BounceLite - a revolutionary flash diffuser

[Iglu71]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 ...

 

[Loswr]

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.

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

...It's not a discussion, it's denying facts ...

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

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

Neuro, FYI, you have a PM...

 

[mihazero]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...

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]

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]

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

Linky?

 

[privatebydesign]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Loswr]

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