Hi, again --

>I'm foolish for arguing with David R. (Bob Neuman) but here
>goes.

Nah, go right ahead!

>I've never used the Stofen, so I can't say anything about that.
>But if you are saying that flash add-ons in general are worthless, I
>strongly disagree. I've got several LumiQuest gadgets and love them.
>1. The 80-20: Truly wonderful. It gives very soft nice light without
>those dark eyes you get with just bounce. I just love it for causual
>pictures of family fun in the kitchen. I've got wonderful pictures of
>my daughter carving pumpkins, dipping candles, etc.
>2. The BigBounce: Great for macro stuff. I put it on my Nikon SB-24,
>and connect that up with the SC-17 sync cord, and hold it right over
>the subject. (I'm sure studio equipment would be better, but I'm
>talking about field stuff.) Held right over the subject it covers 1/2
>of a hemisphere or so, and provides nice diffuse light. It is too
>heavy for general work, and will make the flash tip forward.
>Nevertheless I have used it on camera a few times. I have some very
>nice pictures I took using it of an Native American woman weaving at
>some trading post out in New Mexico or Arizona.
>3. The Pocket bouncer: I use this one least of all. It fits easily
>in my camera bag and the BigBounce won't. So I sometimes use it for
>macro stuff if I'm limited to just the camera bag.

Seems to me that you have found the times when add-ons DO work (to fill
low ceiling bounce, and for close close work) - though paper sheets,
small cards, and styrofoam cups are cheaper than the commercial
products.

>Now, let me say some things in agreement with David. Most people seem
>to think that those things diffuse the light. I think that the only
>way to get diffuse light is to get it coming in from a lot of
>directions. In the macro case, this works because the BigBounce is
>close to the subject relative to its physical size. The case of the
>80-20 works because most of the light bounces off the ceiling. The
>styrofoam cup or the Stofen may work because a very large fraction of
>the light gets to the subject via reflections rather then directly.
>But, except for the BigBounce in macro work, the physical extent of
>those things is not enough, by itself, to get diffuse light.

Ditto on everything above, accept the comment on the Sto-Fen - unless
the reflecting surfaces are VERY near the flash, the reflected light
is insufficient to make much difference in the photo (the light
source is still the flash, and its size is not significantly larger
with the add-on).
> -- David Jacobson
David Ruether