Bounce box

[Marci Hess]

Thanks Rik and Chris S --

Chris S -- I am wanting something much simpler. I'm processing 1000s of insects over the winter months. I'm not looking for perfection as they will still have "schmutz" on them from the collection method or being ground dwellers. Perfection, in my case, would equal never getting anything done.

I have seen Sam's set up before. I do point my twin lights away but not as "away" as this set up. I'll play with that. I don't have a cooler -- I have a cardboard box lined with matte posterboard -- [would this make much difference?]. I need to photo downward unless I'm using the Stackshot. I'll also play with this some more.

All this leads me to the question I have yet to figure out....When would someone choose to use a diffuser vs a bounce box in a studio setting?

And why didn't my recently crafted diffuser (the tube looking thing) work when Charles Krebs' does? It seems they are using the same principle - or am I still not understanding something.

[rjlittlefield]

When would someone choose to use a diffuser vs a bounce box in a studio setting?

Diffusers offer a lot more control of the illumination. With a bounce box, especially a fully enclosed setup like Sam Droege's, you don't have much control over where the light goes.

And why didn't my recently crafted diffuser (the tube looking thing) work when Charles Krebs' does? It seems they are using the same principle - or am I still not understanding something.

The main differences are subject and expectations. If your beetle were placed in Sam Droege's bounce box, or in Charles Krebs's white dome, the resulting pictures would have the same washed out appearance we see in your beetle with the "odd very clear spot". This is because your beetle has a surface that reflects a lot of light, compared to the interior structures that contribute the color.

However, with Charles Krebs's setup, notice that there is light on only one side of the diffuser. Assuming that his subject is not pointed straight toward that light, the illumination will be asymmetric, coming mostly or entirely from one side of the subject. With your beetle, that would produce an effect where part of the beetle would have the washed-out appearance due to surface reflections, but the rest of the beetle would have the rich colors of the clear spot. This dichotomy can be useful, especially to an experienced viewer, since it provides valuable information about how the beetle will look in a variety of different illumination setups.

I'm processing 1000s of insects over the winter months.

For processing such large numbers of subjects, it is well worth tuning the illumination so that you can get a good compromise with no messing around.

Given what I've heard and seen, I'm thinking the best match to your needs might be flashes with relatively small diffusers (possibly those turtledove reflectors), combined with partial cross-polarization to control the surface reflections. Using two heads, in symmetric position, but with different polarization angles, could be tuned to completely eliminate glare on one side of your beetle, with controlled glare on the other side, while giving overall uniform illumination.

--Rik

[Marci Hess]

I have received the turtledove diffusers and will do some test shots and try out some of these recent suggestions.

[BugEZ]

I look forward to seeing how the turtle doves pan out.

Here is a link to some great DIY flash diffuser rigs. These are from Kurt G's web site/blog post. He does great work on bugs, snakes, and all critters tropical in Malaysia. Kurt has mostly contributed to the "Nature Photography" section of this forum as "orionmystery"

If you search within his blogspot site (below) for "diffuser" you will see many interesting methods.

Kind regards,

Keith Short

http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... -rigs.html