)

Middleman said:


> but we should reserve judgement methinks before it comes out...



I won't take that from you, but the odds of a $200 small softbox gaining much market share seem long already.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2014)

Calling a 2"x2" piece of plastic a 'softbox that gives studio quality lighting' brings to mind a phrase my 4 year old recently picked up and sometimes shouts emphatically: "YOU A LIAR!"

If anyone thinks paying $200 for said modifier is good value, I've got this nice bridge in New York and some prime Kansas swampland for sale, and say hello to Mr. Barnum as you seek the Great Egress.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 3, 2014)

I have yet to see a modifier that can fake being bigger than it is. 

I've seen modifiers that are more effective than others, aka how much light comes out, but never seen a small light give softness like a big light from the same distance. Only marketing can rule the laws of physics.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Calling a 2"x2" piece of plastic a 'softbox that gives studio quality lighting' brings to mind a phrase my 4 year old recently picked up and sometimes shouts emphatically: "YOU A LIAR!"
> 
> If anyone thinks paying $200 for said modifier is good value, I've got this nice bridge in New York and some prime Kansas swampland for sale, and say hello to Mr. Barnum as you seek the Great Egress.



How swampy is the swamp land in Kansas? Are we talking gators... or just wearing rubber boots when you go out? Please send me a prospectus.


----------



## Iglu71 (Aug 18, 2014)

Hi everyone, i'm related to the guy who made this (not on their team though) and have been watching the whole debate on here, there's been a review and I figured i'd link this in case anyone was interested in a professional verdict. I think it's just a preview but still... (Also the cheapest unit is £80 not 200)

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2101747734/bouncelite-the-revolutionary-flash-diffuser/posts/956331


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> Hi everyone, i'm related to the guy who made this (not on their team though) and have been watching the whole debate on here, there's been a review and I figured i'd link this in case anyone was interested in a professional verdict. (Also the cheapest unit is £80 not 200)
> 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2101747734/bouncelite-the-revolutionary-flash-diffuser/posts/956331



Ummm, ok. He says it attaches to a flash, it's simple to use, and it looks good. Low contrast from the ceiling bounced bare flash, but from the shot it's evident the 580's catchlight panel wasn't used. So, £80, and it's better than a StoFen costing about £9...how?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> Hi everyone, i'm related to the guy who made this (not on their team though) and have been watching the whole debate on here, there's been a review and I figured i'd link this in case anyone was interested in a professional verdict. I think it's just a preview but still... (Also the cheapest unit is £80 not 200)
> 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2101747734/bouncelite-the-revolutionary-flash-diffuser/posts/956331



I didn't say it was £200, I said "£120 is over $200," because that was the price quoted. Now £80 is a snip, that is only $126, plus shipping, for something that can be done with a milk bottle carton for free with a 1/4 of milk.


----------



## Iglu71 (Aug 18, 2014)

This is literally copied and pasted from your reply, "If anyone thinks paying $200 for said modifier is good value, I've got this nice bridge in New York". You can actually buy 'said modifier' for £80 and the shipping is free. Also, I think you're being little assumptive. We haven't even tried it, how do you know how well it works? The featured magazine says it softens light considerably. I'd take their word over yours


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> This is literally copied and pasted from your reply, "If anyone thinks paying $200 for said modifier is good value, I've got this nice bridge in New York". You can actually buy 'said modifier' for £80 and the shipping is free. Also, I think you're being little assumptive. We haven't even tried it, how do you know how well it works? The featured magazine says it softens light considerably. I'd take their word over yours



Actually, it's literally copied and pasted from _my_ reply, and at the time the listed 'sponsorship' was £120. As for knowing how well it works, it's a small plastic panel, there are several products of similar size on the market. Yes, the design is different, but 'looking professional' doesn't change physics. If you believe that a piece of plastic only slightly larger than the bare flash head can 'soften light considerably' you really should look at this bridge I'm offering... :


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 19, 2014)

For what it is worth... I prefer the image bounced off the ceiling without the diffuser.


----------



## Hill Benson (Aug 19, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I have yet to see a modifier that can fake being bigger than it is.
> 
> I've seen modifiers that are more effective than others, aka how much light comes out, but never seen a small light give softness like a big light from the same distance. Only marketing can rule the laws of physics.



I agree with Viggo on this.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2014)

Hey, your last minute push of misquoting and shameless self promotion worked, you got your funding, now slink back into your hole with your overpriced POS, because that is what it is.

You are peddling next to useless "accessories" that anybody with the most basic understanding of light knows is garbage, the only people that will say anything like this is good are people who are sponsored to, or who don't know what they are looking at.

As for your comment "Wrong. It was never £120."

Well call me stupid but it still is if you need international shipping and want the basic gel kit, which is probably the only interesting feature.

P.S. I think you will find the bridge comment is directed towards gullibility, not suicide, as in, "I have a bridge for sale, I am selling it cheap because if you want to buy it you have to move it too".


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 19, 2014)

There are specific design issues that I think should prevent the BounceLite from being in most bags. 

Let's start by saying the inventor hasn't learned from Gary Fong, that space in a bag is precious, and if you notice, all of the Fong Domes are collapsible now - this thing is rigid plastic and a huge waste of space. 

Next, the price point - £80 is still over $120 USD, which is a high price for a Kickstarter where there are existing options in the market place, at a much cheaper point. If you're looking for softer light, you have to move off camera due to size of the modifier, and you can get a Westcott Apollo kit for the same price.

Oh, Iglu71, the UK isn't a top marketplace for cameras, so the majority of backers are paying an extra £12 of shipping, no matter what price level they commit to. Insults seem to be your method of standing up for someone you're related to, but I hate to tell you Neuro is one of the highest respected folks here at CR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> Wrong. It was never £120. I've followed it from the start and you can't alter your rewards on kickstarter anyway. You've really got a f______ oak branch up your ass don't you? If PPUK say it softens light considerably then we've heard it from a reliable source. I think you're just nay-saying now. Also, quit with all the suicide suggestions...



Anyone who states that a small (less than 3x3") piece of translucent plastic can 'soften light considerably' is guilty of extreme hyperbole, and that's being charitable. 

Sometimes the truth is painful. Sorry that the truth seems to bother you so much that you feel it necessary to degenerate into vulgar insults. 



Iglu71 said:


> Also, quit with all the suicide suggestions...



Excuse me? Oh, ok...perhaps the cultural reference is lost on you. Let's try this again...

"_If anyone thinks paying $200 for said modifier is good value, I've got this *nice bridge in New York* and some prime Kansas swampland *for sale*, and say hello to Mr. Barnum as you seek the Great Egress._"

"_If you believe that a piece of plastic only slightly larger than the bare flash head can 'soften light considerably' you really should look at this *bridge I'm offering*..._"

Get it, now? If not, maybe a Google search for "George C. Parker" will provide some edification.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2014)

Neuro,

Brits, particularly most Londoners, generally don't get the George C. Parker reference, when you talk of bridges like that they are much more likely to think of Roberto Calvi.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Brits, particularly most Londoners, generally don't get the George C. Parker reference, when you talk of bridges like that they are much more likely to think of Roberto Calvi.



I wasn't aware that he sold bridges. Still, one might think the reference to PT Barnum in the same sentence might have given a clue, even if he never actually spoke the phrase attributed to him, "There's a sucker born every minute." Looking at the kickstarter site, that's 253 minutes worth of suckers. 

Ok, they're called backers. That reminds me of an even more obscure cultural reference - a film adaptation loosely based on a play with which I suspect at least a few Brits might have passing familiarity, as it was written by the Bard of Avon.

_MICHAEL: Yeah, well, what we need is a backer.

CAMERON: What’s that?

MICHAEL: Someone with money who’s stupid._

For the curious, some Google hooks might include Heath Ledger, Julia Stiles, and the number 10.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2014)

And £29,000 ($46,000) from them! There truthfully is one born every minute, I need to find me some............


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Brits, particularly most Londoners, generally don't get the George C. Parker reference, when you talk of bridges like that they are much more likely to think of Roberto Calvi.
> ...



He... didn't. If his experience with them forms part of the typical frame of reference for a European then it might offer some context for the earlier discussion.

Jim


----------



## Iglu71 (Aug 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Hey, your last minute push of misquoting and shameless self promotion worked, you got your funding, now slink back into your hole with your overpriced POS, because that is what it is.
> 
> You are peddling next to useless "accessories" that anybody with the most basic understanding of light knows is garbage, the only people that will say anything like this is good are people who are sponsored to, or who don't know what they are looking at.
> 
> ...



I hardly think my post had anything to do with the jump, more likely it's that people respect the source of the review enough to trust it. And if you perceive my responses as 'insults', firstly address the way the way in which you have violently condescended the people who've backed the project. If a respected source publishes a full, positive review I wonder what you'll say.

As a side note, yes I am British, no this isn't 'self-promotion' and no I don't understand your bridge reference.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 19, 2014)

You don't get it do you? Unless your relation has broken the laws of physics his 4"x4" panel is not going to "soften the light" any more than any other 4"x4" piece of diffusion material. 

Go learn about light before you get in a fight with people that know what they are talking about. There is nothing your relation can do with his £120 kit that I couldn't do with a 69c piece of foam paper, the bottom of a milk carton, and a book of Rosco swatches ($2.95). For under $5 I get a quart of milk and better performing flash modifier than your relations.


----------



## Iglu71 (Aug 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You don't get it do you? Unless your relation has broken the laws of physics his 4"x4" panel is not going to "soften the light" any more than any other 4"x4" piece of diffusion material.
> 
> Go learn about light before you get in a fight with people that know what they are talking about. There is nothing your relation can do with his £120 kit that I couldn't do with a 69c piece of foam paper, the bottom of a milk carton, and a book of Rosco swatches ($2.95). For under $5 I get a quart of milk and better performing flash modifier than your relations.



I'm not in a 'fight' with you. Don't get too excited mate, this is a discussion. One in which my corner is backed by a knowledgeable source and who i'd trust over any forum lurker. Here, read the preview: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2101747734/bouncelite-the-revolutionary-flash-diffuser/description
He's only a distant relation but I know the inventor has 30 years experience as well.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 19, 2014)

I didn't want to comment when I saw the post first simply because I didn't want to deprive the inventors of their su.. er, backers. If someone wants to throw away their money, it's their problem. Now that the project is funded, I suppose it is okay to speak up. Both this and the Magmod seem superfluous to me. This, because of reasons already stated. The magmod, because the modifier will not stay put if pushed around especially inside the bag.

The best gel solution I found so far comprises of buying the $ 8 swatchbook PBD mentioned (B&H etc.) and this item from ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/321486178488.
It has a sticky velcro (put some Gaffer's tape over your Speedlite first if you want to remove the velcro cleanly afterwards), and a nice carrier for the gels with a pocket for storing extra gels (Lumiquest sells JUST the carrier for $ 10), and a set of gels for color effects. 
Cost me $ 16 to set up a gel system for 3 Speedlites.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 19, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You don't get it do you? Unless your relation has broken the laws of physics his 4"x4" panel is not going to "soften the light" any more than any other 4"x4" piece of diffusion material.
> ...



I don't get why you don't get that softness has to do with size ?

Do you really think people bring those giant parabolic broncolor boxes and sand bags and big lights around JUST to lug them around? And do you really think ProFoto, Elinchrom, broncolor and every other light modifier brand on the planet makes big modifiers because they haven't figured out a small one can do the exact same? It's not a discussion, it's denying facts ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Iglu71 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Well, he's defending a relative. And maybe he's a _backer_... :


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, he's defending a relative. And maybe he's a _backer_... :



Neuro, FYI, you have a PM...


----------



## mihazero (Aug 19, 2014)

Is it just me or there are lot of first time posters here that have only few posts posted on canonrumors and all of those are in this thread? (Middleman 4 posts and all in this thread, eadams 1 and in this thread, Igglu71 5 posts and all in this thread).

I do feel like inventor wanted to make ... natural ... sort of .. *"haaaaaaaave you met Ted!?"* _(How I met Your mother reference)_ approach and start buzz about his product.

It sort of reeks of snakeoil salesman and their tactics. I dont like it.

I will not recommend it to anyone, and if asked about it I will say about this "free" marketing scheme.


----------



## Iglu71 (Aug 19, 2014)

mihazero said:


> Is it just me or there are lot of first time posters here that have only few posts posted on canonrumors and all of those are in this thread? (Middleman 4 posts and all in this thread, eadams 1 and in this thread, Igglu71 5 posts and all in this thread).
> 
> I do feel like inventor wanted to make ... natural ... sort of .. *"haaaaaaaave you met Ted!?"* _(How I met Your mother reference)_ approach and start buzz about his product.
> 
> ...



I've admitted i'm a relative but I only made this account to see what people thought about the review, it's just a forum not exactly widespread advertising is it? The product is not made by some sneaky salesman, even if you don't like me, don't take it out on the inventor...


----------



## mihazero (Aug 20, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> mihazero said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me or there are lot of first time posters here that have only few posts posted on canonrumors and all of those are in this thread? (Middleman 4 posts and all in this thread, eadams 1 and in this thread, Igglu71 5 posts and all in this thread).
> ...



If you open multiple accounts to induce interest among photography enthusiasts, professionals it is seen as scamming. At least i do see it that way. 

I will not take it out on Inventor for his product. Even when he is making a "thingamajig" that does same thing as way cheaper more readily available products do, by using words like "softbox", "professional" in his pitch to make people looking at it into thinking its some new way of bending physics to do what no other product can do and making one universal modifier to replace all others. 

No Sir, I will say openly that this kind of advertising is dishonest and misleading with intent to hustle photographers here into buying it or telling others about it.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 20, 2014)

I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence... One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material... Well yes and no... And here's the whole crux... not all diffusion material is created equal... You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer... BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light. Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more. NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light. As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject... So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant. For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention... So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...


----------



## Hill Benson (Aug 20, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> I only made this account to see what people thought about *the review*



Linky?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence... One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material... Well yes and no... And here's the whole crux... not all diffusion material is created equal... You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer... BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light. Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more. NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light. As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject... So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant. For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention... So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...



Don't agree, just like sensors size trumps all. Look at some of the pro modifiers now, they are 7' and bigger, why? Because size invariably trumps being closer.

A good rule of thumb with modifiers is to take their size as the optimal distance from the subject, 20" modifier 20" from the subject, 50" modifier 50" from the subject, scale that down to this useless snake oil and you need to be 3" or 4" from the subject, and if the subject is more than 3" or 4" wide you are going to get big falloff issues.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm in the market for an 84" umbrella... I don't need an 84" umbrella... but I want one... so I'll get one... maybe two. 

Light bends... black holes... when passing from air and through water... It happens... but it generally don't curve ball around the air and hit a subject at a multitude of angles... and that's my issue with the bouncelite... The harshness of the light may be reduced... great... but I really can do that with a variety of sources to include a white plastic grocery bag filled with air and wrapped around the head of a speedlite... and that's free with the purchase of anything in the grocery story... and that... the created sphere is a larger surface which will produce light falling onto the subject than the bl. 

I'm cheap, despite having a crap ton of gear... and I wouldn't risk any more than $20 on the device... and even then... it would be difficult decision to open the wallet. I wish yall at the success in the world... but I'm a bit pessimistic.

And while I'm at it.. I created my own diffuser using a water bottle, crinkled aluminum foil, and some tape... and i put that around the head of a 430ex ii... and it worked remarkably well considering I basically used trash... to reflect the light... but I wouldn't use it in studio... it was softer than the speedlite alone... but it really can't beat a decent umbrella.


----------



## pwp (Aug 20, 2014)

Middleman said:


> ...The fact that they're offering free shipping on the product seems reasonable to me, considering Gary Fong's Lightsphere Collapsible - the closest competitor to the BounceLite in terms of pricing and features is like US$149 before shipping...


Errm you're a little over the money on the Gary Fong Collapsible. I'm seeing $59.95 on the website. http://www.garyfongestore.com/featured-products/lightsphere-collapsible-speed-mount.html Are you sure you're not the inventor?

I must have tried just about every flash diffuser that ever shipped, and yet I keep going back to the Stofen or nothing at all if the job venue has low white ceilings. The rather clever Joe Demb diffusers get a run from time to time, as do the Gary Fong collapsibles. Having tried them all, there's nothing about the BounceLite that particularly pushes my excitement button. Uncharacteristically, I'll be passing on this one.

-pw


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 20, 2014)

So if I give you just over $1,400 as the highest level supporter you will still charge me almost $60 dollars in shipping?

That's chutzpah. ;D

Good luck with it. I am afraid I won't be subscribing. But I wish you the best.

It is not like this is the first and only "optimistic" light modifier sold. Camera stores are full of such stuff and the photography world still survives.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 20, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence... One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material... Well yes and no... And here's the whole crux... not all diffusion material is created equal... You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer... BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light. Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more. NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light. As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject... So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant. For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention... So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...
> ...



I think your confusion the quality of the light vs the softness/effect of the light... I'm not arguing that a bigger modifier will give a better quality of light and better affect... I am just saying it's possible with heavy diffusion to soften the light, although the quality and usefulness of the light will be in question.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 20, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...




Having heavy diffusion will only reduce the light intensity unless the effective lighting surface is also increased.
For example, try covering the speedlite with tightly wrapped layers of white cloth- you will only make it dimmer. 

Now very low intensity light has an illusion of being soft, because there is little contrast between the well lit and poorly lit areas. This isn't truly soft light though. It's just poor lighting 

By definition, soft light avoids sharp shadows and harsh bright areas, with smooth transition between the two. The only way to do it is control the effective size of the light source. Reducing the illumination such that there are no bright areas and no shadows are created is hardly a step in the right direction.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



As i said... possible but not very useful... Let alone the fact that if it's killing that much light, it may be even easier to over heat and kill your flash altogether... But if there's a will there's a way... but as i said... if they can improve upon it with future releases, then they have maybe a good basis to move from to develop something bigger and better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2014)

...something bigger and better even more outrageously priced.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 21, 2014)

i wasted money on a winglight and oh my god what a junky piece of poorly made rubbish that was
not to mention overpriced . the catchlights were horrendous from it, I cant see this overpriced snake oil being any better than that junk. 

I agree with neuro and PBD, stick with physics it wont let you down trie and fight it and you will just fall over. Physics doesnt lose. ever.


----------



## mihazero (Aug 21, 2014)

I have gotten winglight and i did find it extremely useful for low light event photography, where i only want to bathe faces with light a bit, not change general ambient light too much.

Bouncing light off walls and other stuff is only possible when you crank your speedlight to 11. Still WL does a lot better job then this can ever do. Purely because its bigger light source that you have to use as close as possible to your subject, due to quick power dissipation. Still even in that case its one trick pony, but better then this thing.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Sep 23, 2014)

Check out Joe Demb's long-time entries into this world of on-speedlight tools. Well-made attachment bands, good QC from my experience. Accessible business owner.
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/products/flip-it-flash-reflectors/

Joe was a photographer in the Boston area and has designed a good set of modifiers that work for shooting. I've used the basic card-above" version and a separate produce called the Portrait dish - a 10x13 cupped piece that has a bit of a scoop shape to catch enough of what comes up out of the speedlight to make a larger "card" effect. This folds for transport. It appears on its own page:
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/products/portrait-dish/

I have used both in real-life event work. I still carry a #10 envelope in my bag with a rubber band just in case I don't have his rig with me. I've used those tools since newspaper work years and years ago. Mr. Demb not a relative or friend.

Recommended.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 23, 2014)

Iglu71 said:


> I've admitted i'm a relative but I only made this account to see what people thought about the review, it's just a forum not exactly widespread advertising is it?



In the age of the Internet, that's about the same thing - to get something promoted, you need inbound links from high-rated sources with search engine credibility ... like CR.



Iglu71 said:


> The product is not made by some sneaky salesman, even if you don't like me, don't take it out on the inventor...



I'm sure a sturdy-built bounce card & "diffuser" thingy will find customers, as will any gadget, so indeed good luck with it...

... however the "snake oil" connection is right there in the thread title: "_*revolutionary* flash diffuser_". If the marketing is really set on implying such a small surface can produce better soft light than any other sto-fen type, that's outright misleading. And instead of "revolutionary" rather "handy" or "integrated" comes to my mind.



jonathan7007 said:


> Check out Joe Demb's long-time entries into this world of on-speedlight tools. Well-made attachment bands, good QC from my experience. Accessible business owner.



+1 for the demb products, I'm using his flash bracket and bounce cards, great stuff at a reasonable price - and great service. Here's one example of an innovator being successful w/o selling snake oil.


----------



## pwp (Sep 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jonathan7007 said:
> 
> 
> > Check out Joe Demb's long-time entries into this world of on-speedlight tools. Well-made attachment bands, good QC from my experience. Accessible business owner.
> ...


The Joe Demb stuff works for me too. Deceptively clever, simple, well made and honest. 
Having tried just about everything in the on-speedlight universe, I just keep coming home to Joe.
But for a natural look, the number one preference will always be a low white ceiling. 

-pw


----------

