DIY Studio Diffusers for Grids and Barn Doors

I was thinking about the lighting setup I discussed on March 2 and was contemplating the hard directional light put out by studio strobes when coupled with honeycomb grids or barn doors. We want the tight, directional light to chisel, highlight, rim light and otherwise focus on specific elements within the photograph. The problem, is that light is still a hard source.

Think about it, it's a bare bulb flash in a highly reflective dish projected directly outward. Even though it has a controlled spread, it is still not a diffused source. How can we improve on this? Now, maybe I'm behind in the game, which is entirely possible, but I experimented with some solutions that actually worked pretty well.

To diffuse the light, we need it to pass through some sort of opaque material. This will soften the light, creating softer shadows. This will really come in handy when working with models and skin tones and textures in general. The object then is to figure out how to get a diffusion material in front of these modifiers.

Now, some lighting companies may have already solved this problem, but as of today, Alien Bees, the brand I currently use, doesn't offer anything in this arena. Paul C. Buff does offer a diffusion sock for the 22" Beauty Dish and they recently added a 40 degree grid, but there is nothing for the standard reflectors and grids and barn doors, etc. So, how do we create this softening?

Well the first thing we could do is go with the idea that is offered by Alien Bees with the Beauty Dish and that is to add a diffusion material, or sock, over the front end. This will work, but I'm not sure how much spread will be gained - and this is what we don't want when using a grid - by having it on the outside of the grid.  This would basically create a small softbox, but even though softboxes are far more directional than, say ,an umbrella - which is sort of like comparing an open reflector with a gridded one - they still produce light spill and wrap. The solution even for softboxes is to put the grid in front of the diffusion screen. That way the already softened light is passing through the focusing grid. So, for me, the sock idea was sort of out since it somewhat defeats the purpose of what I was going for.

The second, and perhaps most logical and effective method, is to place a diffusion material behind the grid and barn doors, etc., much like we do on a gridded softbox. To do this, I went to my local Home Depot to look for some diffusion material and what better place to look than the actual light diffusers. Large fluorescent light fixtures that you often find, say, in a kitchen or a garage come with plastic diffusion screens to diffuse and spread the light. Perfect.

These come in a variety of finishes and sizes. The most common seems to be the prism texture. It features a series of little pyramids that help diffuse the light. This might work fine, but I was looking for something thinner as the space in the lip of the reflector dish is very shallow and the grid still has to fit. I couldn't find what I was looking for so I asked and the gentleman directed me to the back of the store in building supplies. There I found the same prism material, but also the cross hatched elevator light coverings - which might make a good grid for a DIY light source! - and a different diffuser for lights that looked like fine stained glass or small stone (see image below). This pattern was slightly thinner than the other so I picked up a 2'x4' sheet of the acrylic material for about $9. This is way more than you'd need, but its also very brittle - in fact mine broke from slightly folding it by accident when trying to put it in the car. Big deal, I'm going to cut it anyway.

Before I could get back to work to try out the idea, I had to stop by Wal-Mart to pick up a few things and while there I traveled through the kitchen appliance isle and came across cutting boards. Now, I had noticed them before, but it hadn't occurred to me until then that the thin, white  cutting mats would make great little diffusers. So, I picked up a pack of three (about 14"x18" or so) for $3 just to compare the two.

Acrylic material cut to size

Cutting mat cut to size

Once home, I took out one of the 7" honeycomb grids and used a Sharpie to trace the edge onto both materials. I then used scissors to cut the mat - very easy -  and heavy duty hand shears to cut the acrylic. Note: you can do it with scissors, but it's very brittle and cracks easily. Try the shears if you choose to work with this material.

I did not have a human subject so I used an orange. It's got a dippled surface and is moderately reflective so I figured it would give me some feedback. Below are the results.

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - no diffusion

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - acrylic diffusion

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - cutting mat diffusion

The first picture is of the orange shot with an Alien Bees 800 strobe with the standard reflector only. The second picture is with the acrylic diffuser in place and the third is with the cutting mat diffuser in place. As you can see the diffusers pull the highlight intensity down and soften the shadows. I did various tests with barn doors and grids - and yes they both fit well behind the grid - with similar results. I chose to use the non-focused images so as not to create any misguided shadows, etc. from the accessories.

I then took a meter reading to compare the differences. The settings on the 800 were not recorded as they are not essential for this test since I was just looking for the output difference between the non-diffused light and the two diffused sources. No settings were changed between the three meter tests.

The bare flash with reflector clocked in at f/11. Both the acrylic diffuser and mat diffuser produced very comparable results right around f/8. It would be a safe estimate that the diffusers reduce the light output by one stop which is pretty respectable. The results were not surprising since the images of the two are so similar.

For me, I'd go with the cutting mat. Why? It produced nearly identical results both in quality and light loss and is much easier to cut and store. The acrylic that I used was good, but simply too brittle for long term use, especially when travel might be involved.

CAUTION!!!: I have no idea how long term or high intensity use will effect the integrity of these materials! The cutting mat material is not designed for use with lighting and the acrylic, though used with lighting diffusion by nature, is NOT designed for strobes or high temperature modeling lamps. Florescent lights give off almost no heat so are very tame when it comes to material eroding. I use 100 watt light bulbs as modeling lamps and when you couple them with the grids the diffusers come very close to touching the bulb and might actually make contact in some cases. If you've every pulled a metal grid off of a strobe after even 5 minutes of use near a modeling lamp, you know that the temperatures are quite hot. For safety reasons, I'd recommend turning off the modeling lamp completely or removing it all together. The strobe will generate heat, but in short controlled bursts. You are still best served by checking the integrity of the diffuser from time to time. Alien Bees does not recommend such diffusion materials and will therefore not cover any problems that might be caused by this lighting setup. Use at your own risk. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the possibility of fire as a result of strobe misuse. Always follow the instructions provided by your equipment manufacturer. As with any DIY project, homemade solutions can present risk of equipment malfunction or failure and personal injury. Though I feel this solution is safe under the listed circumstance, I am not an electrical or mechanical expert and am not responsible for any problems that may arise from improper use.

Nikon, more fast primes please...

I thought I'd take a break from the lighting setup posts to do a bit of commentary on equipment. No, I'm not an authority on equipment, nor have I obtained or worked with the variety of gear that many professionals have, but I do have some comments that I'd like to throw out there just for fun.

I am a Nikon shooter, as you know, and the biggest complaint disappointment I currently have with the Nikon line is its lack of vast prime lenses. Now, Nikon does have a bunch of legendary glass that still outshines a lot of newer gear by some manufacturers, but it's about time that Nikon kick the line up a notch and introduce some new optics.

This may very well be in the works, but it has taken the company a painful amount of time to bring this to the table. Nikon has introduced two new AF-S primes as of late with the 50mm f/1.4 and the newly released 35mm f/1.8. The price of the AF-S 50mm is nearly double that of it's predecessor, but does give users the AF-S feature. Why is this good? Three primary reasons; faster focusing - especially in low light, quieter focusing and compatibility with the intro bodies like the fabulous D40/D40x and D60.

The newest release, the 35mm, is unfortunately, a DX format lens, making it specifically geared toward the D300, D90/80 and lower end bodies. This isn't a bad thing exactly, but it limits FX (full frame) users to the older 35mm f/2D lens that lacks the AF-S feature and is a bit slower wide open. It's a great play by Nikon - introducing a DX specific lens to the masses, but it leaves pro shooters and owners of the FX cameras scratching their heads. Yes, the high ISO output is better on these cameras, but that does not help low-light AF and quieter performance.

I would have loved an FX compatible version of the 35mm. It acts like a 50mm (give or take) on the DX bodies, but would have provided FX shooters with a nice wide angle alternative. It is also $300 cheaper than the 50mm and given the focal differences would have been a nice alternative for FX shooters - though the price would likely have been higher for the full frame version.

Other than these two lenses, Nikon offers NO fast AF-S glass. The stunning 85mm f/1.4D is likely the next target for the revamp and the lens would likely find itself on back order before it even hit shelves. Nikon also has older 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC lenses that many would love to see in a state of the art format. One of Canon's most popular telephotos is the 135mm f/2L USM. It is fast, quiet and tack sharp and can be had for just under $1,000 - a steal for such and optic.

Nikon jumped out with the staggeringly good 200mm f/2 AF-S VR lens very early in the game. They did not create it for FX  sensors specifically because the lens predates that release (thought it was a fine pairing with film), but it offered fast AF, stunning bokeh, and VR in a rock solid housing. The lens costs $4,000, but for those with the need and the cash, it's a must have tool.

Nikon has other lenses that can certainly use a makeover like the 80-400mm VR, which was/is very popular even though glaciers move faster than the AF motor. The excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 VR could use a tweak as well with the advent of the very good N series lenses like the 14-24mm and 24-70mm as well as the pairing with the FX sensor where this lens exhibits pronounced vignetting.

So, in a nutshell, what would I, and I believe most pro shooters (especially portrait, sports and wedding photographers) really like to see released?

1. 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VRII N


2. 85mm f/1.4 AF-S N


3. 135mm f/2 AF-S N (VRII ? - unlikely)


4. 28mm f/1.4 AF-S N (or something wider than 50mm and at least at f/2) - this sucker would be expensive

This might be a wish list, but I know that virtually all of these would find their way into 90 percent or more of the pro kits out there. Nikon has promised more lens releases this year. Let's hope that they update the prime line in the process.

More beauty lighting with a pair of strobes

Eden Harris

It's been a bit since my last post, needless to say, I've been crazy busy. This will be a relatively short post and will take the topic of the last post on two source beauty lighting in a different direction.

Last time, I talked about "clam shell" lighting. Basically, it consists of a diffused light source at 45 degrees above and below the subject in the portrait environment. Here, I've moved the sources into a cross-lighting setup. The interesting thing about this particular setup is that it incorporates no diffusion. The main light is positioned to camera left at about 45 degrees. The light is an Alien Bees 800 series strobe with a standard reflector and a 30 degree honeycomb grid attached. This concentrates the light, allowing for both limited spill and less power. One could use a beauty dish in this setting as well, though, without a grid, it will produce a larger light cast.

Erin Pierce

The second light is also and Alien Bee's 800 fixed with a standard reflector and a set of barn doors. The vertical doors are closed down allowing only about a two inch beam of light. The top and bottom flaps (the horizontal doors) are wide open. I find this allows more directional light over a longer plane than, say, a snoot or honeycomb grid. I wanted the light to travel from the head down the back and arm to provide a more complete rim light.

The lighting setup was the same for both models, but arranged in opposite directions for each subject. Eden (top picture in the post and last) was shot using the setup shown below. Erin (above) was photographed with the main light to the right and the rim light to the left. Note how much coverage the barn doors allow down the back of the subject. It is especially evident in the pictures of Eden as I have her positioned at a harder angle to the camera. Both models have easy-going and bright personalities which makes working with them easy and fun. The poses were done from a run of the mill  school chair. The glare that the legs and back of the seat produced in some of the images was removed in post.

Cross-lighting setup

I failed to record the power output settings on the strobes, but it was significantly less power than required with diffusion. The images were shot with a Nikon D700 in RAW mode with a 70-200mm lens at f/8 at 1/250th. They were rotated and a few minor tweaks were performed in Aperture before dumping them off to Photoshop CS4.

The great thing about this setup is that it introduces virtually no light spill onto the backdrop. That is further controlled by the fast shutter speed. I have to admit, this was an improvised scenario. We began the shoot with the clam shell configuration - but this time in the vertical orientation (i.e. the lights were 45 to the left and right than from above and below). That setup produced some wonderful images, but I really wanted to go a different route, so for the last 30 minutes I decided to try this setup and loved it.

Eden Harris

When you have photogenic subjects, more than half the work is done for you, and when you throw in a talented makeup artist like Wendy Riley (whom I also had the pleasure of working with on the previous shoot on beauty lighting) things get even easier.  But even the world's top models have their images retouched (heavily) for print and advertising work. These images needed some attention, but nothing super serious. Mostly I just removed a few distracting flyaway hairs and then evened out the skin tones. This was done using Photoshop CS4 with the healing brush, the clone stamp tool and layer blending with the blur filter, etc. I'm not a Photoshop expert, I just try to learn the techniques that best serve my style of photography and work with them. Photoshop geniuses like Scott Kelby and others are the defacto source for learning better Photoshop skills. Give them a Google to learn more tips and tricks.

This is a super simple lighting setup that is capable of producing some magnificent results. You have to be more careful with you r light placement and subject position when dealing with non-diffused lighting as it drastically increases shadows as well light hardness. The end results are worth the extra attention to detail as it produces a classic Hollywood sort of elegance, perfect for less traditional beauty lighting.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R