Lame review clearly written to sell a product rather than inform. The photo examples are purposely biased to make the reviewed product appear better than it likely is. There is no advantage to using a light modifier if you are going to bounce the light off a ceiling. In fact, all it does is eat light.
Honestly I also thought the ULB was going to be lame! This is my 39th year photographing for pr and events. I got to be an expert in on-camera flash (including just bouncing off a ceiling) decades ago. I have bought and paid for all the light various modifiers - and used them on literally thousands of jobs. I really didn't want to review this ULB unit, thinking, like you, that it was all about selling another thing that would sit on your shelf. I was totally wrong, and immediately found out the ULB is a tool that is as flexible as you are. Yes, you have to think outside the box, and the mind-set of "just bouncing" is only a rough beginning. In more than a year I have not met a lighting need that cannot be met by the ULB. The astonishing results of the ULB in challenging circumstances to create directional, dimensional lighting have gained audience at WEVA, PPA and WPPI as truly different. My next article will visually demonstrate the advantages of the ULB over plain bounce flash.
Hey Creative Pro - how about some truth in advertising here. And why is the author's profile private? Playing tricks with the ambient light is deceptive. This is a credibility hit for you.
Sara Frances is a practicing photographer with a reputation to uphold. She does not write about something unless she believes in it. Her bio was private because of an error on my part, not because of some conspiracy or whatever you think it is. Lordy! Her web site is http://www.photomirage.com
None of the devices mentioned are significantly better than taping a 3"X5" card to your strobe, bending it slightly and pointing the strobe up or to one side.
Get a good book on lighting (e.g. "Light Science & Magic") and learn why.
-- Greg Peterson
http://GregpetersonPhoto.com
I don't feel that this article is a useful review of the light modifier. Of COURSE each of the images would have required a different exposure (+/-). Each of the light modifiers mentioned have different levels of efficiency as far as how well they transmit light. This doesn't make them better or worse, just different. I think the way the test was conducted is odd. (I stop short though of saying the bias was intentional however.)
Bottom line is each photographer has to experiment several light modifiers on their own and see which works best for them. In addition, it is unreasonable to expect ONE light modifier to be perfect in all situations. If light in general behaved that simply, what a boring craft photography would be!
First, I can see only marginal difference between the control shot and the Ultimate Lightbox shot. As for the other tests, I would like to see these shot at a correct exposure as well as shot (where possible) by directing the light at the same angle.
For instance, if you feel that the best shot would be by leaving the ceiling dark, as it is in the Ultimate Lightbox shot, then don't point the others directly towards the ceiling. I don't know Sara Frances or have any reason to think that this comparison is anything but poorly thought out, but in this day, when everyone with a blog seems to be on the take from some manufacturer with a product to promote, I would expect a little more careful comparison. This also makes one raise an eyebrow at CreativePro just a bit.
I think the author needs some training in Design of Experiments. She uses inconsistent methods of diffuser usage and her assumption that her "usual" +2/3 stop of flash compensation should work for every device is obviously not true.
Pro Flash Photography without the Pro Price Tag
Lame review clearly written to sell a product rather than inform. The photo examples are purposely biased to make the reviewed product appear better than it likely is. There is no advantage to using a light modifier if you are going to bounce the light off a ceiling. In fact, all it does is eat light.
Honestly I also thought the
Honestly I also thought the ULB was going to be lame! This is my 39th year photographing for pr and events. I got to be an expert in on-camera flash (including just bouncing off a ceiling) decades ago. I have bought and paid for all the light various modifiers - and used them on literally thousands of jobs. I really didn't want to review this ULB unit, thinking, like you, that it was all about selling another thing that would sit on your shelf. I was totally wrong, and immediately found out the ULB is a tool that is as flexible as you are. Yes, you have to think outside the box, and the mind-set of "just bouncing" is only a rough beginning. In more than a year I have not met a lighting need that cannot be met by the ULB. The astonishing results of the ULB in challenging circumstances to create directional, dimensional lighting have gained audience at WEVA, PPA and WPPI as truly different. My next article will visually demonstrate the advantages of the ULB over plain bounce flash.
Sara Frances
Hey Creative Pro - how about some truth in advertising here. And why is the author's profile private? Playing tricks with the ambient light is deceptive. This is a credibility hit for you.
Expensive Tupperware
Sorry, this is just REALLY expensive Tupperware.
This article is the real thing, not an ad
These examples are not faked.
Sara Frances is a practicing photographer with a reputation to uphold. She does not write about something unless she believes in it. Her bio was private because of an error on my part, not because of some conspiracy or whatever you think it is. Lordy! Her web site is http://www.photomirage.com
Terri Stone
Editor in Chief, CreativePro.com
Bunk!
None of the devices mentioned are significantly better than taping a 3"X5" card to your strobe, bending it slightly and pointing the strobe up or to one side.
Get a good book on lighting (e.g. "Light Science & Magic") and learn why.
-- Greg Peterson
http://GregpetersonPhoto.com
Really? No... not REALLY.
I don't feel that this article is a useful review of the light modifier. Of COURSE each of the images would have required a different exposure (+/-). Each of the light modifiers mentioned have different levels of efficiency as far as how well they transmit light. This doesn't make them better or worse, just different. I think the way the test was conducted is odd. (I stop short though of saying the bias was intentional however.)
Bottom line is each photographer has to experiment several light modifiers on their own and see which works best for them. In addition, it is unreasonable to expect ONE light modifier to be perfect in all situations. If light in general behaved that simply, what a boring craft photography would be!
I call shenanigans
First, I can see only marginal difference between the control shot and the Ultimate Lightbox shot. As for the other tests, I would like to see these shot at a correct exposure as well as shot (where possible) by directing the light at the same angle.
For instance, if you feel that the best shot would be by leaving the ceiling dark, as it is in the Ultimate Lightbox shot, then don't point the others directly towards the ceiling. I don't know Sara Frances or have any reason to think that this comparison is anything but poorly thought out, but in this day, when everyone with a blog seems to be on the take from some manufacturer with a product to promote, I would expect a little more careful comparison. This also makes one raise an eyebrow at CreativePro just a bit.
Inadequate Design
I think the author needs some training in Design of Experiments. She uses inconsistent methods of diffuser usage and her assumption that her "usual" +2/3 stop of flash compensation should work for every device is obviously not true.