I've had my ups and downs with the D-Flector being used with a flash. After discussing this with several people on this forum, I've come to the conclusion to really get the correct results, I need to use at least one more flash fired remotely.
Now I have to make a confession. When I first saw the D-Flector advertised in Popular Photography, I immediately thought I recognized the device that would serve what I always wished I had: a readily accessible, plain white background for available light photography of small objects and house plants with small flowers. I wasn't thinking, flash photography. So I ordered it and immediately realized that I could probably get spectacular photos if I used a flash. That's when I discovered I would need at least two flashes.
So today I went back to my original idea of using this device under available light, just to see how it would do. I prepared a detailed gallery explaining and illustrating my results. I put a lot of work into this and so I hope interested parties will visit it and take a look. The gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/fjp/df_2005_06_jun_26
Here is a photo of my setup using the Tamron 180mm f/3.5 Di Macro to photograph an African Violet plant, with the light coming in through a window behind the camera:
This worked pretty well with this plant. Here is my best results, with others very similar which you can see for yourself up on the gallery:
Then I decided to see what I could do with small objects I wanted to make look like they were floating in mid-air. I was less successful in achieving this. First here is the setup, which uses the 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor:
Here are two images from this setup that I wanted to appear like they were "floating in mid-air." The first is a failure, the second, more of a success that just needs a little touching up with Photoshop.
The bottom line is, I found my solution for photographing my miniature flowers, but will need a second remote flash for making things "float".
Now I have to make a confession. When I first saw the D-Flector advertised in Popular Photography, I immediately thought I recognized the device that would serve what I always wished I had: a readily accessible, plain white background for available light photography of small objects and house plants with small flowers. I wasn't thinking, flash photography. So I ordered it and immediately realized that I could probably get spectacular photos if I used a flash. That's when I discovered I would need at least two flashes.
So today I went back to my original idea of using this device under available light, just to see how it would do. I prepared a detailed gallery explaining and illustrating my results. I put a lot of work into this and so I hope interested parties will visit it and take a look. The gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/fjp/df_2005_06_jun_26
Here is a photo of my setup using the Tamron 180mm f/3.5 Di Macro to photograph an African Violet plant, with the light coming in through a window behind the camera:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
This worked pretty well with this plant. Here is my best results, with others very similar which you can see for yourself up on the gallery:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Then I decided to see what I could do with small objects I wanted to make look like they were floating in mid-air. I was less successful in achieving this. First here is the setup, which uses the 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Here are two images from this setup that I wanted to appear like they were "floating in mid-air." The first is a failure, the second, more of a success that just needs a little touching up with Photoshop.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The bottom line is, I found my solution for photographing my miniature flowers, but will need a second remote flash for making things "float".
