reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits?
David Virgil Hobbs
diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
filter.
I have been spending some time researching reflectors versus diffusers
in portrait photography. I was irritated but not surprised to find
very little discussion on the net regarding choosing between the two.
All I could find was that reflectors are more well known amongst the
general population than diffusers; that some people find from their
practical experience that diffusers do not work well; that some people
think diffusers do not work because they do not increase the area of
the source of the light significantly; that european photographers are
supposed to be into diffusers as opposed to reflectors; that diffusers
take alot of the brightness out of the light that hits the subject;
and that people seem to think of reflectors as more of an outdoors
type of thing and diffusers as more of an indoors type of thing.
Coming out of my own mind as opposed to internet research, my thinking
has been that since a problem is the color temperature of reflected
light is different than the color temperature of direct light,
therefore reflected light should be used instead of direct light,
because use of direct light unavoidably leads to conflicts between
indirect and direct light; and, so, therefore, the reflector is a
better solution than the diffuser because the reflector will produce
light that does not clash with direct light whereas the diffuser will
give rise to the direct diffused light and then also the reflected
version of the diffused light.
I have also been thinking that reflectors might do a better job of
mimicking reflected light such as shade light and light bouncing off
of walls whereas diffusers would do a better job of mimicking soft
light sources such as overhead fluorescent all over a big ceiling or a
shaded ceiling light. I think I realize a truth in that I understand
that since the result in photography is an exaggeration of contrast,
partially due to the fact that the camera sees color differences based
on color temp differences that the eye does not see, therefore the
mimicking lights should be softer than the lights they mimick.
Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
diffusers?
David Virgil Hobbs
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon
Joseph Meehan
> ...
> Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
> diffusers?
>
>
>
>
> David Virgil Hobbs
> http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon
Sure. There is little or no difference between the two other than
design. Both can work well if designed and used right, both can work poorly
if not. Either can produce various degrees of diffusers and direction and
spread.
The only real difference is quality of the design and construction and
how well they are chosen and used by the photographer.
I believe you will find more diffusers used by professionals, but that
may be different today. Back when I was in the business most of the real
professional gear was diffusion based. reflectors were cheaply made and
used mainly by non-pros who were more aware of the cost and liked the
folding (easy storage) features of the reflector designs of the day and did
not mind the lower durability and convenience of use of the diffusers.
Today there seems to be better quality reflectors available and they may
well be the better choice for the pro for work on location.
In short, both work well if you know how to use them.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
McLeod
wrote:
>In this post by reflector I mean an object that reflects light and by
>diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
>filter.
By definition direct light is light that goes straight from the source
to the subject, diffused light is light that is affected by an object
between the light source and the subject, so what you are calling
diffused and bounce do pretty much the same thing.
The size of the light source is the most important factor of the light
qualities. If you think about it an ant would be very softly lit with
wrap around lighting an inch away from a household light bulb. 20
feet away from the same light bulb the apparent size of the light
source becomes quite small, and the ant now casts a noticeable shadow,
has a lit side and a shadow side.
So putting a small diffuser like a piece of tracing paper over an on
camera flash unit does nothing but cut the power of the flash and
possibly smooth out any effects caused by the internal parabolic
reflector and lens of the flash unit.
YAG-ART
wrote:
>In this post by reflector I mean an object that reflects light and by
>diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
>filter.
>
>Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
>diffusers?
They each serve a different purpose, so you really can't say one is
better than the other.
Uranium Committee
Congratulations, moron. You have made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
vinc...@rcn.com (David Virgil Hobbs) wrote in message news:<6ed1146e.04112...@posting.google.com>...
Randall Ainsworth
Virgil Hobbs <vinc...@rcn.com> wrote:
It all depends on what you want the end result to look like. They're
both tools in the ol' toolbox.
John McWilliams
> This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.
>
It's very comprehensible. Well thought out question, well explored, and
thanks for posting it.
"UC" is, er, has a reputation. Expect it to morph into another before
absolutely everyone but me has killfiled it.
--
John McWilliams
Alan Browne
<SNIPPED>
> Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
> diffusers?
First off, regarding the amount of light, the difuser seems to be more efficient
than a reflector in my experience and with the materials I use.
Regarding color, whether refelcted or difused, the light will take on the color
of the material. Difuser (softboxes) use a color neutral material, but a color
filter insert can change this subtely or dramatically. Reflectors can also be
color neutral or whatever fits the day. The larger the reflecting surface the
more difficult it is to illuminate it, and the more light is lost.
I've used thin cotton sheets as a difused source with the strobes set about 6
feet behind them ... this provided about 50 square feet of surface. The
photographer can stand right in front of this and hardly affect the amount of
light on the subject.
Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20 years, umbrellas
since ... well a long time. And umbrellas HAVE been used as difused sources
(shining light through an umbrella made of thin silk or cotton) for ... a long
time. Umbrellas are a lot cheaper than softboxes. But with umbrellas used as a
difuser there is a lot of spilled light that needs to be controlled or accepted.
Umbrellas and other refelectors generally take less time to set up than large
softboxes. Other difusion sources can include large frames with a thin white
material stretched over them (difuse all sorts of light, including sunlight).
When using a reflector, if the source light is distant from the reflector, then
both paths have to be managed. If it is refected in an umbrella, then it is
little different than a softbox.
IMO, the qualities ("softness") of the light off of a reflector like an umbrella
and those out of a softbox are little different, except in catchlights.
Catchlights in glasses and eyes are more pleasing when the shape is round. Most
softboxes are rectangular, so this needs to be carefully controlled.
In both cases, the larger the surface and the closer to the subject, then the
softest light is achieved.
MO
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
BT
This is not an endorsement of Photoflex products. I have found, however,
that they do a good job of demonstrating the use of their products and
showing the result of their line of softboxes and reflectors, etc. This
will help you to visualize the results of using the different types of
lighting techniques and help you determine what you need to get the results
that you're looking for--irrespective of the equipment manufacturer that you
choose.
Thanks,
Bruce
"David Virgil Hobbs" <vinc...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:6ed1146e.04112...@posting.google.com...
Alan Browne
> This is without doubt the most incomprehensible post this year.
It's okay Mikey, any post with more than 25 words is certainly beyond your
attention span.
Skip M
news:sdIpd.465371$D%.123277@attbi_s51...
I, for one, have no plans to kill file UC. I find him very valuable for
entertainment on slow evenings.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
J...@no.komm
McLeod <cerv...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So putting a small diffuser like a piece of tracing paper over an on
>camera flash unit does nothing but cut the power of the flash and
>possibly smooth out any effects caused by the internal parabolic
>reflector and lens of the flash unit.
Unless it is large and far from the flash; then the light hits the
subject from a greater range of angles.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Uranium Committee
> diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
> filter.
Wow, what an insight!
> I have been spending some time researching reflectors versus diffusers
> in portrait photography. I was irritated but not surprised to find
> very little discussion on the net regarding choosing between the two.
Irritated? What right do you have to be irritated? Use your brain!
> All I could find was that reflectors are more well known amongst the
> general population than diffusers;
HUH? Who said that?
> that some people find from their
> practical experience that diffusers do not work well;
What the hell are you talking about? Soft boxes are widely used by
pros.
> that some people
> think diffusers do not work because they do not increase the area of
> the source of the light significantly;
Of course they do. That's what a soft-box is!
> that european photographers are
> supposed to be into diffusers as opposed to reflectors;
Who said that?
> that diffusers
> take alot of the brightness out of the light that hits the subject;
'Take a lot of the brightness out'? WTF?
> and that people seem to think of reflectors as more of an outdoors
> type of thing and diffusers as more of an indoors type of thing.
Soft boxes are used on light sources. Outdoors, they are used when the
light sources are taken outside.
> Coming out of my own mind as opposed to internet research, my thinking
> has been that since a problem is the color temperature of reflected
> light is different than the color temperature of direct light,
What are you talking about? Reflection does not change the color
temperature of light unless the reflector is not white or silver.
> therefore reflected light should be used instead of direct light,
> because use of direct light unavoidably leads to conflicts between
> indirect and direct light;
'Conflicts'? What does that mean?
> and, so, therefore, the reflector is a
> better solution than the diffuser because the reflector will produce
> light that does not clash with direct light whereas the diffuser will
> give rise to the direct diffused light and then also the reflected
> version of the diffused light.
'Clash'? How the hell does light 'clash'?
> I have also been thinking that reflectors might do a better job of
> mimicking reflected light such as shade light and light bouncing off
> of walls
'Reflectors....mimicking reflected light.....' Now there's one for the
ages!
> whereas diffusers would do a better job of mimicking soft
> light sources such as overhead fluorescent all over a big ceiling or a
> shaded ceiling light. I think I realize a truth in that I understand
> that since the result in photography is an exaggeration of contrast,
HUH?
> partially due to the fact that the camera sees color differences based
> on color temp differences that the eye does not see,
HUH?
> therefore the
> mimicking lights should be softer than the lights they mimick.
HUH?
> Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
> diffusers?
>
>
>
>
> David Virgil Hobbs
> http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon
I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
Alan Browne
>
> I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
We take your imbecility as a matter of course, Mikey.
dadiOH
> Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
> diffusers?
Yes. You are analyzing them to death. There is no difference if both
create a light source of the same size relative to the subject.
That presupposes you are talking about their use as a primary light.
For other uses they vary...diffusers can be used as
scrims...reflectors as kickers...etc.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.05...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
dadiOH
> Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20
> years, umbrellas since ... well a long time.
Since Mardick ("Dick") Balli came up with them in the late 40s - early
50s in Paris. In the current form at least.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20
>>years, umbrellas since ... well a long time.
>
>
> Since Mardick ("Dick") Balli came up with them in the late 40s - early
> 50s in Paris. In the current form at least.
Yeah, I posted that w/o really knowing ... but seems they were not that common
until the last 20 years ... again, may be my perception.
Uranium Committee
> Uranium Committee wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
>
>
> We take your imbecility as a matter of course, Mikey.
What do you say to someone who thinks you can 'take the brightness'
out of light? 'Goodbye, moron!'
teflon
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Uranium Committee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I am absolutely awestruck by your complete imbecility.
>
>
> We take your imbecility as a matter of course, Mikey.
>
You can't really blame UC for saying what he did. The original poster had
unfortunately turned himself inside out analyzing a 'problem' that was
complete bollocks. He needed putting out of his misery - and UC volunteered.
Now hopefully he will snap out of it, buy himself one of the excellent
portrait kits available, and start shooting.
Hunt
com says...
Rather than get into a theoretical discussion on the various effects that each
can possibly introduce to photograph, I'll state, it all depends on the
quality of light that the photographer wants. Beyond that, it's all about the
logistics of equipment, and budgets. It is the "quality" of light and the "
look" that dictates the choice - or should be.
Hunt
Clyde
What "quality" of light are you referring to? I can only think of
direction, intensity, and color of light. Since color and intensity
aren't the subject here, I'll ask about direction.
What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.
If the angles are the same, the lines between the light and the shadow
are the same. That would mean that the hardness of that line has to be
the same.
The ONLY way to soften a light source is to make it bigger in relation
to the subject. The reason is that light can hit the subject from many
more directions. That means that light hitting any one spot is coming
from different angles. That gives you very soft and gradual transitions
from light to shadow.
The biggest light source is a cloudy day with nothing around the
subject. Light is coming from a complete hemisphere around the subject.
The angles of that light are hitting the subject from more than you can
count. It gives very soft light.
On a very clear, bright day the light source is the sun. Yes, it is very
big, but relative to the subject it is a point light. Practically
speaking all the light is coming from one point. That give very hard
shadow edges. Most strobes are point light sources, just about like the
sun. The only way to soften them is to make them bigger. Umbrellas and
softboxes expand the size of and the angles of light from the source.
That's why the light is softer.
Well, depending on the distance. A 4' softbox or 4' umbrella will soften
the same. However, if you are shooting a 2' bust of a person from 10'
away, it's not going to soften much. If you put that 4' light source
just outside of the camera view it will only be a couple of feet away.
The relationship to the subject is much bigger. That makes light hitting
the subject from a much wider area.
[The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
come in several rectangular shapes.]
Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
light, but it doesn't soften it.
Little reflectors on flashes don't increase the size much, but if you
are close enough to the subject, it might slightly soften the shadow edges.
In my wedding photography, I shoot the photo-journalistic stuff with a
straight flash. A deflector big enough to do anything is way too much in
the way when moving around. I help the angle issue out by putting the
light on a bracket that makes the light come from about 12" above the
lens. That gives shadows and keeps out redeye.
The shadows are always hard edged. In situations where the flash is more
fill, the ambient light softens that to different degrees. Where the
flash is basically the only light, the hard edge isn't as much of a
problem as you might think. People want to see some modeling in the face
and dress. Light from 12" above does that. No one seems to care how hard
the light is.
If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
the intensity of the light.
Once again, photography comes down to light and it's angles.
Thanks,
Clyde
zeitgeist
> >>Regarding popularity, softboxes have been around for about 20
> >>years, umbrellas since ... well a long time.
> >
> >
> > Since Mardick ("Dick") Balli came up with them in the late 40s - early
> > 50s in Paris. In the current form at least.
>
> Yeah, I posted that w/o really knowing ... but seems they were not that
common
> until the last 20 years ... again, may be my perception.
>
Umbrellas began to be talked about in the 60's when this new fangled
electronic stroboscopic flash became practical and more convenient than hot
lights.
However being much stronger they had to move the lights out more, from the
typical 3 feet that hot lights in metal bowls were used at, to about 6 feet
or so, this ment that the lighting became more specular, harsh so a larger
light source was utilized. While previously known it was not practical in
era when fabrics close to an ignition source was a hazard.
zeitgeist
> In this post by reflector I mean an object that reflects light and by
> diffuser I mean an object through which light is shone similarly to a
> filter.
>
> I have been spending some time researching reflectors versus diffusers
> in portrait photography. I was irritated but not surprised to find
> very little discussion on the net regarding choosing between the two.
> >
First off, to avoid confusion most of us use the term diffusion in regards
to a softening of the lens with a filter device, I've always referred to a
light source diffusion as a scrim, and I'm a frequent proponent of soft
lighting with such diffusion panels, mentioning the use of a large 3x6 foot
Larson reflectasol is being more practical in the field than those round
twist and fold units that are so popular as reflectors, (you have a hard
time holding them horizontal) as the Larson's X frame and center shaft
offers the assistant holding it over the subjects more control during a
breeze, even better than the pvc pipe frames.
keep in mind that diffusion panels and reflectors are two completely
different concepts/uses. A diffusion panel IS the light source, a reflector
merely assists or augments the light source.
> All I could find was that reflectors are more well known amongst the
> general population than diffusers; that some people find from their
> practical experience that diffusers do not work well; that some people
> think diffusers do not work because they do not increase the area of
> the source of the light significantly; that european photographers are
> supposed to be into diffusers as opposed to reflectors; that diffusers
> take alot of the brightness out of the light that hits the subject;
> and that people seem to think of reflectors as more of an outdoors
> type of thing and diffusers as more of an indoors type of thing.
A diffusion panel spreads the light source out, this spreads the specular
highlights out, you can have the same volume of light, brightness, exposure
but with appropriate diffusion you will have fuller detail in the highlights
with less if not no blocked up speculars, and your transition zone or
penumbra to shadow will be longer, less abrupt which means the shadow areas
will be less obvious.
The main job of a reflector is to kick a bare kiss of light back to the
shadow side, and does its best work in lighting situations that visually, as
you look at the subject, looks fine as it is, remember that the photographic
process adds contrast, so to get the scene we see with our eyes we need to
visually over fill it with a reflector so the photographic process,
especially with film, can expand the contrast back out again to what we
really want. this part is confusing to describe, hard to learn, thank you
Monte for your patience in beating it into my feeble brain.
>
> Coming out of my own mind as opposed to internet research, my thinking
> has been that since a problem is the color temperature of reflected
> light is different than the color temperature of direct light,
> therefore reflected light should be used instead of direct light,
> because use of direct light unavoidably leads to conflicts between
> indirect and direct light; and, so, therefore, the reflector is a
> better solution than the diffuser because the reflector will produce
> light that does not clash with direct light whereas the diffuser will
> give rise to the direct diffused light and then also the reflected
> version of the diffused light.
huh? boy I am confused, see previous paragraph about my feeble brain. a
reflector can change color temp of the light if the reflector has an
inherent color, or reflects light with a shift. IE: gold tone reflectors,
or the blue cast that aluminum foil can add to the light it reflects. But
color temps can be changed by many factors, changing the power output of
many flash systems can shift the color temp of the light output, at least
all the endless white lightning/photogenic arguments will let you believe
that a fanning of a stack of proofs will give a rainbow of color shifts.
>
> I have also been thinking that reflectors might do a better job of
> mimicking reflected light such as shade light and light bouncing off
> of walls whereas diffusers would do a better job of mimicking soft
> light sources such as overhead fluorescent all over a big ceiling or a
> shaded ceiling light. I think I realize a truth in that I understand
> that since the result in photography is an exaggeration of contrast,
> partially due to the fact that the camera sees color differences based
> on color temp differences that the eye does not see, therefore the
> mimicking lights should be softer than the lights they mimick.
>
> Anybody have any ideas re the pros and cons of reflectors versus
> diffusers?
now I'm even more confused, are you talking about reflectors as in parabolic
reflectors in a light source? a bounce off umbrella vs a shoot through?
this dazed and confused reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at
yahoogroups.com
teflon
> keep in mind that diffusion panels and reflectors are two completely
> different concepts/uses. A diffusion panel IS the light source, a reflector
> merely assists or augments the light source.
>
A reflector, even a free standing fill-in, is as much a 'light source' as
any other, and should be seen as such. Picky, I know, but it helps to
understand the bigger picture. (pun intended)
Hunt
**Yes, the lines are "straight," but not parallel. They eminate from a point
as a cone. The pattern of a reflector flood will be larger, the farther you
are from the instrument.**
Hunt
>
"Quality of light" is basically the diffusion characteristics of the media
upon which, or through which, the light interacts. A simple example would be
the "quality" of North light v direct sunlight. The daytime North sky is the
world's largest "softbox."
Hunt
Alan Browne
> A simple example would be
> the "quality" of North light v direct sunlight. The daytime North sky is the
> world's largest "softbox."
...and rather blue requiring filtration.
(nits: and that applies to the northern hemishere on a cloudless day)
A better natural softbox is when there is just sufficent cloud cover to all but
mask the sun completely... in this case there is no (or extemely little) color
shift, and you can shoot in most directions with the softlight.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
Bandicoot
news:N9wqd.579717$mD.113901@attbi_s02...
[SNIP]
> What is it about the direction of the light that you are looking for? A
> diffuser will change the direction of the light by spreading it out
> further. However, the size of the light stays the same. That means that
> the angles of light from the flash to the subject are exactly the same
> with the diffuser or without. It has to; light travels in straight lines.
A big diffuser, placed far enough in front of the light source that all of
its back is illuminated, works like a big light. Assuming it is a decent
diffusing material that is. Yes if it was transparent the light would pass
straight through and act as if there was no diffusion at all. But the more
effective a diffuser it is the more it scatters the light, so the more it
acts like a big source, and the less there is a hot spot in the middle. Of
course, the more efficient the diffuser the more light it ends up absorbing
too, so you get ever lower efficiency.
If this wasn't true, incidentally, don't you think California Sunbounce
would go out of business ;-)
[SNIP]
>
> [The difference between the umbrella and the softbox probably has more
> to do with the shape and how you can use that to control where the light
> hits than it does with the device. Umbrellas tend to be round. Softboxes
> come in several rectangular shapes.]
Softboxes tend to be more efficient. They also avoid the back-scatter you
get with a shoot-through umbrella, with its attendant inefficiency and
possible problems if it ends up where you don't want light, and have less of
a hot-spot than a reflector umbrella. Something like an umbrella box works
just like a softbox though, it is true, and while it has the same shape as
an umbrella, it also has most of its ease of packing and transport, which
few softboxes do.
>
> Diffusers in front of a flash that are the same size as the flash will
> do nothing to soften the light. They will scatter the light around and
> reduce the amount that is hitting the subject. That may improve the
> light, but it doesn't soften it.
Well, if the scatter is then reflected onto the subject from walls and
ceilings, that will soften the light. That's the principle the Stoffen was
designed for, though many people seem to think they work OK just as
diffusers without needing the scattered light to bounce back to the subject.
[SNIP]
>
> If the location and time permit, I do like to setup a couple of studio
> flashes with big umbrellas. This gives me much bigger light sources and
> they come from two different angles. This really softens the light for
> location portraits of the couple and groups. BTW, the silver umbrellas
> vs. the non-silver ones makes no difference in softness of light - only
> the intensity of the light.
Silver ones tend to give slightly harder shadows in my experience, because
the reflected light is scattered over a smaller angle by each part of the
umbrella - that is each part of the subject is lit by more intense
reflection from less of the umbrella area, while with a soft white umbrella
each part is lit by less intense reflection but from more of the area of the
umbrella. This difference only really shows up with the umbrella quite
close to the subject though, it seems to me, and isn't a 'big' difference.
Peter
Rado1
I would like to use your know-how.
Is it possible to use one or several layers of the bubble-foil
[for protecting fragile goods] as cheap diffuser?
[I know that some heating protection is necessary].
Or forget it anyway?
Many thanks.
--
Rado1
Hunt
Fist thought is that you might get some very interesting lenticular
highlights! You might want to either visit a cine supply store for Rosco-lux,
or similar, or a drafting supply shop for Herculine, or another frosted
drafting medium. Now, the sheet foam packing might work fine, but you'll lose
a lot of F's, as that stuff is thick.
Hunt
Bandicoot
news:coj67...@news4.newsguy.com...
I've tried that packing stuff, and it is quite good, but as you say, absorbs
a lot of light. Not bad outdoors sometimes, where you might actually want
to absorb light as well as diffuse it on occasion: the sunlit flower against
a shadowed background type situation.
Peter