Dollar Shop Journals, Part 2: Built-in Flash Remedies

[CemAygun]

Foreword

This is the second article in my "Dollar Shop Journals" series, and probably the hardest one for me to compile. The main reason is that it covers a subject that has been addressed to the extreme extent by DIY enthusiasts, as well as commercial products. It also happens to be "the" project that introduced me to DIY photography, when I got my first semi-serious camera, roughly a decade ago. Unfortunately things have not changed much since then, despite couple of public domain, DIY ideas being harvested and converted into commercial products.

The tests in this article are done with Samsung NX2000, which is the only proper camera I own at the moment. The modifications shown here are designed for it and it's provided kit flash (SEF-8A). Yet, it is safe to assume the same principals (and designs) would apply to many cameras in it's range with minor alterations.

So, here we go again:

The Issue:

Practically every camera comes with a flash, whether be it built-in or an add-on. And almost without exception, they are borderline usable. Let me elaborate:

Contrary to their ancestors, most of the modern day cameras are capable of capturing a good picture without extra help, despite the lack of strong light. Everyday light, even when created by artificial sources (e.g. indoors), is extremely complex. Basically everything you can see is a light caster, they alter and radiate back the incoming light onto their surroundings. You also have a lot of translucent materials in the lights path which manipulates it even further; lamp shades, fabrics, glass objects etc. indoors; clouds, water, foliage etc. outdoors. So you have this harmonic dance of light, initiated by the light source(s), but going through certain materials, bouncing back and fort between every object in your composition, changing all the time, and finally reaching your lens.

When you use any flash as your main light source, you literally stamp on the true light, crushing it into oblivion. Even if the impact is momentary, it is so strong, so condensed and so directional that, it destroys all the natural harmony. A good analogy would be the difference between a mellow breeze circulating through your house and a typhoon hitting it. The primary reason for this is the size of the flash. It is such a small yet strong source of light that it is bound to create an ugly, artificial outcome. And because of the very same reason, built-in flashes are the worst, as they are even smaller. They create strong, harsh shadows, and disturbing hot spots. They kill the color, they kill the depth, they essentially kill the beauty you are trying to portray...

So "why is it there?", you might ask. Answer is simple, for "fill-in". It is meant to be used to complement or counteract the major, present light (for instance to mellow down the shadows), not to substitute it. Of course it also is a necessary evil if you want to document a particular moment and you don't have any other choices. It surely is not there for you to take good pictures. No body uses a built-in flash as their main light source unless they have to... Well, with the exception of a very famous certain gentleman who uses the built-in flash with the biggest lens hood ever produced, inside his studio(!), to promote his $26 product that costs 20 cents (or less) to make...

The Solution:

Spread the light...It is that simple. Proper flashes have a much much larger area compared to built-in ones to begin with. Yet, even that is not enough. They generally have tiltable / rotatable heads, so that you can bounce the light from the ceiling or the walls indoors, to get a more natural tone and spread. In studios you use reflective umbrellas and soft boxes, just to spread the light.

So basically if you need the flash as a main light source, you need to spread it as much as you can. Although there are many options for professional flashes, we are quite limited when it comes to built-in ones. Probably because of that, this is one of the most covered DIY photography subjects ever. There are unlimited designs, and a number of commercial products. I will go into only a few select here, split into two categories.

To test the designs, I set up a small composition in my house. I apologize for the schizophrenic (and quite meaningless) nature of it, I just tried to throw in as many different surfaces as I could, to be able to demonstrate the effects of each method. Our basis for comparison would be the "bare kit flash mounted on the hot shoe" version of the composition:



For further reference, here is the high ISO, indoors natural light (midday, coming through the windows) version of the same composition:



And last, but not least; here comes a natural "directional" light version (nothing fancy here, I just opened the door on the side for strong outside light to come in) of the very same scene:



I deliberately did not apply any flash compensation in the following examples, to display how much each method cuts down the flash power.

1) The Diffusers:

A diffuser's aim is to widen the focus of the flash light and decrease the harshness of it. This not only minimizes the hot spots, also softens the strong, sharp shadows cast by the flash.

From simply holding an A4 paper in front of the flash, to flashy(!) $30 products you have the whole range here. Suffice it to say, I probably tried every design in the DIY book, and quite a few commercial products . My picks for the diffuser category are as follows:

A) Ping Pong Ball Diffuser: One of the simplest designs. It is virtually free, very easy to build and you only look "a tad" silly using it:



All you need is a white celluloid (classic) table tennis ball. The plastic ones do not work as well as they are generally too opaque. White ones are getting hard to come by nowadays, as most people are switching to orange.

If you heat up a craft knife (a lighter would suffice), it cuts through the ball like butter. Simply cut a rectangular opening big enough to fit your flash'es head, preferably off from the center, further towards the back, and you are done. There is one thing you should be very careful about: The ping pong balls are extremely flammable because of their celluloid nature. If your knife is too hot, it will burst into flames in an eye blink.

Although not as effective as other solutions, It probably is the most convenient one; you can simply keep it in your pocket and put it on when you need to.

Sometimes it hard to find a true-white ball. Most of them have a yellowish tint, some more than the others. Try to find the whitest one, and if not enough, you can always correct the picture by adjusting your white balance. As an alternative, you can experiment with different tints like a flash gel.

The results are better than bare flash, but the ball also dims your flash a significant amount as it is not very translucent:



B) Paper Diffuser: Another virtually free, yet extremely effective design. Although it is only a piece of paper bent into shape and held in place, it happens to be the best DIY solution in my list. I spent quite a bit of time on the final design, to make sure it is as easy to fabricate (and use) as possible.



You can always flatten it out and carry around easily. Unless you use translucent plastic instead of paper, it is very delicate and does not last very long, especially outdoors, so you might want to fabricate a few extra. Don't expect to look posh using it, but the ridicule level is quite acceptable. Compared to other DIY solutions, it needs a bit of crafting though:

The materials needed:

Paper (duh !): Try to get one that is as white as possible, so that it won't alter the flash color. Regular A4 paper works fine, you'll only need a small print (8cm X 17cm). If you want less impact on your flash power, at the cost of less efficiency, you can substitute baking (parchment) paper, wax paper or even tracing paper.

For the base, you'll need a piece of thick paper, 6cm X 2cm in size. Anything as thick as a paper back book cover would do. Again for durability reasons you might substitute a piece of plastic here, as long as it is thick and hard enough.

Glue: I prefer rubber cement as it stays flexible even when fully cured. You need such a little amount, probably anything will work.

Cable Tie: "Everyday" cable tie wires with plastic casing. You'll need only 28cm's of it. I had black lying around, but white looks neater Also, mine was bought from the landscaping section of a department store, yet they generally have better ones in the electric section.

The process:

Print the template on the medium you want to use. Cut the shape out. Flatten and straighten the cable tie as much as you can, and then glue it to the sides of your print, at the marked areas. Let it set. Glue the thick paper at the base (grey area) and cut out the eye. To prevent wear and tear, you might like to put a few layers of scotch tape around the base.

PAPER_DIFFUSER.pdf

To put it on, you loosen your flash lock, squeeze the paper in (the neck of your flash fits in the eye), just under the lock and tighten the lock to hold it in place. Then you bend the rest into a nice curve, up in front of your flash. That's it.

As well as producing exquisite results, this design is also extremely versatile, because it is open ended:

-You can bend it into different shapes for different diffusion sizes and angles.
-You can make it out of colored paper (or plastic) to be used as a flash gel.
-If you are a bit "Photoshop savvy", you can add patterns to get a textured flash. Just fill up the white area in the template with your pattern and print.
-You can also use stencils in your prints for various flash effects.

Here is how it performs:



I used regular paper but feel free to experiment with different materials, including translucent plastics until you find what you are looking for. If you choose an unprintable medium, just use the paper print as a template to cut it into shape.

C) The Balloon, err, I meant, "The Puffer" Diffuser: Here comes the star of out article, the 20¢ worth (at most), utterly useless piece of plastic that you have to pay $26 for...



I seriously don't know what they were on when they designed this and put it on the market, but it is the most mis-advertised camera accessory I have ever seen in years.

Attached to a well known name in the scene, puffer is promoted as "perfect solution" for built-in flashes, however, it simply does NOT work. In essence, it chops down your flash power considerably for no gain, and softens your shadows a negligible amount if at all. That's about it... Ping pong ball is almost as effective (although it costs nothing) and everything else mentioned here is light years ahead. Why is it not sold on "Home Shopping Network" instead, with all the other non-working, low quality products is a mystery to me.

Out of the box , "The Puffer" does not fit, and is not meant to fit, NX2000 and likes. It is designed(?!?) for the cameras which have the pop-up flash in front of the hot shoe. It comes with a bracket that plugs into the hot shoe and holds the diffuser in front of the flash. I knew this when I purchased it, but if the diffuser worked, I was planning to modify mount to fit my NX2000 someway. Apparently there was no need for that:



The only thing good about The Puffer is the promotional YouTube video. I am surprised it hasn't made it's way to the "funniest videos" hall of fame so far...

If you are feeling masochistic and still want to try this abomination, go for an eBay knock-off instead (less than $2, with 2 extra colored puffers, including shipping ). At least you can use the bubble wrap packaging it is sent in for something else...

D) And the winner is...: Best of both worlds; a 4$ commercial diffuser, coupled with a bit of DIY fabrication: Pixco Flash Diffuser



This is a very simple idea, executed perfectly and sold at a very reasonable price. It, lack of a better description, is a "mini soft box", meant for full size flashes. It comes folded in, thin and small, so it is extremely convenient to carry around. When you want to use it, you just unfold it up, back into shape, and use the provided velcro belt to keep it that way, as well as to attach it to your flash.



The only setback is that it is not meant to be attached on our small kit flashes, the mouth is too big. Yet, the solution is simple: Build an extension block around your flash. Just find a small piece of rubber sheet and cut a rectangle out of it; 6.5cm X 5cm wide, and around 2.5cm thick. I had extra cuts left over from my LCD Hood project, but they were only 0.5cm thick, so I glued 5 layers together.

Next step is to cut a rectangle window in the middle, big enough to let your flash head go through (4cmX 1cm for Samsung SEF-8A). If you want the diffuser pointing straight ahead, you need to sand down the bottom of the window at the back half a centimeter into a slant (because of the shape of the flash). You can also round the corners if you want. Now you can easily strap the diffuser to your rubber piece, and just slip it on to the kit flash whenever you want to.



Because you don't modify the diffuser itself, you can still use it for your pro flashes, in case you don't want to spend another $4.

The results for me were extremely satisfactory, even more when used together with the off-camera cord (more on that below). It really creates nice, distributed light, and very soft, natural shadows. The flash power loss is more than acceptable. I have to say it looks quite silly on the NX2000, as it is really huge, but that is a fair trade-off for getting almost-perfect results, under $5...



2) The Bouncers:

The underlying principal is rather basic: Built in flashes have a fixed angle, inline with the lens, firing straight on to your subject. "Bouncers" are used to change the direction of the flash, so it can be bounced off nearby objects (most commonly from the ceiling, indoors) instead of hitting your composition head on. Bounced flash produces a widely diffused and correctly ("environmentally") tinted strobe. That is why professional flashes can be tilted, and some rotated as well.

Although the idea sounds like a purely indoor solution, a variable angle flash has it's merits outdoors, given that you have enough flexibility.

The first option I can recommend is to use the paper diffuser template above. Only this time, you don't want to let the light through, you want to redirect it. So, simply cover the inner side with kitchen grade aluminum foil, and you have a bouncer.

When you attach this version of the design on your camera (which acts as a reflector now), don't curve it. A single bend near the bottom into a straight, angled mirror to direct your flash light up would suffice. The bouncer version also does not need to be as long as the diffuser; you can trim it down to a size that is big enough to catch all your flash (no exact measurements here, because it depends on the angle you'd like to use)...

As an alternative,you can use fully opaque, white plastic instead of paper to fabricate the design in the first place. You would be ok with any kind of non-translucent, reflective material for that matter.
Apart from bouncing the flash towards the ceiling, you can also tilt the front piece sideways for off-the-wall bouncing, but it won't be as effective; mainly because the flash is horizontally aligned.
The bouncer version of the design looks only as "ghetto" as the diffuser counterpart, but it won't be as versatile (practically useless outdoors).

There are also a few, very similar, commercial products in this area, but none I know fits my camera out of the box, and I seriously doubt they would give you anything more than the DIY one.

Because NX2000 comes with a detachable kit flash, my weapon of choice in this category is unfortunately a bit out of our "Dollar Shop" scope: JJC TTL Off-Camera Flash Cord...



It basically is an extension cord that goes between your flash and the hot shoe, so that you can move your flash around. It is specifically made for the NX systems, so it also carries the TTL signal as well, which is important for the kit flash since there is no way to adjust it manually.

I paid $21 including shipping which is multiple times my target budget in these articles, but it is among the best investments one can make. Fist of all, it solves all your bouncing problems, you can point the kit flash anywhere you like, from anywhere you like (within the cord's length that is, but more than adequate I would say). Secondly it is more versatile compared to other options as you can also use it outdoors; to change the origin, the angle and target area of your fill-in flash. Thirdly it is easy to carry around. And last but not least, it looks mean. It even gave me a pseudo-professional look when I used it outdoors

On top of everything, it is future-proof, it works with all NX compatible flashes.

Bare flash bounced off the ceiling, or more like "stairs" as I was shooting under them:



As a side note, I did not choose this particular brand for any reason other than it being the cheapest I could find. If someone comes across an even cheaper alternative, they should fell free to amend it to the article.

Which ever method you use, you have to increase your flash power to compensate for the diminishing effect of the diffuser or the bouncer; with some a little, and with some a lot. This has to be done manually, as the camera (or the flash itself, since we are using TTL) would be unaware of your attachments, still thinking that it is firing straight on without obstructions, so it'll choose settings accordingly. As expected, it takes a bit of practice to get the exposure right.

Well, I wish I had covered more options, but the aforementioned were the most significant ones I could think of. I am always open to contributions; in the end, the more "ideas", the merrier...

Like before, I hope this helps a bit

[CemAygun]

I had to truncate the article a bit, as there is a character limit on posts. I'll post the omitted parts later on if anyone is interested

[Manfred M]

Cem - I suspect that you are a bit unclear as to what you are trying to do with a light modifier, and that shows in some of your concepts. These small flashes tend to be underpowered and in it lies the crux of the issue.

If you think back at basic lighting theory. A small light source produces harsh light and a large light source produces soft light, and as photographers we tend to want soft light. The small flash you are using is a small light source, as is any built in or camera mountable flash; even the large high end flashes that Canon, Nikon and others make.

The classic way we use small flash to create a large light source is to use "bounce flash", where we aim the flash head at a neutral coloured (preferably white) wall or ceiling and that reflected light becomes the large light source. Unfortunately, this bounce process is not particularly efficient, so a fairly powerful light source is required. The tiny flash unt in your images is unlikely to suffice.

One side effect of bouce light can be unflattering shadows cast on a model, as light falls from above. We have the same issue with outdoor shots on sunny days with resultant unflattering shadows at the eyes and under the chin. Here we project light straight at the subject; a "fill" light, to counteract this. Some commercial modifiers have this feature, where most of the flash is directed at the wall or ceiling, while some is directed at the subject.

None of your designs handle this fundamental issue and your variants are really diffusers over a fill flash. This approch can help, if the light beam from your camera is too narrow and only illuminates part of your subject.

The softbox you use is still a small light source, even though it looks like a shrunk down version of a professional studio light softbox. I use softboxes and umbrellas; but unless these are used correctly, they will act as small light sources as well. So long as your umbrella is no further than 2 or a bit more times the diameter away from the subject. With a rectangular softbox the ideal working distance is up to twice or perhaps a bit more the diagonal measurement distance.

I do like the off-camera cable. At least that lets you move the flash to a more useful position.

Your comments regarding the Puffer may be correct, I have never used one, but if you look at its design, it does try to throw light away from the camera and at the surrounding walls. The fact that it is not working for you suggests that you are too far away from any walls or reflectors when you are shooting. Place a couple of white boards just outside of the camera range at aright angle to your backdrop, you may get a better result.

I would suggest you get a better understanding of how small flash works before you try to design a light modifier. One has to understand the problem one is trying to solve, before one can do so.

I hope this helps...

[CemAygun]

Cem - I suspect that you are a bit unclear as to what you are trying to do with a light modifier, and that shows in some of your concepts. These small flashes tend to be underpowered and in it lies the crux of the issue.

If you think back at basic lighting theory. A small light source produces harsh light and a large light source produces soft light, and as photographers we tend to want soft light. The small flash you are using is a small light source, as is any built in or camera mountable flash; even the large high end flashes that Canon, Nikon and others make.

I couldn't, and apparently I haven't, explained it better. Thanks again... I have to say though, the article is about "what you can do" if you are stuck with a small flash

My intentions in these articles generally are about introducing some alternatives to the people who would be, well, "financially embarrassed" in some manner; whether be it by choice, as they would not prioritize photography in their lives; or be it mandatory (hence the "Dollar Shop" title)...

I, in no way, claim to present a solution that works better than upscale commercial alternatives, let alone create miracles. The sole purpose of the articles is to help the people to make most out of what they have, and also to try to steer them out of harm's way (the scam products), as much as I can.

As a side note, in case it should be questioned, I had my first encounter with the "light theory" more than 20 years ago, when I crossed the threshold into professional life, as a 3D modeler / animator; at the age of 17. Some would go bold enough to say us guys know more about light than anyone else, as in our work we create it, and manipulate the way we see fit; albeit in an artificial/simulated environment. Obviously our knowledge does not translate that well into real life (photography for instance), since we need other skills to cope with seemingly extreme physical restrictions. Without our unlimited dominance over light, we are like "fallen angels" in the real world...

Yet, we still know how light behaves, probably better than most

The classic way we use small flash to create a large light source is to use "bounce flash", where we aim the flash head at a neutral coloured (preferably white) wall or ceiling and that reflected light becomes the large light source. Unfortunately, this bounce process is not particularly efficient, so a fairly powerful light source is required. The tiny flash unt in your images is unlikely to suffice.

One side effect of bouce light can be unflattering shadows cast on a model, as light falls from above. We have the same issue with outdoor shots on sunny days with resultant unflattering shadows at the eyes and under the chin. Here we project light straight at the subject; a "fill" light, to counteract this. Some commercial modifiers have this feature, where most of the flash is directed at the wall or ceiling, while some is directed at the subject.

Exactly, but featuring those solutions in my articles is out of my intended scope, unless of course they cost peanuts, and can be applied to a built in flash.

None of your designs handle this fundamental issue and your variants are really diffusers over a fill flash. This approch can help, if the light beam from your camera is too narrow and only illuminates part of your subject.

The softbox you use is still a small light source, even though it looks like a shrunk down version of a professional studio light softbox. I use softboxes and umbrellas; but unless these are used correctly, they will act as small light sources as well. So long as your umbrella is no further than 2 or a bit more times the diameter away from the subject. With a rectangular softbox the ideal working distance is up to twice or perhaps a bit more the diagonal measurement distance.

I do like the off-camera cable. At least that lets you move the flash to a more useful position.

Your comments regarding the Puffer may be correct, I have never used one, but if you look at its design, it does try to throw light away from the camera and at the surrounding walls. The fact that it is not working for you suggests that you are too far away from any walls or reflectors when you are shooting. Place a couple of white boards just outside of the camera range at aright angle to your backdrop, you may get a better result.

All the sample pictures were taken from the same spot, on a tripod, with same settings. It is my mistake if I didn't make it clear enough. The purpose was to show how it compares to DIY alternatives.

I would suggest you get a better understanding of how small flash works before you try to design a light modifier. One has to understand the problem one is trying to solve, before one can do so.

I hope this helps...

Well, I am not designing, manufacturing, or trying to sell anything; I also cannot recall claiming to do so.

I am only presenting what worked for me, and how well (or not) it worked. It is a mere share of experience, so that other people can build upon it.

When it comes to my "not understanding of the problem" (which I am being inexplicably accused of); as derogatory as the way it was questioned, I still believe my background disclosed above should suffice for an answer, if not more.

I (hopefully) this time stated clearly that, I have no intention of solving problems for the people which can buy whatever equipment they need to. Otherwise the articles would have been called "best equipment you can buy for perfect photography"...

I also believe there is a crowd, with all the good intentions, ambitions, and maybe some with the talent as well, who cannot afford all the "proper" equipment. I am hailing from that crowd, to that very same crowd.

I simply am trying to make something out of nothing, because sometimes people are in desperate need of that.

I am sorry if this is the wrong place...

[Manfred M]

Cem - I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to make something that actually works, rather than making cheap knock-offs that don't.

Actually, I rather suspect that is not what you are trying to achieve, I rather suspect you would like to create something that works and can be done for little or no cost. I think every serious photographer does this. I have all kinds of home made devices - clamps, light modifiers, flags, reflectors. Most cost me nothing or next to nothing and the fact I am using them means they did not go out with the garbage.

Who would not agree that doing something on the cheap is not a laudable goal? However, before anyone can do this they have to understand at least a few design principles:

1. Define what they are trying to do - Creating a flash diffuser for small built in flash is a totally different goal than trying to reverse engineer existing products on the market.

2. Understand the problem you are trying to solve - if you are indeed trying to build a better diffuser / light modifier, you need to understand light and how it is used in photography and more specifically for which specific tasks in photography your device can be used for. Clearly you believe you do.

3. Understand the limitations of your design - a single light modifier is not going to be all things to all lighting situations. A ring flash is an essential macro photography tool, but trying to use a macro ring flash for a family portrait is not going to do much for you.

4. You need to understand the design tradeoffs that you have made in coming up with your product and how that will impact its uses and performance. You are certainly thinking this way, when you discuss the issue with your paper diffuser and how it deteriorates quickly outdoors.


First of all, let me assure you I think what you are doing makes a lot of sense, but I still feel that you do not understand lighting well enough and this has a negative impact on your designs. People like Gary Fong or Peter Hurley are professional photographers, not scientists or engineers, yet they have come up with lighting gear that is being sold commercially. Obviously, they got there by having to deal with lighting situations where the commercially available gear simply did not do what they wanted. Their understanding of photographic lighting cames from years of working in the field.


If you want me to critique your designs; no problem. I'm a design engineer (and former engineering manager; I just retired) with over 35 years of work experience, so I know a lot about good designs, manufacturing and issues related to bringing products to the store shelves. I've been a photographer for over 45 year, so I know a bit about photography as well. I own a number of cameras (with built-in flash); own three small flash units and four studio flashes and have lots of lighting equipment, from modifiers for small flash to large softboxes. I know a lot about lighting and even more about designing things...

If you would like to discuss photorgraphy and lighting with me; it would be my pleasure to do so. If you want me to offer opinions on the what your designs do well and not so well, I can make comments there too. However, when I look at the way you have chosen to light your subject matter, I do see that you need to understand lighting better to progress on your designs. Otherwise, you are going to continue to create light modifiers that do not do all that much for the photographer.

Just remember; those small on-camera flashes are probably outputting somewhere around 15-20 W-s. A larger on camera flash is more in the order of 60-70 Ws and a studio light will be from 300 - 1200 Ws. Small on-camera flashes put out so little light that you can't afford to waste any of it by sending it to where it won't contribute to the image.

1. Ping pong ball - good start, but it throws the light everywhere. Point the flash more or less straight up, you have the same effect as a Gary Fong light sphere, where some light is directed at the subject, but the rest is bounced off the walls and ceiling. All of the light going back at the photographer is wasted. Try coating that part of the ball (on the inside) with silver paint to see what that does for you.

2. Paper diffuser - Lots of wasted light here. Most of the light will either bounce back off the paper and not add to the image. Some will get past the sides (the modifier is narrow in the wrong direction) and you could end up with hot spots on the sides of the subject and not enough light in the centre.

3. Off camera cable - now you're onto something. Point the light down from up high (hand held) or get your light (with diffuser) closer to your subject and you will get a better lit shot.

4. Yes, the adaptor to the small soft box works, but you have taken a small light source and made it slightly larger. You have to be very close to the subject to create a soft light. Try combining this setup with your cable, move the light quite close to the subjec and see what that does for you.

So as I said in the beginning; learn more about lighting and use that with your desire to design and tinker and you should be able to come up with something that works reasonably well. Just tinkering is going to lead you in the wrong direction, more often than not.

[JR1]

Stofen

[Manfred M]

Stofen

In my view probably the least useful diffuser on the market, for the type of photography I do. Good for taping gels to without getting a gummy residue over the flash is about the best use I have for them.

[CemAygun]

Thanks a lot, again and again; honestly those are the types of answers I am looking for. Not for myself, or my compilation of the designs, but just for my articles The articles were meant to be a fuse, to start something, that people can build upon. Just your last post alone furthers it more than I could have imagined. (Well that makes sense since you have been a photographer longer than I have been breathing )

As I have stated couple of times, I never intended to offer a new, full, miracle solution. I just share my personal experiences, which should, and hopefully would be improved by the experts like yourself, for the benefit of the community.

I know better than not trying to convert a built-in flash into a proper, professional one. I don't think anyone is that delusional. My goal is to push the flash at hand into something that is slightly better than it's initial state. And I believe almost all the designs listed in my article, (which I don't claim any ownership to, as I see them to be in public domain) achieves to a certain extent.

In all the designs, I try to find the least mean compromise, an optimal point I might say (cost having the highest merit), which would constitute an acceptable solution.

When it comes to the products I put down, I don't insult the experience or the expertise of the people behind them; I insult their intentions, as apparently they were ill. Absence of good will, higher knowledge is useless at best, and more than often, harmful...

In the end it boils down to one single question; "what can you do to take a good picture with the built-in flash?". The obvious, logical, common sense, known-to-everyone answer is: "Nothing"... You go buy a proper flash, that is it... Believe me, everybody knows what a built-in flash is capable (or incapable) of. Even "I" do, as I, to the best of my capability, explained at the beginning of the article.

The question trying to be answered here is: "If you are desperate, can you make it a bit better at least?"

English, as many might have guessed, is not my first language; but I have to say I never had this much difficulty explaining myself. I guess I am losing my edge

That being said, let's get to the real stuff:

1) Ping pong ball: I tried reflective coating couple of years ago, admittedly makes a difference, yet I find the overall effect to be negligible. It works better on plastic balls as their interior surface is more reflective (hence more misdirected light), but on celluloid balls not so much. I think the ping pong ball is simply too small to be truly effective anyway. If you happen to find a bigger, easily accessible sphere, you should use a reflector at the back for sure. This is one of the "last resort" solutions for that matter.

One of the omitted designs from my article here (the syrofoam coffee cup), due to post character limit, has a reflector at the back. It is present in the original article I published on the other site some time ago. I chose to omit it here as I don't have sample pictures taken with that. I'll add it as soon as I can.

2) Paper diffuser: I have to agree, a lot of precious light is lost, even more depending on the paper used. The more opaque the paper is, the more reflected, wasted light you have. If you prefer a paper with less translucency, like the regular printing one, you can widen the design. Also the size of your kit flash plays a significant role here. I didn't see any difference in higher widths, at least concerning hot spots, with SEF-8A, which is really small. So I prioritized convenience. Depending on one's flash, and the curve the paper is bent into (especially the distance from the flash head) one might choose to go much wider.

3) The cable: Of course it works, but it is way out of my article scope Hadn't been I able to find a relatively cheap Chinese one, I wouldn't have included it in my article. It still is way above the rest in terms of cost, but makes such a big difference, I had to let it in.

Another part omitted from the article (and also published in the original) is about using the soft box together with the cable...

4) Softbox: Well this is as far as I was able to go. Perfect fit for the target article budget (roughly $5), and it does make a difference, probably more than any other design/product in this field. I would be happy to see anything that performs better under the same circumstances.

Every design comes with it's own setbacks, the mutual one being the diminishing of your already low flash power. So use them if you feel like the benefits outweigh the losses...

Regarding the last posts, unfortunately I do feel the need to repeat myself: Methods described here will not turn your kit-flash, built-in flash, pop up flash etc. into a proper, professional one. Depending on the circumstances, the methods mentioned might produce better results. Don't use them unless you have no other choice.

PS: I am not sure if I should have added the line "consult your physician if the symptoms persist" to the batch. Maybe I should have ...

[ajohnw]

This all seems to continue with a big miss conception. A flashgun is a flash tube plus optics designed to produce an even light that covers the field of view of a particular focal length of lens. It's size has nothing to do with this, it's power does. Actually if the source of light in the optics was small enough it would be much simpler to meet the even light need.

The original post shows the actual effect of diffusers well. They help the optics do a better job for one but it's noticeable that the only one that had an effect that doesn't relate to the strength of the actual light levels is bounce. That has minimised the reflections off the leafs and mask. The only real reason that it has done this is that the lighting direction is such that the angle of these items doesn't reflect back straight into the camera. A good simple example of this effect is red eye. Most inbuilt flashes are positioned in exactly the right place to get it. Position the flash in the same sort of place as it would be when a hammer head is used on a flash bracket on an FF camera and no red eye. If the subject happened to be looking at something other than the camera there is a possibility that even this set up could give red eye. It all depends on angles. Reflections do.

In this case and many others the most efficient results using one flash would be off camera flash and some power level. Circumstances would dictate which of available light and flash light served as fill in or modelling lights. Flash diffusers tend to do this for users with very little actual control other than they help the optics and reduce the light levels. In some cases they can even generate a certain amount of bounce - if the surroundings are suitable.

Real diffuse light is easy to find - stand in the shade, the more shade the better. The nearest artificial source of it is a soft box ideally with more than one lighting source. Both of these do produce diffuse light as they are not directional - that's what diffuse light is so in real terms neither will make a perfect job of producing it.

There is a chance that the size of a flash diffuser might have some effect. The "optics" of the subject that is causing a reflection to bounce back into the camera lens might do this less effectively when one is fitted. These reflections are the cause of specular highlights.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

IMO, virtually anything that you do to improve the light from the camera built-in flash will help somewhat. I have experimented with some modifiers, including this type: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-So...item4628d652fa

The reason I have done some experimenting is not for my own photography but, to improve the results of photos of our organization's rescue dogs when shot by our volunteers. Some of our rescue volunteers have DSLR cameras but, no one uses a separate flash. The above modifier costs only a few dollars and I will be happy to purchase some and give them to our volunteers. Here is what a test shot of my goldendoodle looks like using the built-in flash and the above mentioned diffuser:

Note: I did not get the glowing eye due to the flash being reflected back from the retina of the dog (same dynamics as human red-eye). I did not PP this image to remove the glowing eyes...

I am a firm believer in the diffuser-modifiers sold by Joe Demb. He has a modifier designed for use with the DSLR built-in flash that looks promising. However, it is too expensive for me to purchase just as a test and a bit expensive to give to the volunteers. If I "had" to use built-in flash, I would certainly consider this unit. One drawback might be that the built-in flash is quite low in power and may not have enough power to bounce effectively...
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/products/pop-up/

I am going to experiment with your DIY examples and see what the best, low cost, way to modify built-in flash that I can make and give to my volunteers.

Now, if only I could find a way to improve the flash from the tiny P&S cameras. Any ideas?